Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Patan 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. After I'd initially closed the discussion recommending a merge, it's come to my attention that the proposed merge target isn't quite suitable for the content. Therefore, I've amended it to no consensus, since as I said in the previous rationale, it seems to be fairly evenly split between people who think WP:GNG being met is enough to keep and those who think it fails WP:LASTING and should be deleted. ansh 666 06:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Patan riots

 * – ( View AfD View log  Patan riots Stats )

A non-notable random incident that lacks notability per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident was reported for less than 7 days and most of the news website basically plagiarised other. It was just like 100s of other same incidents that occur every year. We don't need article for each trivial information. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete only a few first-hand news reports. Fails WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: This riot was covered well into late April and even July due to claims that it was a premeditated attack rather than general WP:ROUTINE communalism. Also, keep in mind that this also probably got more coverage in Hindi newspapers than English-speaking ones due to it taking place in India. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But never again after April. Your source is an unreliable personal website which is saying nothing different than the news sources that covered event for a couple of days. Language card cannot be played here since all Indian articles use English language sources. Looks like you are only 2 of the editors of this article. If this article is any important then why you have to speculate and make claims without substance about this article which is inherently non notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So, how long it has to be discussed? Riots usually get coverage for few months only. For instance 2015 Nadia riots or 2016 Kaliachak riots etc. AltNews.in has been widely cited for busting right-wing propaganda. We can discuss its acceptance as RS/N. --Jionakeli (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't let me point you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Still an unreliable opinion website. Riots don't go discussed only for few months, they can be discussed for decades. Compare 1984 anti-Sikh riots with this subject that was discussed only for number of days, you would think that this article should be rather speedy deleted. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually the article in AltNews.in above makes the case for deletion shows why it fails WP:LASTING and lacks significant coverage its claims media bias against Vadavali and further states that only one channel made one video relating to Vadavali and that the media ignored the incident and one brief mention in the Guardian is clearly not enough to pass WP:LASTING and 3 brief mentions in 8 months is clearly not significant coverage since the incident and one brief mention in a article in 8 months cannot be called international coverage .It further states no curfew was imposed and it was over within hours and the incident is dismissed as a case of minor communal disharmony.  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom it is just another violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Lack of coverage in independent sources and already lost relevance only some days after the incident took place. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as per WP:NOTNEWS and has no WP:LASTING impact.There a news reports on the day of the incident in March after that are no WP:INDEPTH coverage after the incident day news reports and there are only 4 pieces after that, 1 article and 2 brief mentions after that one article in frontline April , another brief mention reporting mass wedding in the village May  and brief mention  in the guardian and another mention in a NON RS source in July which claims there was little media coverage in  and there is no significant coverage of the incident beyond routine news and brief mentions  and only 1 article and 2 brief mentions and a story in a NON RS source in 8 months since March clearly fails WP:LASTING and has clearly no continued coverage or significant coverage and clearly is not notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:INDEPTH coverage over a span of several months with WP:LASTING impact being discussed in both National & International media certainly makes it a notable event! Jionakeli (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So we have got the creator of the article defending the existence of this article by misrepresenting sources and policies. There is no discussion in any of the sources, just two months old articles trying to interlink their many articles in one article. Fails WP:INDEPTH, WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You could have phrased that in other way. Ok, Mr. 2 times blocked sock please give diffs of my edits misrepresenting sources and policies. These,, , , , , are all WP:INDEPTH. Do you think this The Guardian article published after 6 months of this riots was only for interlinking heir many articles in one article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jionakeli (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Misrepresenting my block log won't turn your article notable. Socks are never unblocked unless the block was a mistake and that was my case as well. Now back to topic, which you have been avoiding. None of your sources are making valid description of this non-notable incident that died out under few days. Just copying more links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other is not going to help you either. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop taking this as personal! Its not about you or me. Its about whether this topic is notable for inclusion or not. That incident was covered widely through out all media in India including The Guardian I gave. There might be more. When you said "links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other" do you have a RS for that? or you are accusing these national media of plagiarism? Jionakeli (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one who personalized the dispute by misrepresenting my blog log and then started to wikihound my contribution history. You are only being disruptive. Because none of these articles have found any new facts or findings than those already reported during the first days of the incident, it is basically plagiarism. Relying on passing mentions for proving notability is not going to help you. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You were actually misrepresenting here and elsewhere using WP:POLSHOP. If I am being disruptive then use the diffs and report me. I bet you haven't even looked at the sources because these sources are not passing mentions or plagiarism but reported the facts in-depth and associated investigations. Jionakeli (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you at least use your own rational in place of copying my rationales and pointing them to me even though you make no sense? Yes I have reported you on edit warring board. You can keep repeating yourself but people are not going to agree. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, this is a collaborative project. Opinions may differ and that is why we discuss things. So, these kind of irrational comments are not going to help this project. I have nothing personal with you. I presented my sources with my reason and it is upto the community to decide the outcome. That's all! Goodbye! --Jionakeli (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the delete votes, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. A very common incident that is even less notable than few other already deleted riot articles. Capitals00 (talk) 04:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable--seriously, go read it. WP:GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See no WP:LASTING impact here this sadly is routine violence in India .Lack of indepth coverage in independent sources beyond News and even this is a mere mention here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your argument. If this were ITN/C, I could understand somebody saying "violence is routine, therefore not newsworthy". But we're discussing notability here; how do you conclude that a phenomenon being commonplace makes it less notable? