Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Meghwal rape case


 * 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. Opinions are divided about whether this is a notable or a (sadly) routine crime, and as there are valid arguments on both sides, i can't determine that by fiat.  Sandstein  08:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Delta Meghwal rape case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject is not notable. Media coverage of subject begins April 2016 and ends June 2016. Article should be deleted and redirected to "Crime in India". Jrheller1 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment September 2016: . Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a September article in The Hindu, "Cong seeks Governor's intervention in Dalit girl’s case." It demonstrates major, national, in-depth coverage of this case continued into at least September.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the media coverage has been massive, hence the topic passes WP:GNG hands down. Note that this article should be renamed "Murder of Delta Meghwal". Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep fully meets GNG. It is comparable (probably better sourced than say) Prathibha Srikanth Murthy. It may require some minor copy-editing to make it less "newsy" (I can do that).Inlinetext (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - coverage in scholarly article in Understanding sexual violence as a form of caste violence, 2016,Prachi Patil (Journal of Social Inclusion) Inlinetext (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not "scholarly" where anyone can make an account, login and post whatever they want to. Person still remains non-notable. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Incorrect. The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that will contribute to current knowledge and understanding of the social processes that marginalise individuals, families and communities. The journal will be published bi-annually under the guidance of an International Editorial Advisory Board. The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) is an initiative of the School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University (Australia).. The author is at an eminent Indian University. Inlinetext (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That description is copied from their website though and it proves nothing. For determining reliability of journals we look at whether it has been indexed by major publishers (who only index is after determining if the journal satisfies certain standards, such as being selective). Unfortunately this one isn't included, so I am unable to trust this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and 'Redirect to Crime in India - WP:NOTNEWS, there are literally no sources after months and remains largely non-notable. It was a low-profile case that has received zero amount of coverage after months of its occurrence. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Indian legal system is notoriously slow and, inevitably press coverage declines when there is nothing happening. I suspect it will pick up again when there is some movement in the courts. Admittedly, that could be two, three or more years off. Rape is a high profile issue in India, especially since Modi came to power (coincidence, not correlation!) and as such it does tend to garner a slew of short-term interest that, usually, doesn't seem to have a long term significance. Also, if we are to allow this article to be kept then we're basically going to have to allow hundreds of articles about the other rapes that have occurred in, say, the last three years. That could indeed be a NOTNEWS issue. So, I'm on the fence about this. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 15 Februaruy 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, if it is redirect then Rape in India might be more appropriate than Crime in India. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

KEEP PLEASE. SIGNIFICANT SUSTAINED PRESS COVERAGE IN NATIONAL MEDIA. VERY SHOCKED TO SEE COMMENTS DALIT INDIAN FEMALE RAPE OR MURDER VICTIMS ARE EXCLUDED IN WIKIPEDIA BY SLOW JUSTICE SYSTEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.57.250.74 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC) — 101.57.250.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This is the IP's only edit. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  03:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * keep Here is a gNews search filtered by date; it shows coverage continuing through the end of 2016. contravening Nom's understanding that coverage ceased in June 2016.  I draw editors attention to Category:Rape in India, which shows a number of recent, high-profile cases; a consequence, presumably, of the growing focus on this issue in India.  I suspect that a capable editor could demonstrate notability by expanding the article with WP:RS, which also could involve Hindi sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note, however, that Crime in India will not work for a redirect, nor will Rape in India; both are long article about the topic that do not include lists of individual crimes.  It is, I think, easy for editors to forget that India, with multiple languages, cultures, and a pop. of 1,400,000 (compared to Europe with 750,000) is far too large to admit of simply redirecting all notable crimes to such pages.  What   Wikipedia should have is a List of rapes in India that would include verifiable notable rape incidents, both those that  are bluelinked  and that are not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? If the crime was notable it would not be redirected. As for lists, as one editor who never forgets the Indian situation, the less we have of them in connection with India, the better. They are an absolute nightmare to maintain, and especially if redlinks are introduced. Don't get too hung up on WP:SYSTEMIC, please: we've got enough clueless do-gooders circling India articles without adding more to the list. - Sitush (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And your so-called proof that coverage continued until Dec 2016 is very dodgy: there appear to be three items there, two of which are "review of the year" things, basically rehashing what was already said etc. I'm still not saying keep, delete or redirect etc but let's not introduce poor arguments. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR CASTE AND WHERE YOU PUT UP? ARE YOU NOT READING SAWARNA BRAHMIN LADY WARDEN GOT DELTABEN RAPE AND MURDER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.61.86.4 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC) — 101.61.86.