Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian WhatsApp lynchings


 * 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. Numerically, opinion is split, with a slight trend towards deletion. But the "delete" arguments are, in my view, not strong enough to establish a rough consensus for deletion. Many "delete" opinions are cursory or difficult to understand. They reference GNG, but they do not address the argument made by the "keep" side that there are in fact several reliable sources covering this topic (not just the individual crimes); as such, their GNG argument falls short. The "delete" argument that this is a fork of Fake news in India appears more defensible to me, but whether something is a content fork or a legitimate spin-off subarticle of another article is a matter of editorial judgment and not something for me as closer to decide. Absent consensus about this argument, the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  07:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Indian WhatsApp lynchings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article claims that the "spate of lynchings commenced in May 2017". Now in these 3 years, there have about 123,000 murders in India and apparently 47 only 11 of them involved the use of this cross-platform messaging facility. The article also distracts from the subject in question and there are 23 instances of "fake" news, for which Fake news in India exists. Majority of the incidents are easily non-notable and fails WP:LISTN. Since Wikipedia is not a a news channel and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information, there is no reason to keep this article. Tessaracter (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic does not violate WP:NOT, the topic has significant coverage in India and world, viz. WP, The Atlantic, BBC, NYT, CNN, rather google search shows how significant the topic is and passes WP:LISTN. Does not violate WP:IINFO in any way, the whole argument seems to be moot. Drat8sub (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, for several reasons:
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to this article. This part of WP:NOT addresses a few problematic types of content: massive data dumps, unexplained piles of statistics, and excessive non-encyclopedic coverage of creative works. The common thread here is that the "indiscriminate data" is non-encyclopedic. This is clearly not the case here. The article, before presenting the list, clearly establishes the issue, its scope, and its context. Then, the list provides more details on individual incidents. This is not "indiscriminate" - the list provides useful details for those looking for more info about what tends to happen in the incidents and those looking for info about specific incidents. Furthermore, it is a useful supplement to the introductory prose - the prose explains the broader significance of the issue, and the list provides details to give the reader a better, more granular understanding of what these attacks tend to entail, as well as a better sense of the sheer scope of the issue. The prose is the forest; the list is the trees. They both complement each other. Furthermore, even if the list were non-encyclopedic, that alone would not justify deletion of the article. It is not a stand-alone list, and the rest of the article, while short, could stand on its own two feet perfectly fine.
 * WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article. That part of WP:NOT begins with this explanation: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. What NOTNEWS applies to is run-of-the-mill news coverage, as well as other related violations of Wikipedia principles such as original reporting, which violates WP:OR. That is not the case here - this article is a very well sourced encyclopedic treatment of a widespread and well-recognized sociocultural phenomenon. It is not written in news style; it is not a diary.
 * The nominator's mention of the total number of murders is a red herring and should be disregarded. An analogous example helps illustrate this. The US averages about 15,000 murders a year; generally about 20 of those are from school shootings. Should we delete all our extensive coverage of US school shootings? Of course not; that's an absurd suggestion. The issue of school shootings is a very well covered one.
 * The topic is extremely notable; that should not even be a question here - here are a few of many, many. many examples of international, independent coverage in reliable sources:, , , , . It's important to note that all of these articles, even if they use individual cases as examples to introduce the wider societal issue, focus on the issue as a whole, not just individual cases. Clearly, this pattern of WhatsApp lynchings is notable.
 * WP:LISTN does not apply here either; in fact, it makes the case for this article's inclusion. The guideline states that notability of lists [...] is based on the group. It further states that Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Since the overall topic is clearly notable, the criteria are met. Furthermore, because the list is not a stand-alone list, the guideline doesn't even apply to the article as a whole.
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit on size; there isn't some fixed number of printed volumes that everything needs to fit inside. Thus the nominator's concern about this article "distracting" from the Fake news in India article is not an issue. Furthermore, that article focuses on the wider topic of fake news in India as a whole, in the many diverse forms it takes. The WhatsApp killings are only briefly discussed, and this phenomenon is clearly notable enough to warrant a standalone article.


 * The article covers a highly notable topic, is thoroughly well sourced, has a well-defined scope for list inclusion, and is written in encyclopedic style, not news style. Hence the article must be kept. CJK09 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes this article includes massive data dumps, unexplained piles of statistics, thus it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
 * WP:NOTNEWS applies to the article because it largely depends on the information which has no lasting impact. I know there is some essential information here but it does not warrant a separate article.