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.As per my opinion. I meant violence is sadly routine in India, every incident of violence is not newsworthy and most such incidents do not have a Lasting impact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTING is an inclusion criterion: "If there is lasting coverage, it is likely to be notable", not an exclusion criterion, which is how it's being misused here ("If coverage isn't lasting the event is not notable"). The proper governing policy is WP:NTEMP--notability is not temporary. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But there is no notability to establish when sources and subject violates WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the routine coverage which is clearly WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day of the event which includes breaking news and Reports on events of the day.And further 2 passing mentions out of 3 in 8 Months to articles not even fully dedicated to the incident are a not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact and clearly could not a single book reference. There is a difference between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it which includes the piece the Guardian which is a brief mention beyond the incident day WP:PRIMARYNEWS .Now every morning there is  breaking news and Reports on events of the day even if covered in many newspapers papers not all topics are not notable for inclusion here it as it fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE  and Primarynews ,otherwise every headlin across newspapers can have an article which would be news  . Passing mentions are not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact.I think there is a confusion between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece .There is lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short beyond routine news on the day in addition to failing WP:LASTING . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if y'all actually read through things. WP:NOT is very specific about what routine coverage is, and riots aren't remotely it.  GNG is the primary notability criteria; WP:NEVENT is a subject/specific notability guideline, and an event is notable if it meets NEVENT or the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete because this is a communal riot without a clear victim. Both sides are a party to the incident and one could easily categorize as violence against Hindus regardless of the end result of violence Sdmarathe (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This opinion may be relevant to how the incident is described in the article, but has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. Vanamonde (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Jclemens. GNG is met; the sources already in the article show this. It is unusual for an incident in India to receive coverage in the Guardian, further suggesting it is notable. Comments about "playing the language card" are totally off the mark. It is quite correct to suggest there will be coverage in Indian language sources (quite possibly in Urdu as well) and there is absolutely no basis in policy to ignore such. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually Guardian has made coverage of many other incidents, while they have provided only a passing mention for this incident and it really doesn't means the coverage. Yet you can find many other riots as well as criminal incidents that are covered by Guardian, BBC, but that alone doesn't justify failure of WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete there have been a number of riots that happened years ago and to this day they are being discussed on daily or at least weekly basis. However this incident is not one of them and very far from it. It doesn't pass WP:GNG because it violates WP:NOT. Excelse (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed that there are too many riots that receive coverage and there will be dozens of articles created everyday. We need to understand that we have WP:LASTING for a reason. Here the coverage is outdated and this "riot" has been already given enough time to gain importance and what it has gained is similar to thousands of other riots. desmay (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Jclemens, Vanadmonde93. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply - it refers mostly to routine coverage, but this has received coverage in international media too and so passes WP:GNG. There may be much more significant riots but that are talked about for years but that doesn't mean that this one is not notable. There may also be a hundred other riots, but if all receive significant coverage in international media (highly doubt that's the case) all should be written about. Galobtter (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum:Oh and WP:LASTING - "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Galobtter (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The Frontline (magazine) has in-depth coverage of this incident on their April, 2017 issue. What makes it different from other routine violence in India is according to the fact-finding team, the victims were "astounded by the speed and manner in which thousands of people were able to gather in a matter of hours to carry out the attack". 5,000 people as reported by NDTV. Jionakeli (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N(E). &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 06:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable incident for a stand alone article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Jclemens, Kanatonian (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Notable -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well sourced. A modern murderous mob is notable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Violence against Muslims in India is an acceptable outcome. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Seems to fail WP:NOTNEWS. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Violence against Muslims in India. Neutralitytalk 23:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NOTABLE. --RaviC (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The Guardian article in September is important.  Passes WP:GNG, so notability is not at issue.  WP:NOTNEWS is more complex, but after reviewing the policy, I don't see that it applies, as these events are unusual.  The topic hasn't made it into Google books yet, so a plan to merge would be fine, but that should be a follow up effort.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Communal riots are an unfortunate reality, be it white-black as is |common in USA, with the establishment and its arms being considered as white proxies, or inter-religious violence in the |Indian sub-continent. Finding references for particular incidents isn't going to be difficult, the need is |vivek to separate milk from water, is a particular incident of encyclopaedic significance, my delete vote above is my contribution to the debate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Interestingly, few editors manipulate WP:NOTNEWS in AFDs in less covered incidents like Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots, perhaps because of their political and religious bias. Jionakeli (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a friendly PSA about how OSE is not policy but rather just some essay. Yes, I think that poorly of it. I also doubt Notnews applies but I'm not participating any further in this. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per the analysis of Pharaoh of the Wizards. Doesn't pass notability and it exactly fails WP:NOTNEWS per the nom. Orientls (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourcing seems to indicate that it meets WP:GNG and that this was more than routine WP:NOTNEWS type event. Merging to the Violence against Muslims in India article would also be okay.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Violence against Muslims in India. Regarding User:Jclemens's suggestion to go read WP:NOTNEWS, I did just that and find I have to agree with him that it doesn't apply.  Certainly, the Original reports, Who's who, and A diary paragraphs don't apply.  The News reports paragraph is a little more interesting, but mostly that's talking about reporting on the latest tidbits about a notable person or event, which isn't the case here.  Still, overall, I think (and, I'll admit this is a total judgement call), this makes more sense to talk about in the context of the larger article.