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This is the IP's only edit. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  03:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Everyday there are are hundreds of cases which gets massive coverage. It can be recreated in the future if there is continued coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man  16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep NOTNEWS is for excluding routine news reporting and breaking news. This is a well documented BLP with firm multiple sources spanning months and media forms and covered in a published paper by a JNUniversity scholar. The policy for notability is CRIME/VICTIM. Victim was earlier known as a national award winning child painter. The article is notable to highlight that the Police in the BJP Hindutva majority state removed Meghwal's corpse in a garbage tractor because she was a Dalit.Vedicant (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC) — Vedicant (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Not a standard rape case - it has become a significant political issue and received coverage for that. AusLondonder (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete — WP:NOTNEWS applies. Though meets WP:GNG, lacks enduring notability to meet WP:EVENT. Hundreds of such cases happen everyday and most of them do not warrant articles. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of cases involving the elements of significant political controversy and class discrimination do not happen every day. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Covered for only some days though, this remains random. Capitals00 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- WP:NOTNEWS. Event received attention only for some days and today no one talks about it. Largely random. Capitals00 (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The assertion that coverage was minor, local and brief is demonstrably false. Note that in-depth coverage of this case in major national dailies continued for months; here, for example, is  Hindustan Times 14 June 2016 "Dalits demand CBI probe in Delta Meghwal rape case " . That coverage  continued  in  The Economic Times, Times of India here:  and here: `Dalit women's voices muffled behind veils', .  That use of this case by Dalit rights activists continues as here: in the HuffPost January 20167  and here:  in a 17 January 2017 article focused on  the  Rohith Vemula case.  And That it was included in a number of year-end roundup articles on the major news events of the year in major papers, example:"Year-Ender 2016":   "The rape and murder of a Dalit girl hailing from Barmer who was studying in Bikaner also led to much..."   The Indian Express.  I see no valid arguments against keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Economic Times article and both Times of India articles E. M. Gregory cites above only mention the case in passing (exactly one sentence in each article refer to the case). The references to the case in both HuffPost articles are also very brief.  These very brief references don't increase the notability of the subject.  It also seems to me that focusing excessive attention on this one incident is unfair to the many other victims of rape.  Jrheller1 (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see unfairness in the fact that a rape, rape/murder, or identity-related rape in a country with a lively free press like India or Italy will generate enough coverage to support a Wikipedia page, whereas in countries where a far greater problem the lack of media coverage means that it goes unreported. It is unfair that Category:Rape by country makes it look as though rape ts a far larger problem in India or Sweden than it is, say, in Syria or Sudan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant specifically rape in India. There are probably more than a hundred thousand rapes every year in India.  I don't think it's fair to say that the alleged rape of Meghwal (it is still only alleged) is more important than these other hundreds of thousands of crimes by giving the alleged Meghwal rape its own article in Wikipedia. Jrheller1 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say, rather, that these major publications using the case as an example in articles months after this rape/murder took place at the very thing that marks this particular rape/murcer as notable, in addition, of course, to in-depth coverage that ran long after the event, including articles like the "Cong seeks Governor's intervention in Dalit girl’s case." in The Hindu.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The coverage in the Economic Times article, both Times of India articles, and both HuffPost articles is exactly what WP:GNG calls "trivial coverage": "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." The only non-trivial coverage of the case after June seems to be that September 3 article in The Hindu noted by Biwom (and E. M. Gregory).  Jrheller1 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article in Economic Times is about a political candidate, it reads :''"He has travelled over two lakh kilometres in the state since he took over as the state president of the party and covered every district mobilising the party cadre and also taking up every issue that needed to be highlighted. From the incident involving the alleged rape and murder of a 17-yearold Dalit girl, Delta Meghwal, to how the state government failed to regularise Madrasa para teachers, Pilot has been trying to highlight several issues of the electorate’s concern. 'These issues must be taken up and we will continue to raise all issues relevant to the people of Rajasthan.... '  he added.[

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55123285.cms].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Times of India article is about a yatra "In Rajasthan, this yatra began at Trimohi village of Baran district, from near the home of Delta Meghwal, the 17 year-old girl whose body was recovered in March this year from a water tank in the teacher training institute she was studying at in Bikaner. A teacher had allegedly raped and killed her. 'Even the girl's father, who is himself a teacher, has said that he will now restrict his three other daughters from further education so they do not meet this fate. That is how scared the Dalit communities have become,' Anju said." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The other ToI article is about a political contest in Rajastan to unseat the governing party, among the accusations it flings is that: "'Rajasthan ranks third among states with highest number of rapes, second in terms of atrocities against SCs and first in terms of atrocities against STs. It ranks sixth in terms of murders and eighth for dowry and kidnapping cases. The state home minister is helpless and probably toothless too,' he said. 