Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Mangaluru youth assult


 * 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. Per consensus. Wikipedia is not a newspaper covering run of the mill events. Philg88 ♦talk 12:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Mangaluru youth assult

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A very local criminal act covered by local media sources. No notable in the wider world, despite being deplorable and highly reprehensible. Regrettably if we included all such acts as Wikipedia articles the encyclopaedia would be overwhelmed  Velella  Velella Talk  19:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Media sources are national not local but can be merged with other moral policing incidents of Bajrang Dal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotapuranu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The "assult" was not a "public lynching" as claimed, but rather a beating. If it had involved a death, maybe it would have merited an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Clarityfiend. Do you really think mocking the spelling error in the title of an article by non-native speakers of English is really necessary or helpful. No wonder we have such a WP:GEOBIAS when this sort of behaviour occurs from several editors. AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In India (not to mention in many non-English speaking countries, "lynch" is used in situations in sentences in which Americans would use a phrase such as "was attacked by an angry mob", it echoes the nature of an old-time white mob lynching a nigger, but in India and many other countreis where the English word appears in headlines in other languages, it refers only to the fact that an attack was made by a gang or mob motivated by race or ethnic hatred, with the attention to harm (beat, murder, stone) but not specifically to hang the victim.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: for its dishonest, misleading and exploitative crux. Sadly, in the world in which we live, conflicts are increasing and not decreasing, and not every conflicts without incident, even with fatalities (aside from exceptional cases such as the 3 Americans and 1 Briton who stopped the jihadist on that Paris-Amsterdam train) are notable per se. Quis separabit?  11:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How can you say it "dishonest" and "exploitative crux"? I used the title because many news sources and TV channels showed that title such as The Hindu itself. I didn't know it requires deaths for inclusion as I have seen similar articles like 2012 Fatehpur violence which doesn't involve any deaths. Anyway, please, do not make blind allegations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotapuranu (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting User:Rms125a@hotmail.com that you say the attack on the train travelling from Paris-Amsterdam was stopped by "four Americans". As '2015_Thalys_train_attack makes clear, those awarded the Legion of Honour were actually three Americans and one British man, and the other passengers which prevented the attack were actually four French people (including a dual citizen). I can only assume you are an American wishing to confirm many national stereotypes? I also find it interesting that when "Americans stop a Jihadist" you feel that is "exceptional" and worthy of an article, but anything happening in the Global South probably is not. WP:GEOBIAS anyone? Any Indian looking at this deletion nomination, please realise not all Westerners are like this :) AusLondonder (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with User:Kotapuranu above. What makes the article "dishonest" or "exploitative"? Such emotive language seems rather odd. AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the article should clearly have been renamed prior to nominaiton. It seems keeping "assult" as title is a silent attempt to discredit. AusLondonder (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, to all: I reworded my prior comments and apologize for anything that offended anyone. As far as the 3 Americans (the British man himself acknowledged that he would not have done anything had it not been for the 3 Americans) I reworded that also for accuracy. Quis separabit?  02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for now. Coverage  was national.  Hindu-on-Muslim and Muslim-on-Hindu violence are serious issues in the subcontinent, which is why this incident was covered nationwide.  However, 5 days after the crime is too soon to assess ongoing impact, so, keep and revisit in 6 months or so - after the dust has settled.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have edited the article making it precise with the help of multiple national level news sources.Kotapuranu (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I also have a feeling that if a similar incident, say a Muslim vigilante gang attacked a Christian for talking to a Muslim in New York coverage would be blanket for weeks on end and any suggestion of deletion would be rightly laughed at. AusLondonder (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to show this meets the notability requirements.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 08:16, 3 September 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.