 * I'll also take this opportunity get on my WP:RECENT soapbox. Looking at Template:Violence against Muslims in India, I note that the events included are from: 1946(x2), 1947, 1969, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992(x2), 2002, 2004, 2006(x2), 2007(x2), 2008(x2), 2013, 2014(x2), 2015, 2016, 2017(x2).  This gives the impression that 50's, 60's, and 70's were decades of religious peace and love in India, which I'm sure is far from the truth.  It's easy to look at an event that's happening now, find some threshold of google hits, and declare it to be notable.  But, taking a step back, that gives us a very warped view of history.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe that calls for old newspapers from the 1950s to be dug up and more articles from there created. Galóbtóró (talkó tuó  mió) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point regarding the template links. I have just looked on the original consensus on the TFD of the template as well as talk page. There was consensus to include only Major incidents on the template. Fixed it now. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, and Merge an event summary to Violence against Muslims in India. This reminds me of the terrorist attack debate. I'm going to use the same criteria I arbitrarily applied to that - if a group attacks another and kills one or more people, and it can be linked to ethic strife, that could arguably also be defined as terrorism, and so it is notable. A short summary can also go to the violence against Muslims in India article. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are telling that we should make articles about every death incidents of the millions of religious people that have been killed yearly. Anyway, did that "terrorist attack debate" concerned India where such kind of violence is common, or other places like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, where such violence is far more common? Even if it did, which I doubt, we are not going to certainly ruin qualities of other articles where we cite only major incidents, we cannot do anything to make these incidents notable so why we should be including content about the article that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING? It will only turn other articles into a newspaper. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are millions of religious murders by mobs, certainly not covered in the press as this one is. This is going to be a no consensus close. Once that happens, I'm going to add the summary to the Violence against Muslims in India article, with a link back to this one. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  01:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like you have changed your rationale already. Yes such random attacks get great amount of press coverage, a few recent ones would include and many more. They don't deserve an article or mention anywhere unless notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep this is more than routine news coverage as currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes. Also initially it meet WP:GNG by being covered in multiple reliable sources which are well obvious in the article. WP:NOTNEWS is primarily meant to deter reporting original news direct from field to Wikipedia, but once the event received reasonable coverage in reputable secondary sources then NOTNEWS will no longer apply. And this article fulfilled that; UK's Guardian, Times of India and the Indian Express are enough to satisfy verifiability. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's misrepresentation of WP:NOTNEWS, because it is still a news even if it has been covered by numerous newspapers. You haven't even addressed the issue with WP:LASTING. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LASTING is a guideline while WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. And even as guideline I already addresed it in my previous comment "currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes." further coverage of the litigation and ensuing events will only further prove its WP:LASTING effect. And perhaps it is you who misunderstood WP:NOTNEWS, because ALL Wikipedia article are inherently from news, the scope of coverage is what makes one more notable than other &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not all of them are, and most of them receive frequent coverage when they are notable. Just compare this random incident with any other riot article you will know, like I have mentioned 1984 anti-Sikh riots which is still getting coverage even 2 hours ago, but when they are not notable they don't receive any coverage after few days and that is the case here because this new incident has not received coverage for months. You are saying that because this news was covered by few other media sources it becomes notable, but that's not enough. If we go by your interpretation then we can create article about anything that has been covered by 2 sources, that is not what WP:NOTNEWS says. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your bolded text. Your point is that for months now, the event have no new coverage, therefore either it continue receiving coverage every month or deleted.The below statement directly from WP:N already answered you &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not only it received any coverage but it was reported in the manner like it is just another incident. And what about WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? That "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Raymond3023 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2017 (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.