Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia


 * 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   keep. Overwhelming consensus despite convention Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media. The percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with the percentage of Indians with in the total population showing that assaults/robberies are not against just Indians. But equal with the rest of the population. Just because the Indian media has been over stating the situation doesn't mean an article is required. Unless, wikipedia now wants entries for every attack against a minority group in every country. Bojach (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment"percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with ..." Anything to back up that claim? Even if such were the case, since the unfortunate episode casts a shadow on the relations between the two countries it does wholly warrant its own article to catalogue racism and xenophobia as an issue between nations. "An event of no extraordinary importance ..."  Time magazine, BBC, CNN and others differ from your view and secondly it is not for wikipedians to judge about the "real worth" of notable items. We must only record as best as possible. - Varun (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: I have renamed this article to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia and rewritten the introduction to focus on the protests rather than the pattern of attacks. This change has been discussed on the talk page and no opposition was raised. I decided to rename the article while the AFD was still open because I felt the problems should be fixed sooner rather than later because it is linked from the main page. - Borofkin (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy, Please don't move the article during an AFD discussion  to avoid confusions among the users. Feel free to edit the article based on RS and NPOV. I have moved the article back to the orginal title 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. Let the outcome of the AFD decide the rename/keep/deletion of the article. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What confusion will be caused by an entirely appropriate move that has been widely discussed? Guide_to_deletion says that if the page is moved it should be noted on the deletion page, which was done. The AFD process will take days, and a name that is bad and wrong should not have to stay that way when the article has such a high profile. - Borofkin (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that there is no consensus as of now to rename and keep the title. Let the closing admin take care of this --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page there have only been comments supportive of the rename. This page is for discussion of the deletion. If you want to discuss the name of the article do it on the article talk page. - Borofkin (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see here a consensus here or at the talk page for the rename of "2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia" to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia". Let the article say how it happened and please dont try to push a POV tone. Things doesnt change if you change an article in wikipedia, but I request it to keep the article NPOV based on reliable sources. There is no "chicken or egg first " issue here. It is blatently evident that attacks came first and protests later. Whether there is any racial element to the attacks is not yet proved and till then it should stay allegedly racist attacks only --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also not proven that attacks have increased or that Indians are over-represented in crime statistics. To say so (as your editing seems to support) is non-factual. It is not a question of POV, rather one of accuracy. While there may or may not have been consensus, there is nothing to say a page cannot be moved during an AFD process. If there is, then please let me know where. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no policy page cannot be moved. but in the present situation where significant disagreement exists among interested editors would it not be better to wait for a consensus instead of having the page moved back and forth and edit warring.  CheersWikireader41 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: At this stage I'm neutral over whether or not to delete this page. I agree it's being sensationalised, but isn't the event being covered by both Australian and international media enough reason to justify the events notability? Possibly not notable enough for it's own article, but perhaps a mention on Australia–India relations will suffice? Frvernchanezzz (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subsequent reactions and commentary are the main parts being covered by the media. It wasn't even initially reported in Australia until the Indian media picked up the story and blew it up. So yeah, I agree it doesn't deserve it's own article but a mention on Australia–India relations page seems more appropriate considering it has had quite and effect. --Bojach (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, This article lacks notability compared to other issues based on limited anecdotal claims. The title itself lacks neutrality given the way the issue has turned into a Lebanese/Indian racial clash. A better article would be one focused on those clashes, which at least have been confirmed by credible local media. Harley (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  —-- Like I   Care  14:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —-- Like I   Care  14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep PRC has expressed concern and New Zealand has reacted too. With governments from the world's two most populous nations reacting, I fail to see how this is just news or speculation. The facts here seem to state that this has caught the imaginations of people in several (rather large) countries. I wonder would this be deleted if it were only affecting the US... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Tea Party protests is one such example of what is considered important in the US versus the rest of the world... I was not aware of this before it was pointed out to me in relation to a different, yet connected matter... I am, however, perfectly aware of the protests being discussed here... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have added that I'm in a neutral enough position geographically - not in Australia, India, China, the US, New Zealand, Asia, North America or any of the countries or continents I have mentioned... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and perhaps rename. Even if the attacks have been exaggerated by some media outlets, the protests are real, which provoked official government complaints and have been covered by media in many countries in almost all the continents, therefore notable. If you are concerned about POV perhaps you could rename it to something like, 2009 protests of Indian students in Australia. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media."
