Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Nadia riots (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 without prejudice to subsequent creation of a redirect. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Nadia riots

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2015 Nadia riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The case of selective silence and its steep costs".
  2. ^ "RSS hits Mamata Banerjee, says Trinamool promoting 'jihadi activities' in West Bengal".
  3. ^ "A rong too many: Mamata is turning Bengali into medium of destruction".
  • Your first line does not make sense since articles are routinely deleted in 2nd or 3rd nominations but I understand that you are a new editor. Coming to your sources:
    Your first source is a op-ed from a media-outlet, that routinely copies our content.
    Your second source (Financial Express) does not support that the riot was "discussed" in 2017 among politicians: it notes a resolution from a right-nationalist party to the effect that three were killed in the Nadia’s Juranpur itself. [Doesn't this contradict your claim that five people died? This is far from SIGCOV, anyways.]
    Your third source is again an op-ed over a news-portal that has been deemed to be unreliable by the community.
    You cannot derive notability from op-eds over little-known publications. There is no evidence of any kind that the subject has any kind of lasting significance exceeding a news-cycle, of which the OneIndia article was a part.
    About 5 years ago, an administrator wrote that the community appears to dislike Oneindia as a reference.
    The Hindu is widely accepted to be the most trusted newspaper for India, by community consensus. Their only coverage of the riots was on the day it happened and spanned three paragraphs. This is a textbook application of NOTNEWS. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oneindia article is written by a journalist named Vicky Nanjappa. He has a verified twitter account @vickynanjappa. The article is written by him by visiting the place and doesn't look like copied from other websites. --Yelena Vasilisa Marya (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that answer any of my queries or those, raised by V93, Tayi, and AryKun? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sustained coverage over at least two years but sources that seem reliable (well, are not listed as unreliable). Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hughesdarren See my reply to YVM. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is near no coverage in reliable sources let alone one that is significant, sustained or lasting. The Hindu has an initial news report on it with no follow up and no other mainstream newspaper either regional or national has covered it to the point that we have a verifiability issue. Note that the Financial Express article, which is not about the clash and only gives a passing mention to it, doesn't even confirm whether it occurred or not when it states that "... [a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh resolution] also claims that the six men were killed by jihadis in the period of 2014-17 out of which three were killed in the Nadia’s Juranpur ..." Wikipedia articles are not written based on whatever junk one can find on the internet and it's not possible to list all unreliable sources that exist. Take for instance, DailyO which is a user-generated site, where one can submit an article and have it posed or NewsX (i.e ITV Network) which is a fringey source seeped in conspiratorial claims that has engaged in deliberate fabrications on multiple occasions (see [1], [2], [3]). OneIndia is at best a prolific content farm. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've very undecided about this. The piece in The Hindu is substantive, and I would expect that where one such piece was written, others would be, too. On the face of it, a riot with four deaths isn't trivial. I'm struggling to find any other sources that are reliable, however. Even this, in The Wire, only links to the Hindu piece; it provides no additional coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A three paragraph report is "substantive"?
    The article on bn.wiki says, নিম্নবর্ণের হিন্দু ও মুসলমানের সাথে সংঘটিত হওয়ার জন্য দাঙ্গাটিকে কোন সংবাদ মাধ্যম ও রাজনৈতিক নেতা বিশেষ গুরুত্ব প্রদান করে নাই। [Unsourced] which machine-translates to No media or political leader paid much attention to the riots as they took place against lower caste Hindus and Muslims. It might or might not be true.
    A search in GNews/Google for "নদিয়া" + "দাঙ্গা" + "২০১৫" throws no relevant result. This is the frontpage of Anandabazar Patrika—a Bengali language newspaper, mentioned by Wikipedia to have a circulation of 1 million copies as of December 2019—on the day after the riot; if Google Translate is not wrong, there is nothing on the riots. Nothing in Sangbad Pratidin, mentioned as a competitor of Anandabazar Patrika. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a three-paragraph report is substantive. It's the sort of coverage I would expect to see on a topic that's notable enough for a perma stub but nothing else. The trouble is the absence of other coverage, as you document, which makes me wonder a little at the accuracy of the Hindu article; but that's a separate issue. A single article isn't enough for GNG, so I guess I'm a weak delete at this point. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A riot that killed 4 people is decidedly not usual, but no coverage beyond The Hindu article (the other sources are just passing mentions that also say allegedly). AryKun (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen The tolerance of Wikipedia users for non notable article has changed. Please provide valid policy or sources to claim notability. Not WP:ITSNOTABLE Venkat TL (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether there are reliable sources. That they are not in the article is not dispositive under WP:GNG and WP:Before. Even as we speak, sources are being removed from added to this article. Many of them were previously deleted. The lack of non-English speaking editors is a systemic problem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sagacity. Unless I had come across you, I won't have known that the larger question at an AfD is about whether there are reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13, what do you mean, Even as we speak, sources are being removed? The article's only been edited once—which didn't even touch on sourcing—since this nomination was filed nearly three weeks ago. SN54129 15:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added and restored sources. Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It exists. Sources in the article are clear. Rewriting history to erase this is not something to be fostered. 16:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7&6=thirteen (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITEXISTS :) SN54129 16:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TrangaBellam saying he didn't find Bengali links through google searching the name with Bengali letters. Actually every Bengali printed articles, news, don't have online version. Indian Bengali, Odiya, Assamese have online version of all articles, unless their circulation is huge as Anandabazar Patrika. I once commented how notable Bengali movie chracater actors, who acted before 1990, don't have much online sources, even though they regularly appear in printed copies Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soumitra Bannerjee. Bengali magazines don't create online version of evrything. If you purchase Bengali newspapers from retail magazine stores or newspaper boys, you will find many news, articles, which will never appear online. 42.105.5.163 (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that these are relevant. But they had been linked earlier in this discussion. Somebody thought themm relevant. And my lack of local knowledge and perspective (don't have the cultural lay of the land) limits my understanding. A man has got to know his limitations. — Dirty Harry
Bare links are deceptive.
