Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against Muslims 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 keep. Based on the size of the articles, a merge to Religious violence in India is not feasible. The consensus is that the topic is notable, and that any POV issues should be handled through editing or discussion on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Violence against Muslims in India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Most of the references use the term communal violence and there is article for Religious violence in India .This POV clear Original research and Also, the article is based on a POV of some writers who have who call communal violence between Hindus and Muslims as  as "Violence against Muslims in India".But here, the word is not a common word for these incidences and term is the neutral term communal violence .Note this article was deleted earlier here Batikerupt (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC) — Batikerupt (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect this term to religious violence in India.No need to duplicate the coverage of the existing articles with yet another one picking out just one victim group, and the existing article is so problematic in terms of POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style that it's not really worth trying to turn it into something useful. This is original research.All the contents are already present in Persecution of Muslims, Religious violence in India and a few more articles and does not contain any content that is not covered in other articles.122.171.75.98 (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC) — 122.171.75.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Obviously through the WP: MEAT to achieve political intent.--O1lI0 (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no substantive evidence in this vote. What are the issues with "POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style"? And what is the evidence that these are pervasive enough that the page must be deleted, rather than cleaned up? Vanamonde (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

122.172.215.246 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep — Nominator proposes a merge to an already linked, and very long article which covers religious violence since the 8th Century. The three or four paragraphs there are probably due weight in that context but this topic is objectively large and receives independent coverage by reliable sources. Its relationship with the more general article is appropriate.--Carwil (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In India where I belong the term Communal Violence or Communal riots specfially  Violence against Muslims not is used  to describe riots between Hindus and Muslims that is what 90% of the references used in the article that is a neutral term with violence started by both Hindus and Muslims on different occasions since 1947.The term Violence against Muslims in India is POV and claims that all violence is by Hindus and not backed references.122.171.75.98 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Without hesitation on my part, I will call this out for what it is: a sorry attempt at meatpuppetry to push some sort of agenda. Are the reliable book sources not satisfactory; how about the several massacres and acts of violence? Hopefully, this is speedily closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - This is not a policy-based nomination. Google Books gives more than 5,000 hits for "anti-muslim violence India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Google books gives more than 236000 hits for the term communal riots and that how is mainstream Indian media describes Hindu Muslim riots  as Communal riots and this article was deleted earlier Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Muslim_pogroms_in_India.
 * The term Hindu muslim violence 11,90,000 results google hits .The term Violence against Muslims in India is POV is not widely used compared to the term Communal riots or even Hindu Muslim Violence.122.172.215.246 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - By the nominating statement, Anti-Christian violence in India should be deleted because Religious violence in India exists and creating specific sub-articles is pushing a POV and is OR. However, as one might note; Religious violence in India and Religious violence in India both start by linking to a main article that deals with those subject in greater detail. So, much more likely, these two articles exist because the parent article is already at 146k bytes and doesn't need to be burdened with another 90k bytes from the two child articles. Communal violence in India just redirects to the article on religious violence, so there's that to take into account as well (Amendment notice; Communal riots in India doesn't exist [time of amendment]: 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)). Thus, I conclude, that the article's existence is not in itself a result of POV, but, a solution to a problem. Whether or not there is POV within the article is not relevant to deletion and should be handled at the article. On the assertion of WP:OR: there are currently 89 citations in the nominated article, most of those are citations to scholarly works. Thus, I conclude, that the existence of the article is not in itself a result of original research, but, of the availability of sources. As previous, any OR within the article is not a reason to delete and should be addressed at the article. That leaves us with the actual deletion question; is the topic notable? At the very least, the prevalence of scholarly sources demonstrates notability via the general notability guidelines particularly that there is; significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At best you could argue to rename the articles to "Communal violence riots against X in India", but, the term "communal violence riots" might not be accessible (or common) to English speakers in all countries. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the 89 scholarly citations use the terms Communal riots .122.172.215.246 (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, then at best rename to "Communal riots against X in India". Both Communal violence and communal riots are referred to up above and communal violence is specified in the deletion nomination. The point stands that it might not be as accessible to English speakers in all countries which is, presumably, why Communal riots redirects to Religious violence. Your choice of terms isn't going to impact on the notability of the article itself. Renaming is not a valid reason to delete. A rename should be discussed at the article's talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, don't rename it. Kautilya, myself, and others have provided evidence that this topic has received substantial treatment in reliable sources, not merely as generic religious violence, but as targeted violence. Thus both the deletion and the rename would be inappropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as the article explains, the violence is branded as "riots" in India, but in reality it is targeted violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep That the article's title is an accepted term in literature is a given, and by this point, I don't think any fair editor who's read the discussion would think otherwise. What I would further posit is this:
 * 1) Individuals claiming that "violence against Muslims in India" is POV because there's also violence against Hindus is not only a good example of Whataboutism, but also itself indicative of bias and POV-pushing on the part of the nominators.
