Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice to subsequent creation of a redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nadia riots

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2015 Nadia riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "The case of selective silence and its steep costs".
  2. ^ "RSS hits Mamata Banerjee, says Trinamool promoting 'jihadi activities' in West Bengal".
  3. ^ "A rong too many: Mamata is turning Bengali into medium of destruction".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:ITSNOTABLE Venkat TL (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The question is whether there are reliable sources. That they are not in the article is not dispositive under
WP:Before. Even as we speak, sources are being removed from added to this article. Many of them were previously deleted. The lack of non-English speaking editors is a systemic problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the sagacity. Unless I had come across you, I won't have known that the larger question at an AfD is about whether there are reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13, what do you mean, Even as we speak, sources are being removed? The article's only been edited once—which didn't even touch on sourcing—since this nomination was filed nearly three weeks ago. SN54129 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added and restored sources. Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It exists. Sources in the article are clear. Rewriting history to erase this is not something to be fostered. 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS :) SN54129 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment TrangaBellam saying he didn't find Bengali links through google searching the name with Bengali letters. Actually every Bengali printed articles, news, don't have online version. Indian Bengali, Odiya, Assamese have online version of all articles, unless their circulation is huge as Anandabazar Patrika. I once commented how notable Bengali movie chracater actors, who acted before 1990, don't have much online sources, even though they regularly appear in printed copies Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumitra Bannerjee. Bengali magazines don't create online version of evrything. If you purchase Bengali newspapers from retail magazine stores or newspaper boys, you will find many news, articles, which will never appear online. 42.105.5.163 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked Bureau Records of top 10 newspapers of West Bengal and every newspaper has a website since before 2010. Archives are available since 2013 or so. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that these are relevant. But they had been linked earlier in this discussion. Somebody thought themm relevant. And my lack of local knowledge and perspective (don't have the cultural lay of the land) limits my understanding. A man has got to know his limitations. — Dirty Harry
Bare links are deceptive.
In any event, stripping the article of sources, and then nominating it for deletion, tends to make this a
YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Competence is required. I as well Tayi have discussed the FE source. As we have, the DailyO source, which has been deemed as unreliable by the community. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You do realize you've posted several patently unreliable sources, listed several sources that are literally passing mentions, and reinstated copyright violations into the article? I'm willing to be persuaded here, but spamming references with no regard for quality or substance is counter-productive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I copy edited out whatever copyright violations there may have been. You have stated your position as to the reliability of the sources. The article and sources can stand or fall on their merits, including your arguments. You do realize that a lot of those articles discuss the incident, and they are
Times of India Just suggesting. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If this edit is the one you're referring to, it's not helping; we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not an editorial? Also; the Times of India source is dead, and contributes nothing to the article (the link you've added is from 2003!); and is certainly not in the obviously reliable category, per
WP:RSP. The IBTimes story is simply repackaging a story from the World Hindu News, the reliability of which is quite questionable. If you want to make a sober case for notability, I do not mind at all; I was undecided initially, and my !vote is still a weak delete. But there's a lack of due diligence here which is bothersome. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps you have forgotten

WP:Linkrot. I presume the link was in place when it was originally cited. Links sometimes disappear; sometimes their content mutates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I presume it was, too, but absent evidence of its contents it does not contribute toward notability. Also, is there a reason you do not
WP:INDENT your posts? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
refbombing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If it is not dead, and has not changed since it was originally cited, then it is not dead. It is true that the present link is not pertinent. But this link appeared to be about the area, and I assumed it had morphed. If not, then it should be deleted. Article improvement is our shared goal. You have misinterpreted what I was doing. Improve the article please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't changed, that's what it always was. It was originally cited for the line "Nadia has seen communal tensions in the past" as a superflous add on, which is OR in this case anyways. I've already tried to improve this article but there is a distinct lack of reliable sources for one to be able to do so. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These articles do not address the concern about
WP:SUSTAINED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
But they do satisfy the canvassing aspect MrsSnoozyTurtleOnel5969 TT me 02:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reliable source and in fact listed as such at
WP:ICTFSOURCES respectively. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Oneindia.com is a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_183#Oneindia.com and gives this significant coverage. The Hindu is a reliable source and covers it at [4]. Dream Focus 04:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a robust discussion, is it? A handful editors went "seems reliable". There are multiple others similar sections where editors have questioned its reliability, for example
questionable source with no meaningful editorial oversight. Its parent website is blacklisted at present for similar issues
. But if that doesn't convince you and you want to insist on it, we can take it to RSN.
As I have already stated, The Hindu is the only reliable source that has reported anything on this incident but that is clearly insufficient. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note List of riots in India already list this and others. Since there isn't much to write about, it can be changed to a redirect/merge there. Dream Focus 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly does not meet the sustained qualification to take it out of
    WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 02:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to Juranpur, Nadia. A noteworthy event within the context of the history of the village where it occurred, no need for anything beyond that. BD2412 T 04:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Juranpur, Nadia. Change List of riots in India with a blue link to the sub-section the village. I see the arguments for keep and delete, but this is on the line, it's not worth staking a claim when the content can be preserved anyway.-- GreenC 19:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Juranpur, Nadia. I agree with GreenC. Dream Focus 13:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Comment: I belong from this district and I came to this page when going through Nadia related topics. I would say the term "riot" does not apply here and it was just a political agenda. Hindu-Muslims-Christians have been living here peacefully for a long time until a few so called nationalist party tried to create religious enmity here. The irony here is the reference no. 1 which is a piece written by Mr. Garga Chattaerjee when he was a BJP supporter and now he is a TMC supporter and runs his own organization "Bangla Pokkho" (Bengali First) yet another bengali nationalist organization that supports only Bengali people irrespective of religions. How this can be used as a reference here?
Sources: https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/05/05/violence-but-not-communal-bjp-pushes-misinformation-campaign-in-bengal, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/muslim-youth-lynched-in-west-bengal/article28235901.ece, https://www.thehindu.com/elections/west-bengal-assembly/csds-lokniti-survey-the-limits-to-polarisation-in-bengal/article34494009.ece, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/26/india-soul-at-stake-west-bengalis-vote-in-divisive-election-modi-bjp
Regards, Sadhan Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:219:62bd:8d65:5d6f:678e:de4f (talk) 2022-01-23T17:28:38 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Juranpur, Nadia per GreenC and DF since there isn't enough references about it to justify a stand alone article. Also, maybe don't refer to it as a riot per the last comment. From what I can tell the references refer to it as a "communal clash." Whatever that means. Really, I have zero clue what a "communal clash" is. Except that it's probably not a riot. Maybe a gang fight? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd point out one last thing that has gotten overlooked here in ARS's attempts to "save" an article which makes a merge and/or a redirect as an alternative to deletion, as problematic as keeping the article. There is a
    verifiability
    issue here.
The sources whether reliable or unreliable, contain details that contradict each other. Communal incidents are also not something that gets marginal coverage in India so this is far from normal. Of the two unambiguously reliable sources, one of them (The Hindu article) is within the
24 hour news cycle, solely sourced to an unnamed official and has no follow-up, the other one (The Financial Express article) gives it a very brief mention and frames the incident as a claim rather than as a fact. Digging a bit taking cue from the IP's comment above, there was a similar incident in a neighbouring district an year later which got coverage from dubious sources that miscontruted it as a communal riot, this was fact checked later (see [5]) but that didn't happen here so here we are where it isn't clear what if anything has happened here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Nadia_riots_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077107726"