 * That's precisely why the article needs to be kept. The over-reaction by media makes the events notable. Notability by reliable sources, not socio-political/economic/cultural importance, is the criteria for keeping an article. However, it should be renamed to Protests against 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia.This reflects the notability arises from protests against the attacks, not the attacks themselves.VR talk  15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - By no stretch of the imagination could you consider this not notable. For those who claim that "Wikipedia isn't the news", this article isn't about an event that happened, it's about a number of assaults in Australia that span months, if not years (it discusses assaults starting at least in 2007) and the reactions to those assaults. It's true that the media is currently playing this up due to public protests being made (hence the current event tag) but if anything that makes it more notable, not less; a good indication of notability is how much attention something receives among reliable sources. The article does need some work to be neutral but that's never a reason for deleting an article, it's a reason to fix an article. The article also needs to be renamed to be less accusatory. --  At am a chat 15:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The protests involved no more than a few hundred people. Hardly a major event! The entry is pointless. It's mainly about the 'reactions' of people/groups than the actual events, because the actual events are so unnoteworthy as to warrant more than a few sentances. This particular event is being pushed by some users. Should wikipedia also have an entry for the over-reaction of the media over Miley Cyrus's revealing Myspace photos? I think not. If you think sensationalism by the media is important, perhaps add it to a relevant page. But the '2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia' does not deserve its own page. Australia–India relations is a suitable place for it. --Bojach (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your arguments are based on Argument from ignorance, Argumentum ad populum and personal bias. --  李博杰    | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is notable enough to be featured on the main page.SPNic (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep under current title. This is a significant set of incidents that is playing out over several days. There is no question that this will eventually show-up in books under similar titles. Eventually, not that dissimilar to 2005 Cronulla riots. It isn't just in Indian media. The Australian and Indian Prime Ministers have both gotten involved (e.g. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a2jnr0N6o_Hk), the Indian and Chinese governments have gotten involved. Multiple people have ended-up being stabbed over several days, and it seems to be gelling into an Indian vs Lebanese confrontation. The article itself needs cleaning for sure to better present what is actually happening. Makes no sense to delete. --Hunnjazal (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt minor incidents like this will even be mentioned in any history books (except MAYBE a book dedicated to relations of India and Australia).  TJ   Spyke   21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Petrol bombing someone sitting at home reading a book is a minor incident in Australia? I don't think so. It is already being covered in international non-Indian media under very similar titles - Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903038,00.html), Indian Students Grow Wary of Australia Following Attacks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124392779289775971.html). The pattern is clear: some sections of the Australian media are trying to give a business as usual spin to it. The world disagrees. --Hunnjazal (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I believe this page should be kept. This (series of events) has had massive media coverage in their respective countries and around the world too. I live in England, and am commenting here to keep this article. I am sure events will develop further and this page will evolve, and potentially mark this event as a turning point in the life of Australian/Indian students. Nobody can deny that these events have happened. So, we are not discussing that possibility! If something has happened, there is no reason why there should not be a page.  --Nazrani (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * — Nazrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath talk 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:Above comment was added by 161.12.7.4, but he/she signed as User:Nazrani. —Amplitude101 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:Thanks Amplitude101! I have signed in to validate my above comment. --Nazrani (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep absolutely! There's lots of reliable sources. --AW (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It has so much reliable sources. Also no matter what it is, it gives a precious information and has a huge amount of effort, it deserves to keep. --♪♫  Berkay  0652 | message   19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

*Strong Delete -I don't think anyone is disputing a "problem" or denying the high level of media attention. But the article is written as if these incidents of assaults are a part of a systematic/central problem. Editors have simply cherry-picked references that report x assault on foreign exchange students and then wrote an article combining all notable 2009 incidents. This is totally against the laws of wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. If the assaults revolved around an event, say...a terrorist attack by Hindus or something that would generate a systematic response then I could see the logic in writing an article, but this is a joke. This is an acceptable article: Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War, 2009 attack on Indian students Australia is not. We might as well write an article titled 2009 attack on African Americans in the United States or 2009 attack on homosexuals in Egypt. If and when the issue is clearly systematic and continues as a result of laxed laws in the government/politicians, SOME of the info could be absorbed in Human rights in Australia but that's a maybe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the above.--Judo112 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly has reached a level of media coverage that makes it very difficult to claim it is not a notable topic. The title needs to be changed as these attacks predate 2009 by a looong way. While I have my doubts about the whole racism angle (I grew up in the western suburbs of Melbourne in the 1980s and it was a dangerous place to be at night by yourself even then) clearly the topic has reached head-of-government level now. POV is an issue but it needs to be dealt with through the editing process. Better use of Australian sources would help rather than sources reporting third hand from outside the country. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not that notable and Wikipedia is not a news site. A brief mention in the Australia-India relations page is more than enough.  TJ   Spyke   21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Though newsworthy due to disproportionate numbers, the article is more suited to a history book than an encyclopedia.  This event is out of context aside entries about people, places, etc.  --scochran4 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- There definitely is a problem going on, not just media hype, it does have a racist angle to it, NZ, PRC have also responded/voiced concerns at an official level. Lilaac (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' - and only when a systematic/central problem exists can we have a wiki article. which wikipedia policy are you referring to may I ask ??  it would help if you did not come up with your own set of guideleines on what should be included and what should notWikireader41 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article summarizes cited and notable sources regarding to the attacks. The main page of Wikipedia also mentioned the protests involving this article. Furthermore, this series of incidents happened at a fixed period of time and is commonly related to several reasons. The attacks had gained media attention, and various governments around the world also respond to these incidents as well. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But the thesis of the article is inconsistent. What are these attacks about? What is the motivation? So there is a surge in racially-motivated attacks against Indians and this has prompted a response from their native governments. That's the article in 1 sentence. This is not notable, the article is over-stating a problem that isn't there. In terms of actual content - most of the stats are 2007-2008. There is a short section with a few examples of assaults but nothing truly revealing. Just because something has garnered attention by reliable sources does not mean an article is inherited. This should go in a blog. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this article is about an unusual, notable event which can be verified. it is not for wikipedians to decide whether this has been over or under sensationalized.  if it gets sufficient press (rightly of wrongly) it belongs. can any of the editors arguing for a delete tells me why this article needs to be deleted and Natalee Holloway can stay.  whats so notable about a teenager who did some alcohol, sex and likely overdosed o some illicit drugs.  happens all the time. except that this one was a pretty white American in a foreign country and made for some juicy press Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia or similar. There have been protests in Melbourne and four days of protests in Sydney. The protests should be the focus of the article and the stuff about assaults should be in a Background section, or as claims attributed to protestors. - Borofkin (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would accept this as a very poor second option to deleting it - "attacks" is needlessly NPOV as it suggests that Indian students in Australia are being attacked in a distinct manner rather than just a collection of individual (likely opportunistic) attacks which are on a range of people, some of whom happen to be of Indian ethnicity. Some of the reportage indicates that other overseas students are also being attacked and that many of the attackers are other overseas students. Orderinchaos 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. While wikipedia may not be a "news site".  It is an encyclopedia, therefore it includes notable news items.  I agree with the above re: 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia rename.  This is a notable even, covered by several news agencies.  Just because this might not be getting much coverage in the US, doesn't mean it's a trivial news event. Icemotoboy (talk)
 * CommentI do not understand your logic. What constitutes a "notable news item?" BLPs like Natalie Holloway are not comparable articles. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment why ? substantial news coverage by media in several countries.  A write up in TIME  discussion of these incidents in Australian parliament.  what is your reason to believe this is an ordinary non notable event.  what makes Natalee more notable may I ask ? it is clearly verifiable and fairly NPOV.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Natalie is an explicit and focused BLP, this article is not a BLP and thus cannot be compared. Your comparison follows under OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are confusing notability with relevance, not to mention your use of the word "event" is inaccurate. This article isn't about an "event" or an "issue." The article has been written with an OR mentality and screams SYNTH. Half the article is background, mostly crunched and irrelevant mention of 2007-2008 crime, and then a short paragraph on a select examples of "events" in 2009. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with your comments Wikifan12345. However, they do not apply to the proposed renaming of the article and refocus on the protests. The protests are notable and an article about the protests will not be synthesis or OR. - Borofkin (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment TIME did a story  specifically on this subject. clearly that suggests its not OR or SYNTH.  even BLPs have to establish notability otherwise we would have 5 billion BLPs.  it would help if you point out specific wikipedia policy this article does not satisfy.  it is clearly not OR and meets notablity, verifiabilty and NPOV guidelines. Clearly improvements need to be ade and I am sure they will be. before you comment that editors not agreeing with you dont know wikipolicy you might want to read these yourself  especially WP:AGFWikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (keep) I agree on Icemotoboy's opinion. As I said before in this article's talk page, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia or else the recent Air France Flight 447 crash in Atlantic Ocean wouldn't be featured in Wikipedia at all. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Those are incomparable articles. Clearly this call for Keep is being rationalized through false logic and an awful misunderstanding of wiki policy. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you explain that a bit better? In terms of what is a notable news item, Wikipedia uses the news to help recognize what is a notable event. We recognize that when an event/person/place/show/song etc... receives substantial coverage in the media, theres a prima facie case for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Theres notable, verifiable, references.  The Australian Prime minister commented on the situation, the New Zealand Government have been directly referencing the events and discussing them.  