Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Calcutta Quran Petition


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Calcutta Quran Petition

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability per WP:N. Cs32en  Talk to me  12:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that it does not enjoy coverage in reliable sources. Cited sources which appear at first to be reliable are not - Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society, at first glance a scholarly book, is actually published by a publishing house owned by the author of this book, and so is not independent, while newspaper + date is not a citation and I can't find the coverage referred to. This source discusses the petition a little bit, but one source is not sufficient. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Qualified Keep. Most of the sources cited in the article are simply references to the book itself (and are not usable as independent secondary sources to establish notability).  However, some of the cited sources appear to be references to newspaper stories — and if the book itself is not notable on its own, the events surrounding the book may well be notable per WP:EVENT.  It would help greatly to track down the newspaper reports and get more details from them in order to tell how notable the events have been in Indian society, but I would favour keeping the article pending such work.  If the consensus goes the other way and this article is going to be deleted — and perhaps even if the article is kept — I would recommend that at least a summary of the events should be merged as appropriate into Criticism of the Qur'an, Freedom of religion in India, Freedom of religion in Bangladesh, and possibly also Freedom of religion in Pakistan.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We may actually need to have article on the event itself. However, an article on the event that is based on a single book, with the account of the book presented in a way that cannot assure WP:NPOV due to insufficient sources, would be highly problematic. Cs32en   Talk to me  22:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly notable in the press of the time. Citing off-line newspapers is not illegal in Wikipedia last time I checked. The article does not give undue weight to the contents of the book compared to the controversy surrounding it, although the lead could be improved. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the offline nature of the newspaper citations that's a problem; it's that without even an article title, much less an author etc., there is basically no way of confirming that the coverage was actually there. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That stuff is not online anyway, so if you're willing to go check microfilm archives of those newspapers (likely at an Indian library), the extra inconvenience by the lack of article titles is likely to be small. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's other secondary (though not necessarily unbiased--this is from the opposite POV) coverage though. Also, GB indicates more coverage  "Crisis in the Calcutta High Court No sooner did the hue and cry surrounding the admission of a writ petition calling for a ban on the Koran subside, than the Calcutta High Court bounced back into the headlines once again with yet ..."  "RELIGION WEST BENGAL CALCUTTA thrives on political and ideological controversy, but last month religion in the Marxist state had the administration in a panic when the high court admitted a writ petition seeking a 'ban' on the Koran and ..."  "On March 29, they moved a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, ... The petition which was admitted stated that the Quran fuelled communal animosity by describing followers of all other ..."  "An Attempt to Ban the Qur'an In early 1985, a writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court seeking to ban the Qur'an. The petitioners, whose identity was not widely known, argued that since the Qur'an describes the followers of ..."  "In 1985 a writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court requesting foi prescribing Koran on the grounds that it hurts sentiments of another community. The writ was dismissed on the grounds that religious books of community cannot ..." FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Normally a self-published book would not be considered notable. However, one which generates commentary from high government officials in at least two countries, and inspires rioting in which people are killed, must certainly be considered notable. I think we need to assume good faith about the offline references. I wish at least something could be found at Google News, but considering the time frame of the events it's not totally surprising that nothing can be found. At the very least, the information should be merged to co-author Sita Ram Goel rather than deleted. (striking the suggestion for a merge; my !vote is "keep", see below.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are plenty of snippets (see my post above) from the press of the time, and even commentary several years after in various Indian publications archived in Google Books. If you consider that GB gets most of these from US universities (the above are from the University of Michigan, Northwestern University, or University of Virginia, not from some Indian university), it's not unreasonable at all to assume much wider coverage exists. Also, interested parties can consult these at any US academic library via ILL. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not giving credit to your Google Books references cited above. Still more evidence that the article should be kept, with sourcing such as this added. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I see someone said "That stuff is not online anyway, so if you're willing to go check microfilm archives of those newspapers (likely at an Indian library), the extra  inconvenience by the lack of article titles is likely to be small. "  Actually, it's the other way round: the more inaccessible the material, the more important it is to have it summarized here. Not just the title is necessary, but a suitable quote from the item giving the key information is highly advisable. It's not literally required in most cases, but the point of a wikipedia article is to provide sourced information.  DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was replying to the lack of newspaper article titles for newspapers that are not available in digital/on-line format. Last time I used a microfilm archive, you couldn't really "search by title" but knowing the date and name of the newspaper was sufficient. Perhaps things have changed with digital archives, but it hadn't made to my back of the woods, by 2008. Anyway, I don't see any project to do that with Indian newspapers, and Google News Archive stopped scanning anything. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (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.