Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape of Rawalpindi


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rape of Rawalpindi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

One-liner stub about a non-notable neologism/term. Not enough academic sources to verify notability.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep. while a cursory google search does turn up other references,  it doesn't seem to me that usage is sufficient for this to be a standalone article. --regentspark (comment) 14:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on a request from DarknessShines, I've moved the article to Partition riots in Rawalpindi. I assume that the broader title will naturally lead to broader content, so I'm withdrawing my delete !vote. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is no longer a one liner stub and nominator seems to be have mistaken as the article is clearly WP:NOTNEO because WP:NOTNEO states that To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. . We cannot dismiss a notable historical subject from 1947 such as this article as neologism when we not only have several books discussing about the topic but even have a book exclusively on this subject with the same title
 * --Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  15:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, but possibly move. This one is weird. The topic being discussed is unquestionably notable. The name, however, may be a neologism invented as the title of a book by one academic or small group of academics. Personally, I'm over my head trying to figure it out. Can we get a neutral expert to tell us if there's another more common name for this historical event(s)? If this is the common name, keep it; if not, move to the common name. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the material could be a part of an article on Partition riots in Rawalpindi or The Partition of India and Rawalpindi. The way it is currently structured, the article describes one series of events in that city during the events leading up to the partition of India, and the title it has picked appears to be the one chosen by an Indian government commission (which, given the time of the report, is likely to be biased). The events themselves are likely to be true (though they were not confined to the city but spanned several towns, villages, and districts in the part of the Punjab around the city). The lack of context leads me to believe that the entire article is a pov push of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether we like the title of topic in its current form or not, this is exactly what the topic has been known in the historical books due to widespread rape and communal killings and hence the current title is in accordance with wp:COMMONNAME. Lack of context in a stub article does not mean deletion, this historical topic (in my opinion) is promising and can be elaborated.--Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The historical books" is a bit of a stretch don't you think. Like I say above, assuming you've read it, the material would fit nicely in a larger article but is insufficient for a standalone article. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Actually, that's what I'm wondering. Is this the only title it's been known by? If not, is it the most commonly used one? If so, then by all means keep it. If not, I still think the material should be kept and expanded upon; I'm just wondering whether the title needs to be changed. Partition riots in Rawalpindi might be good if reliable sources use that term more often. I don't know that they do, but buzzword titles like "rape of [place]" always set my sensationalism alarms off, whether they should be or not. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest something along the lines of Partition riots in Rawalpindi. Looking at the google results of Rape of Rawalpindi, the usage is fairly limited (470 hits - the top two of which are now wikipedia). The actual term is from a pamphlet (the book in question) which, oddly enough, is listed on Amazon as published in 1946 when the events are described as having taken place in 1947. Most references to the term appear to refer back to that pamphlet. Events during India's partition are definitely undercovered on Wikipedia, so an article that describes the transition in Rawalpindi (or Delhi or Lahore or Bengal for that matter) would be a useful addition. But partisan views of single uncontextualized events are not something we should be supporting. --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The term "Rape of Rawalpindi" does seem to be a term used to represent all the happenings around Rawalpindi. Amongst all other sources mentioned, this book uses it as a term. Also, these reviews 1 and 2 of a book The Punjab seems to use it as a term in quotations. I am hence also assuming that the book The Punjab must also be using it in the same manner. (Cant find softcopy) . It does seem like a common name, not just of a booklet published by that name or of events happening in actual Rawalpindi or of events happening on a particular day. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)That it is used is fairly clear and not under dispute. However, it is not much used if google can be relied upon and, when it is used, its usage is partisan. Neutral terms are preferred. Plus, it refers solely to the events of February 1947. Riots in Rawalpindi (and other parts of undivided India) continued till much later including, sporadically, after the actual partition itself (the rough idea was to get any remaining Sikhs out of Rawalpindi as quickly as possible, just as similar riots in Delhi were aimed at getting Muslims out of Delhi as quickly as possible). A broad article on partition riots in Rawalpindi (and even more on Lahore) would be a welcome addition. A narrow article that is based around a partisan pamphlet published in the immediate aftermath of partition by a government of India body would not be a welcome addition to Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 20:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In that case, keep and expand. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep retitled and expanded version, per above. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been expanded and cleaned to the point that the nominator's statement (while accurate enough when made) is no longer applicable.  Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge The article is promoting a POV it better be merged to the article Direct Action Day in the "Aftermath" section. Focusing on the riots of Western Punjab & Sindh and atrocities on Hindus and Sikhs only, while Direct Action Day was followed by riots all over British India, is biased POV. -- S M S  Talk 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been expanded with adequate sources. Merge is not an option, as the subject of the article is notable as a stand-alone event itself. It may be an aftermath of Direct Action Day, and that should be mentioned in the article Direct Action Day. --Dwaipayan (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Concerns raised by the nominator seems to be addressed now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with the new title Partition riots in Rawalpindi. That title is far less emotive.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient RS. It has been expanded and should be kept. -- ɑηsuмaη  ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ  13:22, 3 June 2012 (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.