Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worli riots

Worli riots

Worli riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A POV article, made by a promotional disruptive sock,[1] and defended by a sock of same sockfarm.[2] Article lacks notability and the "riots" have no notability. Only passing mentions that can be covered in Worli. Such incidents are common and they don't deserve their own article. Capitals00 (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 09:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete "a grinding stone was thrown"... um ok. Perhaps if someone could find who it was that got killed, it could be merged. otherwise I concur with the nom. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Worli or Delete I would support a merge wholly, except, as AGuyIntoBooks points out, the information in this article as it stands is unfortunately too vague. I would therefore be in agreement with either merging or deletion. MartinJones (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The riots continued until April, were the subject of court inquiry, notable at the time in press reports and much discussed in books dealing with Dalit politics, among other topics. I added a couple references to the article. I can't comment as to sockpuppet issues, otherwise this would be a keep !vote, outright. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Many such riots take place and "were the subject of court inquiry", but since there has been lack of discussion and lack of any important details or notability, they don't deserve an article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

See, e.g., Anupama Rao (2009). The Caste Question: Dalits and the Politics of Modern India. University of California Press. pp. 199–203. ISBN 9780520257610. which contains a five page section entitled "The 1974 Riots" for an example of such discussion demonstrating notability: "Riots in the Worli area of central Bombay, which began in the Bombay Development Department (BDD) chawls (tenements) on January 5, 1974 are an important landmark in Dalit politics." 24.151.10.165 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Already read and don't see anything more than what had been already provided by the promotional sock to prove notability. WP:EVENTCRITERIA says "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This one fails the criteria. Capitals00 (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Being written about in length as "an important landmark" in a book published by a respected university press thirty-three years after the events took place is almost literally the textbook definition of "lasting, historical significance". 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)