I agree the article needs work, and I believe it needs to be renamed. But just because there is a problem with the content, doesn't mean the whole thing goes. And I don't think that "clearly" can be used at all to describe your views, they're your views - but many others here have differing views.  Let us have those views, and you have yours, and lets discuss it without talking down to people.Icemotoboy (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. just because an article is not FA quality doesnt mean it needs to be deleted.  WP has very specific guidelines when an article may be deleted. WP:UGLY is NOT a reason to deleteWikireader41 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A plane crash that killed over two hundred people is vastly different to everday common assault/robberies that have only gained notability due to sensationalist media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.147.107 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It should be in the Australia-India relations page, not as a standalone article. Citizen D (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of the Indians involved will stay in Australia and become Australians. This is primarily a domestic issue, and so doesn't belong in an Australia-India relations page. - Borofkin (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will they? Of course some will but they are on student visas and I personally know quite a few who have only been able to stay the duration of their degree, or who have never intended to stay longer (i.e. parents or company are paying for the degree and expect them to return at the end) and then return to their home country (or go elsewhere) to get a career in it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia should not be endorsing the musings of activist groups and tabloid media - a lot of students get attacked, including those of Chinese or Overseas Chinese, Malaysian and Singaporean derivation here in Perth (which was making the media 2 years ago especially in the grounds of Curtin University), and we're not going to have an article on all of them. I agree that some mention (and I emphasise *mention*) should be maintained in Australia-India relations. Additionally there has been some suggestion in Australian media (and elsewhere) that the attacks are not racially motivated as many of the attackers are also overseas students rather than white Australians. Also not convinced that the number of cases (the Indian Govt estimated 100 in 12 months) is particularly notable - that'd be a quiet year in Adelaide, a smaller city, and most likely more Indian students get attacked in Malaysia and on a more systematic basis than in Australia (as one commentator pointed out). Like anyone I find anyone being attacked in my home country appalling - I lend my support to an organisation called "Fight Dem Back" which tries to combat organised/"nationalist" racism in Australia and New Zealand. Bit concerned about some of the voting patterns further up in this AfD too - may be worth investigating. Orderinchaos 03:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the question of what WP should or should not be doing is not being discussed here. the question really is that does this article satisfy the current WP policy of deleting articles or not Wikireader41 (talk)03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is a very pertinent question. I'm not sure if you realised I've been around a while and participated in hundreds of these things over time. :P It comes up again and again in deletion debates and it is indeed a relevant question - WP:NOT has the status of policy. See "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in particular. Orderinchaos 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that is a pertinent question ( what WP should or should not be?) . but this is not the place to discuss that issue.  And I am not questioning your experience. it would help if you could specify what specific policy this article violates.  WP:IDL is clearly not a reason to delete.  if a specific policy is being violated in your opinion then please point it out and lets debate it. as far as I can see this is not OR, clearly Notable ( which ordinary crime is discussed in the parliament of 2 of the biggest democracies in the world and gets a write up in the press over multiple continents?), fairly NPOV and easily Verifiable and so meets WP criteria for inclusionWikireader41 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with its name intact. This is no run of the mill anti-minority thuggery. Foreign ministers and heads of states of both nations have been drawn into it, and so have been many student groups. These incidents might unfortunately lead to more nasty incidents (as they are already starting to show with the rise of vigilante groups). We have already seen rioting in Melbourne and Sydney. The press has been after it, and there are plenty of editorials trying to analyze what could have gone wrong. The demand to delete this is like asking to delete the air france disaster article, just because minor air accidents keep happening around the world. The entire episode is sadly but definitely a part of the history of racism and xenophobia and demands a record for those who want to know. - Varun (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unfortunately notable. That they are unfortunate does not make them the less notable,DGG (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's unfortunate how things are happening. But, definitely it is notable and is getting international coverage. I live in Germany, far from India and far far away from Australia, but saw the TV news coverage yesterday evening in CNN news telecast from UK. Srimanta.Bhuyan (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the new title is better, and it is getting sufficient coverage to view it as notable. Unfortunately. - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very notable series of incidents ( Yea, unfortunately) which is very much in news. Rename back to 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia  ! If there are 50 attacks and 5 protests, Why is the name as "protest by" ? Ridiculous and POV ! The attacks happened first and protests later. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Yes the attacks came first. but the protests are what is attracting the media attention. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It is a very notable topic with great interest to the public.The issue has also garnered international and domestic reaction.Certainly something to be covered by Wikipedia.--Princeaditya (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at the start of the AFD discussion. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is more than a single event. It's notable. It has lots of reliable references. It has far more information than can be squeezed into a general article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep under certain conditions I endorse the name change as it is far more reflective of the content in the article. The vast majority of reliable media is covering the reactions and staged protests, very little has been dedicated to actually examining systematic attacks...mainly because there aren't any. There is no justification for "2009 attacks on Indian students..." that's an absurd title. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * glad you have changed your view somewhat. maybe you should also complain to TIME about the absurd title they gave to their story Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am surprised the article has been nominated for deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Highly notable, well covered in Australian media in the past few weeks. Inconsistencies can be gradually fixed. --  李博杰   <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 08:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: merge and/or rename may apply, but these are separate issues. In the meantime, the best way to address concerns of disproportionality is to edit the article with reliable sources. If all Australian media say one thing and all Indian media say another, the article can cite both and readers will be able to make up their own mind. This is a better way to protect readers from bias and sensationalism than suppressing the whole story. jnestorius(talk) 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this is not some trivial news story, the reaction to these events have been extremely noteworthy with coverage across the international media. Pahari Sahib  09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and No name change. It is unfortunate that Austalia is in news for a wrong reason, but it is not a one-off incident. Did anyone notice that the nominator made edits almost a year back before hitting this article and nominating for Afd?--GDibyendu (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment ^^^^Irrelevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This meets WP:N and is out of scope of WP:NOT given the extent and duration of international and domestic Australian coverage. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep was reported on the BBC last night, so coverage is reaching the rest of the world. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article meets enough policies and guidlines of Wikipedia, and it is notable enough to keep and I also doubt disbalancing of NPOV by Bojach as the above user mentioned and also noticed that Bojach hasn't made any change from last 1 year and all of a sudden comes back with deletion of an article!!!????? and if Wikipedia is not a news website and if this article is like a news then there would be a huge no. of articles like this article which will need speedy deletion on Wikipedia. Lets keep this article--Shekhartagra (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhartagra (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep So the article is based on current events...Wikipedia frequently has articles that fall into this category. Perhaps needs to be retitled and/or reworded, but the article itself shuold stay. -Sparky (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles notability is obvious given the third party coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.237.40 (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not rename The attacks are real (any objections?). The protests are facts. Australian press may have under reported the attacks, but I had assumed Indian media reports also counted. What about TIME. Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia and "Rory Callinan" doesnt sound like an Indian name. The current title is factual, backed by reliable sources. It does not say who attacked the students (Australians or other nationals in Australia) and neither does it hint anything at the motivation (racial or just increase in street crimes on supposedly "soft targets"). I do not see any POV in the title, whereas 2009 racial attacks on Indians in Australia would have been a POV title and I am not arguing for that. Conversely, I personally think 2009 protests by Indians students in Australia is actually the POV title as it seems to be an attempt to whitewash the original attacks which evoked the protests in the first place. We can remove the year 2009 (as I had argued before) and name it Attacks on Indians in Australia to account for the attacks had happened before. I am all for improving the article and I like User:Borofkin's new lead idea. -- Like I  Care  14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to its very significant coverage, not just a 1 or 2 day event newsfiller. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Victoria's police Chief Commissioner Simon Overland has admitted that some of the attacks on Indian students were "clearly racist in motivation", and the amount of coverage reflects that there has been an increase in crime and assaults. I think sections on the response to the attacks by the authorities. Australian Matt (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Iam shocked to see such an article is nominated for deletion. The event is clearly notable and there is a huge International reaction. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - and keep "attacks" in the title. These incidents have been reported all across the world and fit in with current history of Australia. Philwalker87 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How do they "fit in with current history of Australia"? Orderinchaos 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Of course the attacks are real, they are just not notable. The only thing that makes the attacks notable is that they were followed by protests. That is why the focus of the article should be on the notable protests, rather than the non-notable attacks. - Borofkin (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on how (through what media) you look at the issue. If you were one of those who follows Indian media everyday, the attacks are exceedingly notable, but, apparently, Australian media started covering the issue only after the protests. Guess User:Wikireader41 gave this example of Natalee Holloway, an ordinary teenager killed in Mexico, the only reason for her to have her article is due to the the coverage it received in the United States, it eventually didnt matter whether the issue was covered in North Korea or Tonga. It didnt also matter whether the issue was worth such extraordinary coverage which is still debatable. -- Like I   Care  23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, why don't the people who consider the attacks to be notable edit the article so that it is obvious to all? Why don't they add sourced information about how the Indian government was talking about these attacks prior to protests occuring in Australia? I can't stress this point enough: edit the article with specific, detailed and sourced information, including names, dates, and locations. Who was attacked? When were they attacked? Where were they attacked? Who criticised the attacks? What did they say? When did they say it? Edit the article! Add sourced facts! It's fun! - Borofkin (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the protests would not have happened without the attacks. that the attacks led to widespread protests makes them notable.  