Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Hauz Qazi clash


 * 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. Well, first off I see this deletion discussion has attracted a number of single-purpose editors who voted !keep, raising concerns about canvassing which are reinforced by a sockpuppet investigation and an ANI investigation on the matter (both linked below). Normally in case of canvassing or sockpuppetry the best way to minimize their distorting impact on the consensus-finding process is to pay particular attention to the arguments provided rather than the raw headcount, as canvassing/socking can effectively sway the latter without having much impact on the arguments provided. Thus I'll take particular notice of the arguments offered.

On the delete side, we have a (somewhat vague) argument that GNG is not met and somewhat better argued points about this being a minor event without any lasting impact (yet) that thus might fail WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS, plus the point that for a recent event we can't really tell whether there will be WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage. On the keep side, we have mostly arguments that assert that the event is significant, important or that it exists but without explaining how it is significant by Wikipedia's particular definitions of "significant" (i.e WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:DEPTH), arguments about "suppressing the truth" and vague aspersions that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at all, as well as some arguments that refer to it having received lots of newspaper coverage. Plus there are concerns that an article on this topic is or will become a WP:BATTLEGROUND/WP:POV-pushing platform for ethnic, religious or political disputes.

On balance of arguments, this seems like it has a delete consensus: The key arguments are that while this topic may have ephemeral coverage that might satisfy WP:GNG (depending on whether you consider recent news reports as secondary sources, the argument that they should be considered primary is well taken), the overall ephemeral (or more precisely: very recent) coverage indicates that WP:SUSTAINED and the WP:NOTNEWS policy - which stresses the importance of enduring notability rather than ephemera - aren't satisfied. Especially the NOTNEWS policy is important as policies have precedence over the notability guidelines during decision making processes.

I see some proposals to salt the title, but IMO there hasn't been enough discussion on that point to declare it the consensus outcome; if people still desire salting they should ask at WP:RFPP to get a second opinion (especially since as noted the topic might become notable in the future). Regarding draftification, while it would certainly be reasonable to draftify a topic that is not yet shown to be notable, the concerns raised about battleground behaviours and the like probably indicate that restoration should be conditional on a full WP:DRV discussion and there is no consensus here that draftification would be preferred to outright deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hauz Qazi clash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single fairly minor event which is unlikely to attract WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage. Does not meet WP:EVENTCRIT and, despite the unsurprising burst of coverage in news sources, does not meet WP:GNG either. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The page I made on the Wikipedia met the guidelines of the Wikipedia very well such as WP:EVENTCRIT because due to the temple attack, whole old delhi area was tensed which is in the capital region of India and even on today, Member of Parliament, Dr. Harshvardhan Singh visited the temple. In the ongoing crisis, new things are coming such as Shahi Imam of Old Delhi Mosque told Muslims to renovate the Temple. This was not minor event, it met the criteria of WP:DEPTH and the detailed reports were given by the Times of India and India Today which are the leading newspapers of the India. Also, it happened on Sunday and you should wait for some days to have persistent and diversify coverage to met WP:PERSISTENCE; I am trying to include the all available sources right now to include it on the page. --Harshil169 (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Why this page is considering for deletion, wikipedia need to check the fact it's true incident and it should be available on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivekku3 (talk • contribs)
 * This is not a minor event. This is the main issue being discussed on india media since last 2 days . After the incident people living in fear in the Chandni Chowk area of old Delhi. One 17 year old boy is also abducted by violent Mobs. Mother of the boy named mona, demanding the release and asking help from the government in a video. Violent Mob of 100 people vandalizing, attacking, abducting people on the street of a National Capital city is not a minor event. JohnDSil (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — JohnDSil (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The event happened and is of considerable importance to Delhi, rather India's changing social fabric. Acceptance of a middling doesn’t shade away the damage it has already caused.