 * The topic is notable or not, you need to see WP:NOPAGE. Yoonadue (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * CJK09, also see WP:ILIKEIT. Tessaracter (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Evening Standard, New York Times and Guardian articles clearly demonstrate notability of the subject, and the many local news sources referenced in the article give credence to the detailed information. I think the sources that CJK09 pointed to should be added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Fake news in India, per WP:NOPAGE. What I am seeing here is the media's interpretation of 2018 Karbi Anglong lynching as "Whatsapp lynching", which may have popularized this term, but overall the sources including those provided by CJK09 are mainly dealing with Fake news in India. I have done cleanup of the article, and removed the content which was unrelated to "WhatsApp" and now I am seeing that the article looks much smaller than what it did before. Yoonadue (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to delete after considering comments by Azuredivay and Rsrikanth05. Yoonadue (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as a more viable option per above. Currently, the article has been designed in order to put blame on WhatsApp even though there are a number of other means used for provoking killings. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was about to vote for delete since a stand alone article isn't warranted for barely 10 incidents where WhatsApp was used, but I am fine with the proposed merge. desmay (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fake News in India is far too broad a topic for this to be folded into it comfortably. There are enough sources to justify a standalone article, as CJK09 demonstrates above. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough content to dedicate a stand-alone article. If we were to only rely on amount of sources for proving notability then we can also create a Indian Instagram murders, Tiktok murders in India, and more unnecessary articles, but per WP:NOPAGE all of this is unnecessary. The Guardian itself deals with Fake news in India than particularly target WhatsApp over the incidents. Azuredivay (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Delete. The article is too small to warrant its own page. WP:NOTNEWS coverage involving very few incidents does not sanction an independent page. Neither there is a need to create article about every factor that played a role in some crime. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No longer convinced that the article requires merging because of issues raised below. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but with a better title. - Hatchens (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn’t confirm to WP:GNG. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. As the nominator pointed out, only a small fraction of the crimes are actually related to Whatsapp, thus broadly reducing the scope of this article. Fake news in India, Cow vigilante violence in India both exist and both take care of it. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is Not a Newspaper. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete is justifiable since the source deal with a broader subject already covered on other articles, but merge and redirect to Fake news in India could work as well. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Azuredivay. The article basically says lynching incidents have happened in India due to the spread of fake news on WhatsApp. We already have a Fake news in India for that. I should also add that the article title is ambiguous and even misleading. Don't shoot the messenger! M4DU7 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per CJK09 and Toughpigs. It only needs to be reframed. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 13:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2020 June 5
 * Delete per nom. There are too many problems with content, title, and notability. Zindagi713 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Title is problematic as well like others noted. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article may require some improvement in line with some of the comments above—-however the subject matter is extremely notable and worthy of its own article distinct from fake news in India.Adondai (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment A very substantial number of sources has already been provided above, demonstrating that this topic has received detailed treatment in reliable sources, and thus the "doesn't meet GNG" arguments are bunk. Additionally, though, there's at least two scholarly sources I've been able to find focussing specifically on WhatsApp; this article in the Economic and Political Weekly, and this one in South Asian Popular Culture. Furthermore, the NOTNEWS arguments are also not founded in policy; NOTNEWS is about the level of detail used when writing about current events, about the lasting notability of current events, and about avoiding routine coverage; this topic has received coverage in international newspapers in multiple countries over a 2 year period at least. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The many, many sources provided clearly show that this passed WP:GNG Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Title is grossly misleading and also per Azuredivay and Yoonadue. Even the new sources added here are more about Fake news in India, and Cow vigilante violence in India than any particular "whatsapp lynching". Dhawangupta (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I wonder how some editors have got the unique ingenuity to make up pages when we do not need any. This is due to fake news and must be considered under that. This article doesn't merit a place. This is misleading and motivated in a partisian manner. The fact that we are discussing this is itself comic. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, and as perWP:NOT, WP:NOTNEWS it should be deleted ASAP. Trojanishere (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. Article has many instances of unverified news as well as not enough articles to consist of a standalone page --Hari147 (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to meet WP:GNG as has already been demonstrated; there are numerous sources presented which expand upon the phenomenon of mob violence instigated through the Whatsapp messenger app. Most of the delete !votes here are WP:VAGUEWAVE with arguments that are not founded on policy. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree about POVFORK and has been already described on Fake news in India. I also agree that the concept is too unique for encyclopedia that it does not belong here. Siddsg (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per CJK09. Passes WP:GNG and a google search shows the topic is covered significantly by multiple reliable sources which is more than enough for a standalone article. - SUN EYE 1  15:27, 19 June 2020 (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.