most non notable attacks are not followed by protests.  do you know of any similar protests without the attacks?  plenty of Indian students in USA have been mugged, killed and beaten up.  nobody has brought up the question of racism there.  also have to keep in mind the hidden agenda everywhere to push such issues under the rug.  I am sure these attacks are embarrassing to many people and some of them would want these attacks to be quickly forgotten.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable event. We don't have articles because others organisations have reported it as news. Statistics prove the attacks are not significant, just part of a broader increase in crime. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this is clearly a very controversial topic with international reaction and government response. Exactly the sort of thing that should appear on Wikipedia as an article and be subjected to editorial debate on it's contents. 69.230.61.245 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of these Keeps continue to ignore the argument for delete. Read the article guys - very little to dedicated to the actual attacks, because there aren't any. This isn't even comparable to the annual attacks on Jews in Europe, or the attacks against homosexuals in the Middle East, or the treatment of Muslims in Hindu-areas of India. There is nothing that suggests this article carries lasting notability, so if you want an article it must revolve around the reactions from these countries because that is the only thing that is keeping it from being speedy deleted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing is stopping you from writing those articles. and how are you predicting that this articles doesnt have 'lasting notability'.  lasting 1 year, 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. does the article on Australia have 'lasting notability'?? are the editors voting for keep ignoring arguments or the editors for delete ??Wikireader41 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (keep) I disagree on Wikifan12345's opinion. I can see there are quite some supporters to keep this article by now, and they made many good points about keeping the article. Many of them did not ignore the arguments for deleting the article and they respond with some great reasons to keep it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - There have been attacks but there is nothing particularly notable about them, except perhaps the petrol bomb, and even with that I haven't seen any evidence that it is anything more than an isolated incident. - Borofkin (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * this article in TIME is about the attacks and only cursorily mentions the protests Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the information related to attacks were earlier removed from the article for reasons that they were not written in an NPOV way. Some of the attacks which received widespread coverage in Indian media are listed in the article talk page here. I hope someone will take the time to expand on this, I honestly dont have the time right now considering the time it will take to write in an NPOV manner. Notability is not something we sit here and arbitralily decide, each of these attacks were repeated on TVs across India several times. -- Like I  Care  00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (keep) I believe an expand and correction to the article can easily be done when dealing with issues regarding to POV. But for now we have to keep this article in order to improve it, not delete it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable per wikipedia definition of the term with a few thousand secondary reliable sources, protracted coverage of continuing developments in news media, involvement of prime-ministers the two nations etc. Abecedare (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Liquidluck (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is clearly ongoing. From today: "India's tourism minister has called off a visit to Australia following attacks on Indian students in the country." -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep covered in numerous reliable sources as demonstrated above, so it easily passes WP:V and WP:N. Perhaps it could be renamed to a less awkward name. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand as the event is ongoing. Of course it needs improvement. I agree with a renaming so as all sides should be covered, e.g. 2009 racial student violence in Australia, or something like that. --Lemur12 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename and Keep currently it has issues WP:NPOV and WP:NOT apply, theres an asumption being made that the initial attack was racially based(one side referencing), subsequent events were born out protests by and actions of the Indian "Students" its for this reason the article is returning to bias prose. I would suggest "Harris Park Protest" or "2009 Indian Student Protests" though I'm less inclined to use the label "student" as it specifies a single demographic thats not supported by the sourcing. Gnangarra 02:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event, has gained international media coverage. --Deepak D'Souza 04:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: International coverage: BBC, CNN as well as Indian and Australian media.-- Redtigerxyz  Talk 04:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree, vast coverage especially in Indian media. Plus when shall it be notable enough, does it require for a death to happen?! Instead of hiding or using euphemism, lets' face who we have become and becoming! --Ekabhishek (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would say either delete it, or make it a more balanced discussion. Fact: the media has blown this out of proportion. Fact: the attcks were motivated by greed; thugs (and there are thugs all over the world) who picked easy targets at night carrying cash or expensive items. Fact: the Indian community in Australia is outraged by the way the media and Indian students have blown this out of proportion. This is not a noteworthy article in its current form. I'm disappointed that it is still on the Main Page of Wikipedia.--<b style="color:green;">Just James</b> <sup style="color:#0047AB;"> T / C 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is still on the main page of wikipedia because the attacks continue to happen . Additionaly that very fact confirms the notability of this article. - Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If attackers seek easy targets at night and they were so called "THUG" then why Chinese students or local(australian) people were not attacked??? and what about the incident of petrol bomb ??? Was that for Greed?? and to all those who say India media has imbalanced proportion please Read this Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia. This is not India media.--Shekhartagra (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) This article has got enough notability to keep.


