Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabalsagar incident


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Prabalsagar incident

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a person who is not notable as per Notability (people) scope and all the mention of him are related to one event of stabbing which made news and hence fall within scope of WP:1E and therefore should be speedily deleted. Half of the article is on news of his stabbing and reactions over the country. one section mentions about a monk who initiated him, etc. There is no mention of the person (Prabalsagar)'s personal contributions to Jainism or society as a whole or any other achievements that may suffice him to have an article on Wikipedia. However, after speedy deletion was declined, the creator has changed the article name to Prabalsagar incident from Prabalsagar, even then I am not satisfied and nominate this article for AfD debate. Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: There has been a lot of related newspaper reports. I have seen them in English, Hindi and Gujarati language newspapers.Malaiya (talk)
 * Keep. This article is about an incident involving a particular individual, there is no original research in this article, there are no dubious/contentious claims, the article is well referenced and there are plenty of sources. Also, as per WP:1E, since the individual is notable for a particular incident and is only associated with that incident in the source coverage, this article was adequately renamed Prabalsagar incident.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment : Even after 48 hours of renaming the article from Prbalsagar to Prabalsagar incident, the article remains in form of Biography only. Also incident of any attack, especially on a leader of any religious sect are always condemnable and as such the press coverage. But it is for Wikipaedia community to decide that did the event cause any noteworthy change to the ground reality to make the event notable so as to have an article in itself. For example the Steve Bartman incident caused one club to lose a major baseball championship. Please see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT for what I want to emphasis. The keep votes of article creator and a major contributor have not understood the wiki guidelines of creating an article that is what I feel. -  Jethwarp (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought the initial concern was that the article looked as if it was not about the person, but about the incident, that's why I changed the name. Now it looks like a biography? I've made further changes, let me know what you think. Isn't this the kind of stuff you discuss on talk pages. I'm not sure what's your idea of noteworthy change, half the article is about stuff that happened after the incident.


 * The Keep vote, besides the one from me, is from an editor who has not touched the concerned article, I'm not sure how you concluded that the voter is a major contributor. I thought we assumed good faith around here, the Keep vote is from editors who haven't understood guidelines? Not cool.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * delete neither the individual or the "incident" is notable. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. this is just a standard tragic violent event that happens all the time. no indication of wide spread impact that would lift it beyond local bloody headline of the day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 27.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  05:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I think as has been commented above this particular incident is the subject of news coverage only and as such is not suitable for an article on its own within the terms of the notability guidelines (WP:NOTNEWS) - there are some comments that the incident has arisen as the result of a long-term dispute or conflict, in which case it may be there could or should be an article to which this could be merged - the notability of that article would of course need to be established. nonsense  ferret  02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) - ammended as i forgot to vote  nonsense  ferret  02:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment (WP:NOTNEWS) is not applicable here. Try and understand why this policy exists. This policy exists to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a first hand news haven or from becoming a blog about the happenings in the life of a celebrity. And this article is not the primary source of information for the said events and is definitely not a celebrity blog. Check out my earlier comments above for WP:1E and the subsequent changes and how that policy is more applicable here.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - this is highly applicable here. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" - and this enduring notability cannot readily be established from contemporaneous news coverage - encyclopedias take the long view, and we have to establish whether this single event really carried with it the level of significance to be notable in itself. I find that it does not and this event was not notable in of itself, its significance is only that it was a small part of a wider conflict/tension. There are a great many events that happen, many of them are newsworthy and are written about endlessly in the newspapers whom have a unquenchable appetite for things to write about.  Few newsworthy events turn out to have a level of significance that renders them encyclopedic on their own merits.  nonsense  ferret  01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither the person nor the event is notable enough to be covered/mentioned in any encyclopedia.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is very subjective. Wikipedia strives to be less focussed on the majority/American happenings and tries to be inclusive. For example, most of Wikipedia's featured articles are of absolutely no interest to a lot of people. Had there been no sources, it would've been a different story. But there are sources.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2013 (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.