Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Kanpur violence


 * 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 based on the overwhelming consensus Guerillero  Parlez Moi 19:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

2022 Kanpur violence

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page is a uselss content fork of 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. The subject very much an integral part of the latter. The page has been created by extracting a section out of it. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Delete: Pointless content fork of material that is most relevant within its original context, and too diminutive a content body to merit a split. I was possibly hasty, per Capt J Sparrow - perhaps it's a wait and see... Iskandar323 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam,  and India. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The remarks controversy article itself may be a failing of NEVENT. A comment sparks criticism in the world of politics is not a need for a new article, barring actual incidents or the like, and feels like itself could be part of a larger target by avoiding the excessive coverage of the per-country reactions. --M asem  (t) 12:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * it wasn't just any comment, it was derogatory remarks about Muhammad and those generate enough controversy to merit their own articles. Consider: 2006 Islamist demonstration outside the Embassy of Denmark in London (non-violent protest against cartoons of Muhammad), Super Best Friends (a TV episode about Muhammad that doesn't seem to have elicited any violence), 2006 Idomeneo controversy (an opera that was cancelled because it depicted Muhammad). Also, the Regensburg lecture, while it did elicit violent reactions, was notable for its international reactions alone. By contrast, there's already been both diplomatic and violent reactions to the 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. As for lasting significant, reliable sources that cover this topic are portraying this event as significant in terms of India's relations with Muslim countries, and BJP's relation with India's 200 million Muslims.VR talk 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that the protests have gone beyond just reactionary, and I would agree this is now in Merge territory (and/or resolve with the comments article, there's no need to have separate articles on these two equivalent events). Just that it was possibly created too soon before a real impact was found. I think most of the examples you give include more than just political reactions or represent atypical comments (eg the Regensburg lecture is rare to have the Vatican involved in a politically charged event), but in general, when comments are made in the course of a known political hotspot, that's not itself a notable event to require an article about. --M asem (t) 16:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RAPID. It is getting significant coverage right now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that makes any difference. This event is no more recent than the others described in the main article. What is the point of creating a separate page devoid of all the context, and focusing on arrests and "investigations" and such? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete NOTNEWS. CFORK of 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please let us know what policy statement of WP:NOTNEWS does the existence of this article violate? I might have missed it. NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Content fork very little different material that could be added to main page.--Iztwoz (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep A valid CFORK that was created after discussion at Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician). The incident is attracting significant coverage. LearnIndology (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing that's not already said on 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy. Ira Leviton (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ira Leviton and Iztwoz, this article is 5 times bigger than what has been said "2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy". You should be calling for deletion for 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy because it has basically nothing that hasn't been already said on Nupur Sharma (politician). 122.170.45.106 (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In which case it would be better to merge the two pages with Nupur Sharma. Iztwoz (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nupur Sharma (politician) is an un-elected politician. Spokesperson are not notable. Nupur Sharma bio clearly fails WP:NPOL. Nupur Sharma bio is a clear violation of WP:BLP1EVENT. Nupur Sharma should be merged to the notable Controversy Event article and not the other way round. Venkat TL (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nupur Sharma's notability has been asked and answered. Why do you persist with the same arguments? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Every politician gets election related coverage. Those are not counted for GNG. The bar for politicians is set higher at elected offices. See WP:NPOL she is neither an elected politician and known for 1 event. Fit for merge into the controversy event article. Venkat TL (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The article may have looked small when it was nominated for deletion but it is big now and should not be deleted as media coverage is rampant and investigations and arrests are continuing. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: It now serves a useful purpose - keeping material on this specific series of events from cluttering the main article. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: The aricle is covered by multiple sources WP:N. Wide range of coverage WP:SIGCOV. Ghodbunder (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is significantly different to the controversy one. Keep per WP:CHANCE. This can be revisited once the dust has settled. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Once WP:NOTNEWS violations are removed, this will be entirely similar to the section from which it was forked. Hemantha (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting and thanks for your vote. Do you mind pointing out what policy statement of WP:NOTNEWS does the existence of this article violate? Thank you! NebulaOblongata (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant with many casualties and obvious importance. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Its got more than significant media coverage by national and international news media since a few weeks now. 2406:B400:D5:5490:5F1:DBE8:D092:B378 (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is an un-necessary content fork of 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note for what it is worth, a similar violence page on Ranchi where 2 people were shot dead has been merged after talk page discussion.Venkat TL (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: For at least a month or two, to see if there is ongoing (NOTNEWS) comment. If not, redirect to Kanpur, and if not worth mentioning, consider it a pseudo deletion by redirection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion. Appears to be a standard type of current-events article that has long been accepted on Wikipedia, and does not correspond to any of the prohibited types of coverage at WP:NOTNEWS. Merging or reconfiguring this content may be appropriate, but that can be done in the fullness of time through the collaborative editing process, away from the toxic zero-sum atmosphere of AFD. -- Visviva (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2022 (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.