Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Meerut riots


 * 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   no consensus. Nakon 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 Meerut riots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. whilst 3 people died, this is not the first and last time people die in a riot. the article was mostly worked on in the 2 days following the event. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -No lasting effect, no coverage afterwards and routine kind of news reports make subject ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia (fails WP:EVENTCRIT). In an attempt to analyse the nature of event under discussion, I found a riot that happened in 1987 is rather more notable and a Wikipedia article should be written about instead (last coverage of 1987 event was few days ago -). According to this source, 2014 riot was apparently first since 1987. So, if we write an article on 1987 riot, then we could mention a little of this one (first since then and three died and 50 injured, that's it). Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you know that we can have articles on both riots, not just one? I look forward to seeing your work on an article about the 1987 riot. Everyking (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We can, if they satisfy the inclusion standard. I'm not sure how does 2014 riots meet the EVENTCRIT standard. May you please explain your keep !vote a bit? It would be helpful to know if I am missing something. Thank you. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  23:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * sources don't establish if WP:EVENT or WP:LASTING is met. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? Be specific, please. Everyking (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the last source added was 11 May, a day after the event. LibStar (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you want a source later than that? OK, how much later does it need to be? Everyking (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think, required criteria is described in detail at No lasting effect, no coverage afterwards and routine kind of news reports what I assume you to be already aware of. We cannot really create articles on each and every news reports, like a political party wins an election, it hits almost every national and few international newspapers, but that story belongs to political party and/or candidate parent article and do not justify a standalone one. It is the case here, all three points (in first line of this comment and my delete !vote above). One essay which I too suppose you already are aware of, is COOKIE may be relevant here. Anupmehra - Let's talk!  16:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you write that much and still manage to not answer the question? Everyking (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only I have answered your primary question, but also you may further have and I really will suggest you to take a serious look at that. If it still is not clear, you asked for "How much later..", OK. See, routine kind of news reports. It helps? Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  16:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. If someone is going to look for a later source to get you to change your mind, they need to know specifically, in advance, what you will accept. How many days after the event must the source be, in your opinion? Everyking (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Many years, since we expect event to exhibit a lasting impact. Before you take on me that it has only been few years and as we don't have yet any time machine, we cannot have that coverage, therefore article should be kept, I would again suggest you to take a look at WP:COOKIE. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  21:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you are opposed to all articles about recent events. Thanks for the answer. Everyking (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

a lot of recent events do not qualify for Wikipedia articles. You seem to fail to grasp this. A lot of coverage in a news spike does not automatically mean an article. LibStar (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say all recent events qualify for articles. I said this one does. Everyking (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm really interested to know how?.. and seriously if you tell me what criteria does this event qualifies for and substantiate it with sources, I'd change my !vote to keep.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  20:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You just said you don't want articles about any events until "many years" have passed. So how could I possibly change your mind just by digging up a few sources? Everyking (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 06:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @Everyking:  I didn't say, I don't want.. You asked me for my opinion, and I answered and that's just it. Anyway, personal opinions are not going to shape course of the deletion discussion but the arguments based on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines.
 * I was saying, if you tell me how does this (subject) meet any of the required criteria in particular wp:eventcrit, I would /probably-if convinced/ change my !vote to keep. I hope, it is clear and I will receive a plain answer. Thank you. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep large riot with injuries set off by strife between communities covered in national newspapers of the largest country on earth with a free press. OF COURSE it's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Many riot article exist in Wikipedia with just one or two lines. Also, this has more credible sources. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2015 (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.