Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious violence in Odisha


 * 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. Tone 08:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Religious violence in Odisha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOPAGE as India has 28 states and Odisha is the only state that has article about "Religious violence in..."

While the article documented some of the notable incidents involving Kandhamal region, almost all of them have their own articles now: 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, 2008 Kandhamal violence, 2008 Kandhamal nun gang rape case, Graham Staines and Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda. That is why there is no need to continue having this article. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I don’t really understand this deletion rationale. There are certainly other articles that could be written about other Indian states, and the fact that they haven’t been written yet doesn’t mean we can’t have this one. If many of the individual incidents already have articles that just shows their notability and to me argues in favour of having an article discussing them all together, with a context such as the initiatives of the state government and state policy courts to deal with the issue. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree in full with the comment above. I think describing the article as a simple summary page for these individual incidents is a stretch. Also the nominatio themself even admits that the article covers almost all incidents. Lastly, after all of this, it is still acceptable within notability guidelines to have an article which describes an incident covered in more detail in other articles.ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not, per WP:NOPAGE. The article was created 13 years ago, and now all of the subjects of this articles have their own articles. Now when enough details have been already covered elsewhere then we don't need to preserve any other article covering exactly same details. Going by your logic, we will need to create a Religious violence in Eastern India, but WP:NOPAGE discourages this. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundant since there is no article about any other states. One can create the article about the incident if it is notable but having a directory for each state would only encourage POVFORK and increase unnecessary workload. Capitals00 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a fairly encyclopedic topic and clearly meets WP:GNG. — Sago tree spirit  (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It fails WP:GNG. I note your !vote came less than a minute after you !voted elsewhere. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how someone's submission patterns are a constructive part of this discussion. If an editor has a concern about unusual behavior they should bring it up in the appropriate mediums.ClaudeDavid (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is not a good article, in that it jumps straight from a medieval Catholic missionary to 1947 and then to the 2000s. The need for another 25+ sibling articles is no reason for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree in full, the existence of sibling articles is not merit enough for deletion, especially when, in the nominator's own words, there are other topics in this article that do not have articles of their own.ClaudeDavid (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I edited this article long ago, but now I don't see any sense in preserving it when same content can be maintained elsewhere. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A couple of points for the delete !votes: please remember WP:NTEMP, WP:ALLORNOTHING and AfD is not clean up. Some RSs all of which discuss religious (sectarian) violence in Orissa/Odisha as a state, in broader context.


 * Passes GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You are finding sources for Odisha and 2008 Kandhamal violence. Both of which already exists. Now see WP:NOPAGE: when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't believe you have actually read (rather than looked) at the sources – all contain descriptions of religious violence over extended periods of time in Orissa. The quote from NOPAGE is cherry-picking; the point of NOPAGE is the emphasis on the need for case-by-case analysis. The examples listed at NOPAGE relate to single incident events (eg a US presidential campaign). Events of religious/communal violence have taken place in earlier post-Independence periods in Orissa: Rourkela 1964, Bhadrak 1989. The effects of events have long term consequences and indicate historical legacies: Revisiting Kandhamal 10 years after the violence against Christians. Finally, Anjana Chatterji has a book length study on the subject which deals with the specific events and the wider issue at state level. Specific incidents need stand alone articles, as does an overall summary which places that violence in context. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable.  The article isn’t just a list of individual incidents.  Mccapra (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The presence or absence of articles about religious violence in other states is utterly irrelevant. There are a substantial number of sources discussing this topic, as demonstrated above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. Duplicate articles, or the articles providing similar information already covered in the main articles, should be avoided. Since we don't seem to have created an article for any other state, it doesn't make sense to give special status to this particular state. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep until the nominator answers whether or not members of his religion have been implicated in religious violence in the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete for multiple reasons. 1. Redundant since there is no article about any other states. One can create the article about the incident if it is notable but having a directory for each state would only encourage POVFORK and increase unnecessary workload. 2. Same content exists in multiple places e.g. each incidence has own article as well some of those are also replicated in other places such as "Persecution of hindus/Christians", "Violence against xyx", etc, etc. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that there aren't articles such as Religious violence in Maharashtra doesn't make this any less notable. As I see it, this article is a perfect example of WP:SUMMARY style. This topic summarizes the background, and the various periods of violence, and then links to the other articles for more in-depth coverage. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to the strong reasons given by Goldsztajn and ClaudeDavid. This is a notable topic and as shown here and in the article the topic as a whole is also covered in several reliable sources. The individual incidents have their article as they are notable in their own right, the existence of individual events article does not make this topic any less notable. On the contrary, existence of several individual articles actually proves that such an article is both notable and necessary. I fail to see how this is a POVFORK. Some of the delete comments are quite amusing and it appears as if they are attempts on WP:CENSORSHIP. If there is a lack of similar articles for other states then they should be created. Cedix (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and serves as a useful overview of the topic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the deletion nomination implies WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article subject is definitely notable, verifiable and a relevant article topic. Could be moved to 'Communal violence in Odisha', the conflicts aren't necessarily 'religious' in a spiritual sense. --Soman (talk) 20:25, 26 April 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.