Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worli riots

Worli riots

(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)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changed to keep. Another good ref: R N Sharma; C A K Yesudian (January 1983). "Group Violence in a Neighbourhood - A Case Study of Worli BDD Chawls in Bombay". Indian Journal of Social Work. 43 (4): 420–421. Retrieved 2017-09-22.. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very minimal amount of information and lack of research or dedicated studies confirms these are random. May get a one liner on Worli whenever that article is expanded, but nothing more than that. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The fact that the riots were serious enough to require a judicial enquiry and then have been the subject of an academic article suggests notability, but I do not really know. India has a long history of inter-communal violence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRIOT and WP:NDISTURBANCE. :) L3X1 (distænt write) 01:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources added by the IP indicate that the subject has lasting significance, as it is still being covered in depth years later. I'm not seeing any argument as to why these sources do not demonstrate notability. Hut 8.5 20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has been demonstrated above that this has been covered in very reliable secondary sources. We seem, at Wikipedia, to get tied up in knots about things like "lasting coverage" because we follow the completely idiosyncratic definition of secondary sources to include news reports, which everyone outside Wikipedia treats rightly as primary sources. If we were stop doing this then we could treat events the same way as any other topics, i.e. that they should be covered in genuine secondary sources, as this one is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LASTING ,"a grinding stone was thrown" is not a significant incident in India and as per WP:NOTNEWS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming that it is the throwing of a grinding stone that is notable, but the riots that followed. How are the sources provided above by 24.151.10.165 not evidence of lasting coverage in non-news reliable sources? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I would question your addition of the {{notavote}} template, which prejudices the discussion. Do you have any evidence of canvassing? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes as one of the thousands of incidents· that take place everywhere. Fails WP:LASTING. Lorstaking (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was getting extensive coverage in academic sources decades later, how is that not lasting coverage? Hut 8.5 09:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of political violence happens everyday, in every district of world's second most populated country, with hundreds of small, big, medium political parties. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I agree the editors who voted to delete for the reasons they gave. I especially agree with the last two recommendations to delete which point out the great multitude of violent incidents and that the article fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.Knox490 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]