Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Francis Doherty


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 18:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

William Francis Doherty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established. Claims made in article poorly sourced and dubious. Google search of subject here shows no reliable hits other than an extremist website. All so-called "reliable sources" cited previously have been debunked as fraudulent. The only verifiable source left in the article in it's current form does not establish significant notability. There has been no coverage of this alleged "murder" in any mainstream scholarly books, reports, or any of the vast literature and material available on Gandhi or the Indian independence movement. Per wikipedia policies, that makes this article junk. Meanstheatre (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Meanstheatre (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.  —Meanstheatre (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —Meanstheatre (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Appears like a mob lynching that actually happened. As racially targeted violence against whites by the Indian independence activists was relatively rare post-1857 mutiny, this is indeed a notable incident. But the entire "involvement of gandhi" section is sourced from the victim's widow alone without any other corroborating evidence. Both the "About Mother India" book and the "mask of divinity" book take what Annette Doherty has to say in their face value. But regular editing can take care of it.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A single highly dubious source cannot attest to the reality of this alleged incident. Bombay is a major commercial city in India, both now and back then. An incident like this would be reported extensively in the press at the time, and archived for future use. The archives of all major newspapers in Bombay at the time, both British owned and Indian owned, do not describe this incident at all. It is highly likely that there was never any such person as "William Francis Doherty" and this whole incident is an internet fabrication. The issues of WP:N,WP:BIO and WP:HOAX haven't been addresed yet.Meanstheatre (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever it is, i dont think it is an internet fabrication, "About mother india" was published in 1929. There is another mention in a 1932 book "Hoover and his times". Both are present in google books. Unless someone took the trouble to publish a hoax and put it in a library, where the gbooks project would find it to scan and upload, it can't be a hoax. (And where did you search for "archives of all major newspapers in Bombay at that time"?. There is almost none online before 2000 and any offline search couldnt have been that comprehensive)--Sodabottle (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the "mother India" source. It's largely an op/ed in a fossilized newspaper from a journalist who goes on a partisan rant about how great the British empire was and how evil Gandhi allegedly was. The writer offers no legal documentation in attestation of this alleged incident, no First information report, no nothing. Apparently the British were the super awesome master race in India but were too incompetent to document a crime of this magnitude. As for the "Hoover and his times" ref, it offers no citations nor any documentary evidence either and so, I suspect, is simply a copy of the "About mother india' hoax. Again, no independent verification, no primary sources, no third party testimonies, no inquest, no hearing, no follow-up, no nothing. The conspicuous absence of any reliable sources attesting to any of this strongly suggests either a)an internet fabrication of recent times, or, b)a poorly conceived and completely failed propaganda attempt by British conservatives to discredit Gandhi at the time. In any case, notability is still not established.Meanstheatre (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Per sources which indicate notability. also per meanstheatres reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I really wonder if you even read these AfDs. Recently you said keep per an admin who merely relisted the discussion, now you say keep per the person who nominated the article for deletion. Meanstheatre's last statement was " notability is still not established." Blind voting doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Borderline wikistalking doesnt work either. Its quite hollow argument when you then state BLUDGEON for others who discuss.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * myself and RGTraynor have expressed concern on your talk page already. are you trying to deflect from your very weak vote here. Please explain how it is possible to vote keep per someone who wants the article deleted? Feel free to reply, we know you love replying. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I has already stated trying to have a discussion with you, without getting attacks on a personal level is impossible. So I will be the better person here and stop responding to you forever. All I am stating is that you are a firm believer in the guideline BLUDGEON, when you yourself respond to every single person on every single Afd of yours that is of another stand then you trying to talk them into changing their opinion. Have a nice life.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

it is not bad faith to ask someone to explain their argument. I speak for all Wikipedians and ask again how is it possible to say keep per someone who wants the article deleted? I ask in good faith and not asking you to change your vote but merely explain what seems technically impossible. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT. no long standing coverage after the event and yes google news goes back before 1900 . LibStar (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the lynching is alleged to have been incited by Gandhi, the event is a particularly notable one. I would however be happier of there were more sources.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, it happened, . However, I reached the same conclusion that LibStar did-- this didn't go beyond the news into WP:EVENT-- .  In fact, the name didn't even come back into the news when Colonel Singh made his allegations in 2004.  For an American killed by hostile natives on foreign soil, there was surprisingly little reaction in the U.S. press.  If Wikipedia had existed in 1922, would this have been considered notable?  I don't think so.  Not notable then, not notable now.  Mandsford 22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the lynching is alleged to have been incited by Gandhi, it would make sense to merge some of it into Gandhi as a summary, as well as keeping this one as the WP:SS article. Wikid as&#169; 16:03, 14 January 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.