'The handling of Delta Meghwal rape and murder case by the government is a reflection of its insensitive and careless working.'".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the 3 are trivial coverage.  They are the sort of evidence of notability that WP:GNG refers to when it states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.".E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Moreover, these are not the only sources that cover the article long after the initial news cycle, including the article form Hindustan Times in June and February 2017 article below related to a film festival.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here: is the Economic and Political Weekly 28 January 2017 political scientist Arvind Kumar accuses a fellow scholar of "purposeful sampling" for failing to mention this case in a discussion of  "atrocities" committed against Dalits.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The political agitation around case has been significant, here:  for example, is a news story about a protest by workers objecting to a the dedication of a film festival to "'Demanding justice for Rohith Vemula and Delta Meghwal'.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how much you know about Indian society and politics. Leaving aside that I've never heard of the Catchnews website, which is odd for someone who spends so much time editing Indic stuff, protests for or against X and Y and Z are daily occurrences throughout the country, including in relation to the movie industry. You will see instances of rabble-rousing, gathering of upset crowds etc in the media every day. It is practically a national pastime. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to closing editor. There was some pretty tense edit-warring on this article (including editors who have weighed in above,) before User:Jrheller1 had the good sense to bring it to AFD.  The article deals with some fraught issues, including women's rights, caste tensions, and Muslim-Hindu tensions.  It is hard to avoid suspecting that some opinions expressed on this page boil down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and its converse.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * More sources, 5 September 2015 2 versions of article (newspapers do this publish and early draft online, then a final draft) in Times of India "Rajasthan beats Bihar in Dalit atrocity" and later version "Downwardly mobile! Rajasthan No. 2 in atrocities on Dalits"  More than a mention of this case.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This 16 April 2016 article gives some sense of how political (and retro) the political conversation around this case was "Dalit minor's rape, murder: Govt questioning girl's character to dilute case, alleges Congress" .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. I have thought long and hard about this. The only reason it is attracting any greater significance than any of the many (tens of ) thousands of other rapes in India is because the alleged victim comes from the Dalit community and that community is particularly active in attempting to promote its agenda both here on Wikipedia and in the Real World. It is awful that such things (rapes) occur but to maintain an article that is based almost entirely on a politicised agenda is to give it undue significance. At best, redirect it, pending some truly notable divergence from, alas, the commonplace. This is fundamentally NOTNEWS, being driven by a core of self-interested people (eg: the anons above) and what I can only describe as "do-gooders", even though I do understand that they mean well. Indian society is a massively complex thing to people who are unfamiliar with it and it is very easy to make something into more than it is. It is also very easy to misread so-called reliable sources: aside from The Hindu, the media sources in that country are mostly plagiarists, clickbait, sensationalists when it comes to stories such as this. And that includes the once-respected The Times of India. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck mine - back on the fence, sorry. It's the political aspect that makes it potentially significant, even though that is also the cause of all the problems. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What a cynical view, the entire English press in India is unreliable and sensationalist for running stories such as this, ignoring that intellectuals in India complained about the inadequate coverage to this case in mainstream media exemplifying news reporting from India's villages where the news coverage dies faster than the victim. The reality is there is a BJP government in the state and which party maintains a 'troll army' for online reputation management. Is it coincidence that an objecter above had earlier cleaned the article with a malafide redirect to "Maratha Empire" ? Is it coincidence that this objecter some time later only pinged 2 specific editors who had earlier also made redirects diff when I began referencing this article and who extensively edits cooperatively with another objecter here ? This problem is not that there is too many Dalits (the poorest and down=trodden of India) at Wikipedia (as editors or in articles), but that there are too few. Is it a coincidince that a 4th objector here had earlier helpfully advised diff this conflicted objector that he  was the subject of an WP:SPI. Is it coincidence that 3 objectors here have all been previously blocked for socking in similar nationalist causes #, #, #.  In conclusion, The New Indian Express lists this among the 7 important crimes which evoked outrage in 2016 diff.Inlinetext (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's funny we got a new user here who barely got active in January this year, already been subject to lengthy WP:ANI, already calling people a sock after linking to a spurious SPI, and falsely alleging them to be canvassed. Stop your disruption already with senseless badgering. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Senseless badgering" is right. Just look at how Inlinetext has been interacting with user Cffk. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am confused. says ignoring that intellectuals in India complained about the inadequate coverage to this case in mainstream media. If correct, doesn't that rather prove the point regarding lack of true notability? On the other hand, they're claiming it has been reported substantially. Something is wrong here and their pugnacious attitude does suggest yet another person pushing the Dalit activist agenda. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Sorry but yet another comment. The article has changed since this discussion opened. It seems to be very heavily based on a First Information Report. Anyone can file an FIR in India and the police are obliged to investigate, however improbable or lurid the claims may be. (I'm not commenting on the specific claims here, merely that FIRs per se are not terribly significant.) - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. You changed it to remove a citation which asked early on (on 7 April 2016) Why Has The Mainstream Media Blacked Out The Death Of Delta Meghwal?. It also contained the answer which is pertinent to reproduce exactly When this writer asked Mr. Jogesh as to why the media was blacking out the story, he said, “The college’s owner Easwar Chand Ved is of course very influential man. He has four colleges and allegedly has been linked to RSS too." In regard to the blackout, Mr. Jogesh points to another obvious yet worrying factor -- "this [blackout] is very common with dalits and we all know their share in media".. Only after reports like these, was it boosted in national media because the respect The Citizen's editorial board commands in media.Inlinetext (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My removal of that source is unrelated to my remark about the apparent discrepancy in your earlier statement here. I think the removal also post-dated my comment about your comment (!). Look, it is blindingly obvious that you are pushing a POV. It isn't going to end well unless you rein it in a little. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is my final comment on this topic. I believe that Mr/Ms. Sitush has twice removed that particulor citation because 'The Citizen' is an outstanding, independent and well respected feminist publication which exposes in considerable detail rapes of vulnerable Indian ladies. The Citizen of course also exposed Tarun Tejpal's rape, see The Hindu which of course has now been watered down in Wikipedia despite The Hindu naming it as the rape case, in which a young woman colleague at Tehelka alleged that Mr. Tejpal sexually assaulted her on two occasions inside a lift in Goa in November 2013, is one of the most discussed matters of its kind in recent memory. Inlinetext (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, as I have told you on more than one occasion, I removed it because it is relatively poor and we have umpteen other sources for the statement it was being used for, which is the opening sentence of the lead section. I even referred you to WP:OVERCITE. Please stop with the snide attacks. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? Who? Want to chance it at ANI? Put up or shut up. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please take this to ANI; I would be grateful to have some objective administrators look at this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The GNG has been met. As a side note, if people would take their messy arguing elsewhere then perhaps more editors would feel inclined to participate in this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG. – Matthew  - (talk) 10:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fits WP:NOTNEWS, as all but 3 of the 11 references are from a 2 week long span, and all of the refs are from media outlets. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  03:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have addressed your concern to add in a Journal article reference which discusses this case.Inlinetext (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin Sitush is repeatedly removing the well cited peer reviewed journal reference to distort this AfD.Inlinetext (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a decent reference about caste violence, but not about the case, which already is a good enough of a clause to remove it off the page. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  17:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looked at above conversation and it looks like that it may be unreliable...&mdash; JJ Be  rs  03:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: solid WP:RS and per .  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)  [revised 03:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)]
 * Even if it does have reliable sources, that doesn't mean it fits WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  03:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See responses from above.  I am not going to reargue this.  E.M. is doing a fine job. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking about and, please read WP:TPNO.&mdash; JJ  Be  rs  04:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you accusing me of? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this whole conversation has de-railed now.&mdash; JJ Be  rs  05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - per coverage, per WP:GNG. This is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG is the general nobility guidelines, not set in stone rules. Something may be able to fit WP:GNG, but still be deleted due to other concerns. Specifically, see WP:PRINCIPLE. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to lack of WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:LASTING and also due to WP:BLP concerns (Note that for events we tend to use WP:EVENTCRIT). The entire article is about allegations which seem to have not been proved. And yet names of multiple people have been mentioned. I do not see enough continued coverage (the examples in the AFD are trivial coverage and limited to 4 articles at max). It has also not been demonstrated what are the lasting effects. The assumption that there would be more coverage is WP:CRYSTAL. It should be noted that similar AfDs (See Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case) have not resulted in a keep. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't comment on the sourcing for the deleted Greater Noida 2016 rape case, which rape case is not mentioned anywhere in the redirect. These AfDs recommending redirects expose the double standards employed by certain Wikipedians when it comes to suppressing articles for victims from the Global South. Delta Meghwal's article is clearly distinguishable from the Greater Noida Rape. It is very well sourced for a murder in a remote India village which ten got prominent national politicians involved after respected journalists like Seema Mustafa took up her cause, it has persistent coverage with Delta's name now as potent a political symbol for Dalits as Jyoti Singh's (Nirbhaya) was for upper castes. If non-English sources are added the article's reflist will easily balloon to a hundred. It is convenient that you are confining yourself to the 4 sources in this AfD and ignoring those in the article, where incidentally the consequent scholarly journal source containing copious references to Delta is also being deleted and substituted by trivial contemporaneous newspaper quotes as part of a "white-wash" tradition for controversial Indian articles. Inlinetext (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Further Comment Its curious Rape in India contains a section on "notable incidents" whereas Rape in the United States does not. This strongly suggests either there no notable rapes in the United States or that prominent US rape victims are "entitled" to standalone articles? Redirects it appears are simply a convenient device to "sweep" India's notable rapes under the carpet? BTW, this is not only a rape case but has a murder case as well. The article should be renamed to Murder of Delta Meghwal.Inlinetext (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:WAX, WP:MASK, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:POPULARITY, and WP:INN. Just because one article exists on a major case in America, doesn't mean that a less important case in India can just exist because of that. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  17:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * More alphabet soup to white-out female victims from the Global South from Wikipedia. Did I mention that surveys (eg. see 'The Lancet') say that 8.5% of all Indian women between the ages of 15-49 have been 'sexually assaulted' (which in India is a euphemism for rape) whereas you say that there exists one article in Wikipedia on a major rape in America (see Murder of Holly Bobo). Inlinetext (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't contribute to the AFD at all. I striked it out, because all it does is rant about Sexual violence in India, not discuss or talk about the article or it's subject at all. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Unstricken. See this for explanation + note on JJbers' talk page. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't even remove parts of my own comment...dang. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. However, in this case there are multiple issues.
 * First, the article is . The content about the suspects is a BLP violation and it should be removed immediately.
 * Second, the . There was a brief spike in the news, but nothing much after that. I searched on my own and I wasn't able to find anything after the news spike, other than the few mentions.
 * The journal coverage you are talking about is seems to be a . That makes me hesitate to use it as a source. There are many of these open access journals around the world where just about anyone can publish anything and these are equivalent to WP:SPS.
 * I have been concerned about the disparity in coverage between regions and I have often helped to delete non-notable crimes in the US as well. However, in this case, there are multiple issues (and for me BLP takes precedence over anything). I unfortunately cannot support keeping this at the moment. Should coverage emerge in the future, I welcome you to notify me and I would support undeletion at a deletion review. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * pointwise - I'm pleased we both acknowledge the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In which event the solution is to clean the BLP names of the alleged offenders. Since Sitush last edited there the present version with the BLP vios is effectively his. 'E.M Gregory' has established the media coverage is as extensive and persistent as can be expected. Obviously you cannot extrapolate US media standards to Indian contexts. "Australian Research Council Classification : The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) meets the definitions of research and peer-review required to claim articles under the C1 composite category (Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal).".These are no longer mere allegations, because a magistrate took cognisance of the matter under India's Code of Criminal Procedure and the alleged offenders were tracked down and arrested on magesterial reference. Inlinetext (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Cutting off the previous discussion, can someone close this...I believe it's getting to the point that not much has been suggested in a few days, and all we have had is just simple arguments at this point. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment ^I do not believe you can unilaterally cut off discussion. If a closer sees a consensus and thinks it is time to close, then so be it.  If not, editors are welcome to continue to comment.  --David Tornheim (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that although some editors argue (and appear to believe) that a crime must be proven to have occurred before it can be kept as an article here, we in fact have many articles about alleged crimes (see for example: Duke lacrosse case, Columbia University rape controversy) and even articles about the protest of individual alleged crimes (Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)), and an article about an article about a false allegation of rape A Rape on Campus.  Notability is determined by the degree of government, media, academic and other verifiable source attention an alleged crime received.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your example isn't relevant because every single example was proven (wrong) in a court of law. And there was continuous coverage, which unfortunately has not been demonstrated here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that is true, and outside of a disputed ref, the sources come from the news in a select time-span. While the news is reliable most times, it can be wrong on many things. If a article just relies on mostly newspapers released around the time of the crime, basically media sensationalizing around this case, with possibly incorrect facts about the case. Sorry if this derailed slightly off the topic of the article/AFD. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  01:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (Striked unrelated stuff)
 * Your explanation is packed with weaselly qualifiers. The last version of the article as written up by Sitush is now not as you describe.Inlinetext (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style applies to articles, not discussions. Also, the purpose of the tag is because nothing much is cited outside of a few refs in a 15 day time span. Also please discuss it at the talk page next time you revert it. Thanks! &mdash; JJ  Be  rs  03:48, 3 March 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.