In any event, stripping the article of sources, and then nominating it for deletion, tends to make this a self fulfilling prophecy, IMO. But YMMV. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Competence is required. I as well Tayi have discussed the FE source. As we have, the DailyO source, which has been deemed as unreliable by the community. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you've posted several patently unreliable sources, listed several sources that are literally passing mentions, and reinstated copyright violations into the article? I'm willing to be persuaded here, but spamming references with no regard for quality or substance is counter-productive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I copy edited out whatever copyright violations there may have been. You have stated your position as to the reliability of the sources. The article and sources can stand or fall on their merits, including your arguments. You do realize that a lot of those articles discuss the incident, and they are WP:RS. E.g, Times of India Just suggesting. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this edit is the one you're referring to, it's not helping; we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia article, not an editorial? Also; the Times of India source is dead, and contributes nothing to the article (the link you've added is from 2003!); and is certainly not in the obviously reliable category, per WP:RSP. The IBTimes story is simply repackaging a story from the World Hindu News, the reliability of which is quite questionable. If you want to make a sober case for notability, I do not mind at all; I was undecided initially, and my !vote is still a weak delete. But there's a lack of due diligence here which is bothersome. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have forgotten WP:Linkrot. I presume the link was in place when it was originally cited. Links sometimes disappear; sometimes their content mutates. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it was, too, but absent evidence of its contents it does not contribute toward notability. Also, is there a reason you do not WP:INDENT your posts? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, The Times of India article is not a dead link which I do not know why you have marked as dead in Special:Diff/1067080844 but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article. It's from 2003 and quite clearly about a different incident, what you are doing here is called refbombing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not dead, and has not changed since it was originally cited, then it is not dead. It is true that the present link is not pertinent. But this link appeared to be about the area, and I assumed it had morphed. If not, then it should be deleted. Article improvement is our shared goal. You have misinterpreted what I was doing. Improve the article please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't changed, that's what it always was. It was originally cited for the line "Nadia has seen communal tensions in the past" as a superflous add on, which is OR in this case anyways. I've already tried to improve this article but there is a distinct lack of reliable sources for one to be able to do so. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These articles do not address the concern about WP:SUSTAINED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they do satisfy the canvassing aspect MrsSnoozyTurtleOnel5969 TT me 02:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reliable source and in fact listed as such at WP:IBTIMES and WP:ICTFSOURCES respectively. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oneindia.com is a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_183#Oneindia.com and gives this significant coverage. The Hindu is a reliable source and covers it at [4]. Dream Focus 04:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is hardly a robust discussion, is it? A handful editors went "seems reliable". There are multiple others similar sections where editors have questioned its reliability, for example here, here or here. It largely has not seen much of a centralised discussion. This is a website with no listed editorial policy, has 9 authors and advertises itself as one that "churns out around 1000 articles a day and has industry best engagement metrics", i.e a SEO spam site which would be a textbook example of a questionable source with no meaningful editorial oversight. Its parent website is blacklisted at present for similar issues. But if that doesn't convince you and you want to insist on it, we can take it to RSN.
As I have already stated, The Hindu is the only reliable source that has reported anything on this incident but that is clearly insufficient. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Comment: I belong from this district and I came to this page when going through Nadia related topics. I would say the term "riot" does not apply here and it was just a political agenda. Hindu-Muslims-Christians have been living here peacefully for a long time until a few so called nationalist party tried to create religious enmity here. The irony here is the reference no. 1 which is a piece written by Mr. Garga Chattaerjee when he was a BJP supporter and now he is a TMC supporter and runs his own organization "Bangla Pokkho" (Bengali First) yet another bengali nationalist organization that supports only Bengali people irrespective of religions. How this can be used as a reference here?
Sources: https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/05/05/violence-but-not-communal-bjp-pushes-misinformation-campaign-in-bengal, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/muslim-youth-lynched-in-west-bengal/article28235901.ece, https://www.thehindu.com/elections/west-bengal-assembly/csds-lokniti-survey-the-limits-to-polarisation-in-bengal/article34494009.ece, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/26/india-soul-at-stake-west-bengalis-vote-in-divisive-election-modi-bjp
Regards, Sadhan Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:219:62bd:8d65:5d6f:678e:de4f (talk) 2022-01-23T17:28:38 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Juranpur, Nadia per GreenC and DF since there isn't enough references about it to justify a stand alone article. Also, maybe don't refer to it as a riot per the last comment. From what I can tell the references refer to it as a "communal clash." Whatever that means. Really, I have zero clue what a "communal clash" is. Except that it's probably not a riot. Maybe a gang fight? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd point out one last thing that has gotten overlooked here in ARS's attempts to "save" an article which makes a merge and/or a redirect as an alternative to deletion, as problematic as keeping the article. There is a verifiability issue here.
The sources whether reliable or unreliable, contain details that contradict each other. Communal incidents are also not something that gets marginal coverage in India so this is far from normal. Of the two unambiguously reliable sources, one of them (The Hindu article) is within the 24 hour news cycle, solely sourced to an unnamed official and has no follow-up, the other one (The Financial Express article) gives it a very brief mention and frames the incident as a claim rather than as a fact. Digging a bit taking cue from the IP's comment above, there was a similar incident in a neighbouring district an year later which got coverage from dubious sources that miscontruted it as a communal riot, this was fact checked later (see [5]) but that didn't happen here so here we are where it isn't clear what if anything has happened here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Nadia_riots_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077107726"