Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass cremations in India


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass cremations in India

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no notability shown for this long-closed case by neutral third-party reliable sources. All the sources for the article are from partisan groups and websites, and primary sources. While groups such as Amnesty International and others are notable, the article shows no coverage by third-party sources to assert notability. If any are found, article needs to be rewritten, re-titled based on those sources, or merged into another article. Priyanath talk 03:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Priyanath talk 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep There seems to be something there, but at least the article needs to be retitled. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Improve Sources The online Tribune and Ensaaf links give secondary sourcing, although I'll agree not strong ones. As long as the article keeps a grip on it's interpretation of the primary sources, this passes by WP:OR issues of relying on primary sources. To be honest, there are so many AfDs for articles that never even bother to reference primary sources that this kind of issue is refreshing. I agree with the above editor's suggestion of a retitle. -Markeer 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ensaaf is not a reliable source for creating an article, and arguably shouldn't even be allowed. The Tribune is only printing a public notice/legal copy of the case and would be a primary source in that sense. I'm not opposed to a merge or a drastic reduction to secondary sources + rename. Any suggestions for reliable sources and the rename? Priyanath talk 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is titled mass cremations in India but only talks about Punjab; a clear case of POV pushing. The only statistics come from one single organization and no other source to back it up. Not to mention that the major ref is actually a "brochure" by a social organization involved rather than an academic ref. Tow refs are court cases agian hosted on the same organizations website. Neutrality of the references is questionable. --Deepak D'Souza 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it ends up being kept, any reliably sourced material should be merged into Human rights in Punjab, India, and this title redirected there. Priyanath talk 20:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed per UncleG's comment below. Priyanath talk


 * Delete and Merge per Priyanath. The scope is not consistent with the title and the content sourcing is too narrow and makes it POV. Hekerui (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge per Priyanath . The title should not be a redirect as it isn't a direct connection to the subject. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Updating per Uncle G below. Any well sourced content can be added to Human rights in Punjab, India by whoever is interested. The article as it stands today is almost entirely POV sourced and has an incorrect title. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge sourced material to Human rights in Punjab, India pablo hablo. 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) edited for clarity  pablo hablo. 19:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge into Human rights in Punjab, India. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no such outcome as delete and merge. The two actions are incompatible.  If you want the content kept, in any form (including merged into another article), then our copyright licences require that edit history be retained.  Conversely, if you want the content deleted, you don't get to have it retained in another article.  Having your cake or eating it: I advise all four of the above editors to pick one. Uncle G (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2009 (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.