 * This page MUST NOT be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.90.69.212 (talk • contribs) — 103.90.69.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It is important to have a record of this event. This is an important event and should not be brushed under carpet. Moreover it will bring out the facts to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.182.207.132 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)  — 122.182.207.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It is important to have a record of this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkd18 (talk • contribs) — Jkd18 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Has received significant independent reliable media coverage, enough for GNG and EVENTCRIT. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif"> qedk ( t  桜  c ) 12:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's not a minor incident, it's a major incident that involved a job of 150+ people who vandalized a 100 year old significant cultural and religiously important public property. It'd be a biased decision to remove this article and suppress the truth. 157.50.111.140 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Personally it's difficult to say which events should have articles, and which shouldn't. I'm not sure the policies on this matter work since we often see exceptions to the policies granted. Personally I suspect the article meets the general notability guideline. As for the event notability, it's too early to see lasting effects, as it often is with many events IMO. GEOSCOPE could be applicable as it involves two notable religious groups. We will have to see if the incident continues to receive coverage in Indian news, or even world news. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe this attack is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, since many similar attacks have their own articles, but based on the little research I've done so far, news reports are still coming in and the accounts vary wildly (for example, the article currently states the temple was attacked by 20-25 people while some reports are saying as many as 400). The article itself contains major omissions, lacking even the name of the temple (Durga Mata Mandir) and using uncited info that is at variance with the few facts presently known. In short: recommending keeping the article, but protecting it until the story becomes more clear. Someone with admin powers should go in and clean it up to meet Wikipedia writing standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:c000:4147:8103:70b5:2fb2:7b30 (talk • contribs) — 2601:940:c000:4147:8103:70b5:2fb2:7b30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep In my view we should keep this page. This page will give the information on such a big attack on a ancient temple By one particular community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:2EE4:69C:7EBB:11A8:C025:4D16 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)  — 2401:4900:2EE4:69C:7EBB:11A8:C025:4D16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep This article needs to be kept alive. It is a disaster of mass proportion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhavp (talk • contribs) — Prabhavp (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This page should not be deleted. This is describing an event which has happened yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raazankeet (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)  — Raazankeet (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * There is no need to delete this article.
 * And this article should be protected from Vandalism too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:422C:D2FB:BA96:FB23:CC4D:6055 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)  — 2405:205:422C:D2FB:BA96:FB23:CC4D:6055 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Significant event to let world know about growing intolerance in india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.10.143 (talk • contribs) — 67.198.10.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * DO NOT DELETE. The details are factual and meet Wiki Guidelines like WP:DEPTH and others mentioned. Chandni Chowk (where this incident happened) is one of the most famous places of India and generated almost prima facie '200K related tweets on twitter and still counting. Renewbo (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE. The dispute was for parking between two person. But the 200+ strong jihadi mob of Muslims Vandalised and desecrated a Hindu mandir, Kidnapped a Hindu Boy, Broke into the home of Hindus and terrorised them with Jihadi war cries of allahu-akbar and nara-e-takbeer. It was all planned by jihadi terrorist elements. Huge number of clear video evidences and also from CCTV Cameras are also there. A parking dispute between two persons does not lead to this. If 200+ strong mob would have broken and vandalised a Mosque or Church and kidnapped their children and terrorised their families, will that not count as an attack worth logging? Would that not be termed as some BS-Phobia! It was a planned terrorist attack on Hindus and must be presented in truth and correct manner. Supporting jihadi elements who try to discredit the lives of Hindus is NOT a good thing, Although I will not be surprised if it happens as what type of things happen here at Wiki. --Emysyme (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This nomination appears to have been heavily infested with sockpuppets; see Sockpuppet investigations/Harshil169. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Muslim mob attacked and vandalized a 100 year old Hindu temple in Delhi, India Peter.aremone (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment has been blocked for 72 hours for disruption of this AfD, as reported on WP:AIV  caknuck  ° needs to be running more often  16:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Use of sockpuppets by radical islamic elements to suppress the oppression of non-muslims is the prime contributor to this deletion nomination. This article documents a fact, an important fact, and deserves a place on Wikipedia.