 * Strong Delete or at the very least Strong Rename for the simple fact that there is absolutely no evidence that there were any racially motivated attacks. The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. And even if some of the attacks were indeed racially motivated (which a few most likely were) there is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than what is experienced by other community groups. The greatest argument for the deletion/renaming of the article can be found in the article itself, which cites a few meaningless statistics and a few case studies which by themselves do not prove any form of racial targetting, before spending a majority of its length discussing a number of protests and responses to a perceived threat. Given the denial of any racial element by the authorities, and the absence of any independent review, it is clear that there is absolutely no evidence at this time of any attacks against Indians beyond what is experienced by the normal community. Given this the article should be deleted or (and I say this with great hesitation, given Wikipedia is not a news source) renamed to a more appropriate name. Guycalledryan (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. The police chief of Victoria confirms that they (or atleast some) are racial in Nature. The victims themselves allege that the attackers heaped racial slurs on them. With these facts at hand, it would take reliable ciations to show that the attacks dont have the racial angle to them. I agree when you say that the article is not particularly well written, but I'm sure we can fix that. -Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of the Indian victims have said that the attacks were not racially motivated. The article contains very few sourced facts about racism. Many people have claimed that the attacks are racist, but these are claims rather than facts. - Borofkin (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * whether the attacks were racially motivated or not is immaterial to the argument here . wikipedia is not in WP:TRUTH business.  that allegations of racism were made adds to the notability of these attacks.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about what you are saying, you seem to be suggesting that unconnected attacks become notable in themselves as soon as an allegation of racism is made. All racial groups in Australia have been the victims of racism, and all racial groups in Australia have suffered incidents of racial violence. But this does not mean that an article is required for every single group in every single year. There is nothing but weak anecdotal evidence to support the hypothesis of a series of attacks against Indian students in 2009 (as currently presented by the article). Yes, the reaction to the perception of racial violence may be notable, which is why I am in favour of renaming the article, but unless you can provide strong evidence of a series of attacks against Indian students (whether connected or not) then there is no validity keeping the article under its current name. Guycalledryan (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * nothing to be confused about. even a series of unconnected attacks which for whatever reasons generate this much response become notable.  even if these attacks are eventually proven to be hoaxes does NOT diminish their notability.  whether these attacks are connected or not is also immaterial to the argument.  it is the response of world media ( rightly or wrongly) which makes them notableWikireader41 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, BUT if the notability is due to their response, then the article should be on the response, not on the attacks themselves. Guycalledryan (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep—These events attracted widespread attention, see Google news. --Nvineeth (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Strong Rename The notability is the media reaction and public demonstrations. The articles name should indicate this to some extent. The facts given do not support that there is an epidemic of racial attacks specifically on Indians. The overal assault/robbery crime rate in Australia is 4.8% while that for violence specifically against Indians in Victoria is 3% (the 1,500 attacks quoted). That ages 15-19 comprise more than 40% of all cases reported in Australia means students will be over represented. While it is undisputed that racism is involved in some attacks there is no evidence given that the incidence is any higher than for any other ethnic group. If statistical evidence exists supporting the claims being made it should be in the article to support the anecdotal evidence currently presented. Wayne (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is titled neither Increased attacks on in Indians in Australia nor Racial attacks on Indians in Australia nor Australians attack Indians in Australia nor whatever. The title has 100s of reliable references in support. you might disagree with them. -- Like I  Care  12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I Care, you are correct, but so is WLRoss who is trying to explain that this article quickly skips over a number of facts - indeed, the whole issue seems to skip over them with media and politicians yelling as loudly as they can while ignoring some fundamentals. While the figures WLRoss appear to stand to testing, there is admittedly a degree of WP:SYNTH (albeit very credible synthesis!) and is the only reason I haven't promoted this point more in the article - as soon as there is a reliable source supporting it, then I believe it should be made a prominent point in the article - unless someone can show me I'm wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem in adding this statistics to the article with support of reliable sources and put things in perspective (but no original research) for readers. we might even include a sentence in the introduction. -- Like I  Care  12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Strong Rename The focus of the article needs to be changed. I will admit I am not an unbiased commenter, being Australian and offended by the calls of Racism, but the I believe that the current response, from Indian media and personalities to the attacks is more notable than the attacks, which the sources are very sketchy about, what with figures bandied back and forth, increasing with each go around. I just read that there were 1440 attacks in the last twelve months, a figure which seems to be close to be a misrepresenation of the 2007-2008 figures (of almost 1500), which follows 2006 claims of a whopping 24 cases in 3 months! Also, I feel that many of the proponents of both the Keep and the Delete camps have agendas which are not conducive to either good wikipedia articles, or indeed harmonious editing. I feel with a refocus that this article can be much better, while still appealing to both indian and australian racist editors. WookMuff (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. the naming issue can and should be discussed and sorted out on the article talk page.  a bad name is not a reason to push for deletion. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep NPOV needs to be looked into and the article needs to be structured better, but there can be no doubt about the notability of this topic.Krishnalokam (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Don't rename Regarding the title, whatever complaints people have about the media and how they are covering this, that's essentially how they are covering this issue. The coverage (read the headlines on Google news, using the neutral search terms Indian + Australia) is focusing on the attacks and not the Indian students protests. These are the same reliable sources that are used for every other article, thus 'keep and don't rename'. Note: the title is actually exceedingly neutral - it doesn't say that they are race-based attacks. Priyanath talk 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The abundance of reliable secondary sources and the longevity of the issue make it an obviously notable topic and suitable for an encylcopedia. The naming issue is more controversial but this isn't really the best place to discuss that. To be honest, I imagine that the article will discuss both the attacks (allegedly racist) and the reaction (protests, political diplomacy, etc.) so having the title that mention both of these aspects may not be such a bad idea. The racial element to the documented attacks is not clear though, so I would refrain from adding any such description in the title, and perhaps very early in the article (unless it is made clear that the Indian community claims this). <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Discuss  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and Don't rename These attacks are as much an event in Australian history as the <<Stolen Generations>> are. Hence, I strongly suggest that this article may not be deleted. It would be more benificial for Australians to stop events like these happening than coming on Wikipedia and stopping an article on this being published. Hence, please keep Wikipedia's credibility and keep the article in its current form. Atayal talk
 * — Atayal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath talk 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ha ha - these events are equal to the Stolen Generation episode? Ie, the forced removal of 10's of thousands of children from their parents. Are you kidding? Further, please don't personalise this AFD or get on your WP:SOAPBOX by commenting on voting of Australian editors. You should note that Australians are voting to keep this article as they are voting to delete (and I haven't voted one way or the other). Note, that no-one has commented on Indian votes here. Yours was not a helpful post. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no colleralation bewteen these events and wouldnt even rate a mention had it not been for the beat-up and outrageous claims from the Indian media that they were part of some greater bias it is this that makes it notable. Atayal your comments are in very poor faith and while I take offense at you lack of GOOD FAITH I still think that the article meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY Gnangarra 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong KEEP and Don't Rename The page describes and represents an important event which resulted in wide international media coverage, national debate in Australia, direct telephone conversation regarding the event between Australian Prime Minister and Indian Prime Minister, discussion of the event and the issue in the parliament of Australia and India, change in Australian government policy in terms of new task force, change in the Australian law with Attorney General asking Judges to consider hate motives in relation to crime in sentencing, change of Australian High Commisionner to India, and has caused a strain in the diplomatic strain between Australia and India. If all of this doesn't justify this article then I don't know what does. Aditionally, as a precedent, there is already an article on 2005 Cronulla riots which is similar to this event. Scarish
 * — Scarish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath talk 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At least here in India, the attacks are very notable and on the front page of every newspaper. If we were to go by the media claims, the attacks are definitely notable. Seems Australian media has a totally different viewpoint about it. Regardless of the naming debate, we should keep the article and look towards some unbiased reliable sources (perhaps non Australian/ non Indian) for the naming decision (outside of this debate). — Lost (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * U.S. coverage is also notable, and focused on the attacks (not the protests). The article needs some work to be more neutral, though. There are positive responses from all sides that aren't being covered in the article, including from the Australian government. Priyanath talk 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't Rename and keep adding more details This is a fair article. Renaming the article to Protests by Indian Students does not justify the incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almightyvegeta (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep For one simple reason. I have not seen a single person post a wiki rule that blocks this article. What am I missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Booster4324 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment time to WP:SNOW this discussion, it obvious that the article will be kept either as is or with no-consensus and this discussion remaining open is only attracting flyby-night/spa editor opinions, who dont either understand WP:AGF or are chosing to ignore it, leave the renaming for a separate fresh discussion. Gnangarra 01:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not one of the best AFD's I've seen. Indeed, time to wrap it up. --Merbabu (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (keep) I agree, it should be time to wrap the discussion up. I can see there is definitely a consensus emerging of keeping the article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not consensus. It's a vote which is not what wikipedia is about. --Merbabu (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia is definitely not about pushing POV. the surprise here is not that the article WILL be KEPT.  it is that it was nominated for deletion in the first place.Wikireader41 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a clear vote (as opposed to consensus) to keep and a clear vote for a certain POV. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.