 * 2) Meatpuppetry, at the minimum, seems rather obvious here. Based on WP:DUCK, a case for a post-AfD SPI could be made if the attempts at ballot stuffing continue.
 * This is an open-and-shut case; Wikipedia is not censored, and there's sufficient evidence for maintenance of the article with its current name. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. Sending this to AfD is silly, to say the least. "Religious violence in India" is a topic that has received substantial scholarly attention. Within this larger topic, violence targeted at Muslims has also received a lot of attention in reliable sources. Kautilya has provided some evidence above: here is more evidence, from a very specific search . The topic cannot be covered solely within the "Religious violence" article; and it is notable in its own right, making this a pointless AfD. If the reality of targeted religious violence is unpalatable to some people, that is entirely their issue, and not Wikipedia's. Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow keep Really don't think this pointless nom. is worth dwelling on. I'm more surprised that this agenda-driven 'AfD' was left this long.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, if not Merged — The creator/author of this article, ″Darkness Shines″, is not naïve. The person probably knows very well what he (or she!) is up to.
 * 1) A quick review reveals this author is associated with pages like Anti-Muslim violence in India & Muslim pogroms in India (which sounds similar to the title of this page!) Earlier instances of deletion of articles throws light on the BIAS which describes ″this particular situation″ and is strictly not a judgment about that person's opinions or integrity!
 * 2) WP:COAT The article appears to be a coatrack article which run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy - in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. HENCE VIOLATES TWO OF THE FIVE PILLARS - WP:COI & WP:NPOV
 * 3) Fact-picking is evident. WP:CHERRY-PICKING
 * 4) Clear case of WP:CONTENTFORKING. If any new information is worth retaining then it should be merged to the article RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN INDIA.
 * 5) The tone of this article lacks a balanced approach and information presented appears lopsided.
 * P.S.: An editor who is completely novice in this topic may see things myopically. Best if this sensitive issue could be discussed among those who belong to the particular geographical area under consideration or those who have knowledge in this regard.
 * Following are the four useful references which may help to arrive at a conclusion: 1, 2, 3 and 4 —  Anand2202 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Further elaborating on my proposal, I would like to point out some (interesting?) observations. The second paragraph out rightly names a political party - Bharatiya Janata Party, which was founded in 1980 - portraying it as the ONE of the main reasons. However, the statistics in the first paragraph shows the incidences well before BJP came to existence. Interestingly, the last sentence under the section Manifestations refer to May 2014. When I googled (location set to India) the keyword ″May 2014″, the result was this. Cherrypicking & violation of NPOV reported by other editors in references mentioned above makes sense in this situation too! — Anand2202 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot is missing to meet the standards of an encyclopaedia. Aren't phrases like ″thought to lie″ & repetitions of ″scholars believe″ used in the beginning of this article vague in nature?—Anand2202 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My rationality calls for the deletion of this article. What I felt for this nomination is corroborated by other editors at AfD proposal for other articles which were SIMILAR to this one. India is a diverse country with a population of 1.3 Billion. There's no denial in the fact that communal tensions disturb the secular ethos of the nation. However, unbalanced information in the articles serves no good. Will be waiting for the result of this deletion proposal. — Anand2202 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only concrete criticisms you mention here are things which can be fixed by simple article cleanup (dates, party involvement, etc.). However, the more serious allegations of cherry-picking, COI, and POV-pushing are unsubstantiated. Simply mentioning the accusation doesn't actually constitute evidence, and to date, every claim on this AfD regarding alleged POV-pushing in the article has included POV pushing against Muslims in India. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable issue with reliable sources.-- Seyyed(t-c) 19:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing misleading in the title and the contents are appropriately sourced. Yes, some work needs to be done (to remove the tags in the article), but that does not mean this article needs to be deleted. Also it seems that some bias is introduced by the nominator and the IP (which I assume to be a sockpuppet) in the comments. RRD (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2017 (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.