 * 1) Muslim mob attacked place of worship of non-muslims
 * 2) The attack happened in an area inhabited mostly by non-muslims (which is a major setback to the manufactured narrative of media tycoons that muslims are under threat, while the contrary appears to be the case, and thus the deletion nomination to suppress facts)
 * 3) A minor child was kidnapped by the attacking muslim mob. It has been more than 24 hours, the child has not been found. His mother suffers from Tuberculosis
 * 4) Minister of Central Govt. and member of parliament has had to visit the place to take stock of the situation
 * 5) Social media tycoons are having a busy time on Twitter trying to hide, suppress, or plainly deny the incident, and nominating the article for deletion is one of those attempts
 * isoham (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Draftify. There's a lot of moving parts here, but there's no deadline. I feel that is the most acceptable solution here in light of the canvassing concerns. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - It needs some improvement, but is better than requiring draftifying and meets notability. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving to delete. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is the definition of WP:NOTNEWS. Most newsworthy items are not encyclopedia worthy, and, as per WP:EVENTCRIT, just because an event receives media coverage does not mean it will or should have a standalone article. We should have an article on events which have enduring historical impact, or which are very widely covered in national or international media and if the event is re-analyzed. The emphasized words are borrowed directly from EVENTCRIT. We should not have an article for routine events, including for most crimes. Since this is a "current event" only a crystal ball could tell whether this event will have any impact–I strongly suspect it won't and that by this time next week the media will have moved on to other things and nothing more will be said about it. In other words, no WP:PERSISTENCE. Given the comments by some here and on the article talk page, particularly the referencing of the nominator as being a "sockpuppet of radical Islamic elements", also raises questions over sensationalism for me. We should be wary of furthering tabloidism. Key example: Around 200 people gathered at the police station after rumours that Mohammad had died went viral on WhatsApp. The group then moved on to damage the temple - mob mentality fueled by rumors and suspicion, but no concrete facts. My advice to the nominator, if the article is kept, would be to revisit it in 1-2 months. By that point it will be more obvious whether or not the subject holds any encyclopedic value. I'd also advise that in future you heed WP:RAPID. The article was created today, and given its currency, it's receiving a lot of attention. In future, give current news events about a week before assessing for deletion. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please read above comment. -Nizil (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines as an event covered in nearly all the major newspapers, with people across India's political spectrum covering it. It appeared to be the #1 news story this week.Pectoretalk 03:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS. (although I have improved the article to some extent, but I am voting delete here) Mr rnddude has already said enough. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Everything that is published in paper cannot and should not be added into Wikipedia. The Keep votes above are solely based on the newspaper coverage of the law and order incident. Talking about the merits of the incident we have to note that every year thousands of communal incidents of these kinds happen. We cannot allow a page to all of these events. In this particular case there was no loss of lives. Only some damage to property which will be repaired soon. There is nothing special to indicate why this case will pass the test of time i.e. WP:LASTING will also fail in this case. There are other issues with the article as well. The incident has been disproportionately inflated and inflamed in social media to cause political polarization. Wikipedia cannot be used for WP:PROPAGANDA purposes such as these. All these are strong enough reasons to delete. I will request the admin to ignore the sock votes and the keep votes should be discounted in weight since they are based on the false premise of natability based on news report hits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify - Per DbX and RdNdute. Typical flux of right-wing !voters. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * delete (see extended rationale below) not notable event. WP:NOTNEWS. note should be taken of off wiki canvassing.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore DO NOT draftify. Instead, Delete and salt original title. Just one of many religio-ethnic clashes in the <S>WP:IPA</S> world. The original title should probably be deleted as an attack page. Once the propagandistic hate rhetoric has been removed, there is just nothing there. Certainly, and unfortunately, there is nothing notable about this event. Things like this happen far too often. It has served as a vehicle for nationalistic hate speech and such can not be allowed in Wikipedia's name.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dlohcierekim, this should not be draftified. There is no indication that this event will become notable in future. Hence Draftify cannot be an valid result here. In a rare chance that the event does become notable, someone can use WP:REFUND. And yes please also salt the original title as suggested.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Dlohcierekim, I don't believe that a guide to the International Phonetic Alphabet is very relevant here :-) I'll add a hatnote.  Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I initially misunderstood the severity of the event. I agree that this is WP:NOTNEWS. If it later becomes more important, an article can be created. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP.NOTNEWS Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with recreation potential. Just from looking at the article, I can already tell that it fails both GNG and NOTNEWS. While it is true that such events receive eventual news coverage, this is about as notable as the fact that "vaccine exemption requests are increasing in a small area in the southern United States", a random article I found recently with only a relatively regionwide scope and little if any significant impact, just like with this article. ToThAc (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable event. It's a small argument that got out of hand and involved some property damage and a lot of people. However that doesn't make it significant. Things like this happen worldwide on a daily basis, but we don't make articles everytime some parking argument in Walmart gets out of hand, or if some people vandalised something during a large celebration or commiseration of their sports teams. Reads like someone is trying to promote it as a sectarian religious bigotry thing, when it's just an incident that isn't notable. Oh highly local interest only. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Shall we decide now what to do with the content. There are many people still arguing sayimg there are videos, byt let me tell you a lot of videos are being morphed and made viral on social media just for the sake of propaganda. So we camt decide how reliable a video is or not. Next the other allegations about political involvement is BS too as I can provide the links for that.
 * Imstead of relying on false and fake news which were being used to make the page, can we decide what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This user with the name "Edward Zigma" has said that the videos "Lot of Videos" are morphed! How does the user came to such a conclusion. Are they based on any evidence or just 'let me tell you' part is enough and the user enjoy some special privileges. Or the conclusion to lot of images are morphed based on some bias or some other tendency. I am looking for a reason to say such world and I quote what Edward Zigma wrote above "byt let me tell you a lot of videos are being morphed and made viral on social media just for the sake of propaganda". Also want to know if anyone's personal hallucinations considered as valid reasons in Wiki debates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emysyme (talk • contribs) 04:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not personal hallucinations. It reality. A lot of fake videos went viral in this time. And you cant tell audio is true or not. Even media is such fool to make news on that without checking the truth. I am just saying why cant we rely on the articles from reliable sources instead of morphed videos, fake news and messages and fake viral messages.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Folks, this is not the place to discuss what happened at this event. As far as deciding what to do with the content, the only question we are answering here is whether we keep or delete it, and that will happen in due time when the discussion has run its course - there's no point trying to hurry it along. Any other debates about content should be taken to the article talk page, although I'd caution you both that since you seem to feel very strongly about this event, it may be best to step away from the article and let more dispassionate editors work on it for the time being. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I vote to delete. But as you said me and some people are very strong about this event. So i preferred to back a bit. But I will discuss if I have any issues in the talk section of the page. Edward Zigma (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -
 * Delete - I had reorganised and improved the article significantly but mostly agree with the points made by . I am OK with delete now because the event did not escalate and make it a significant event luckily.-Nizil (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with all other recent-event articles that couldn't previously be predicted (e.g. as opposed to solar eclipses or sporting championships). News reports are primary sources by definition (ask anyone else with a graduate degree in history if you don't believe me), and there's no way for reliable secondary sources to have been created and published yet.  Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A classic example of Wikipedia is not a newspaper with no evidence of historical significance, enduring notability or encyclopedic value. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)°
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP Recent investigations revealed that the intent of the mob was not just to desecrate the 100 year old temple (with historical significance) but to also enter houses of residents and 'terrorize' them (reference from open source 'Times Of India'). Total arrests have now gone up to 17. Further the Union Home Minister of India summoned the top police cop (Commissioner of Police, Delhi) to ensure terrorism is not spread and culprits are rounded off the streets (reference from open source Outlook India). 125.17.166.115 (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC) — 125.17.166.115 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * comment on content Looks like the kinda ethnic propaganda we are trying not to have.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.