Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth: Gujarat 2002 – Tehelka report

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth: Gujarat 2002 – Tehelka report

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

This is some kind of sensational report, Wikipedia is not a collection of such reports. This report had no far reaching consequence unlike the watergate reports and this report has been discredited as it had multiple inaccuracies. There is no reason why this article should be present on Wikipedia sarvajna (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The report was notable enough to be covered by a wide range of domestic and international media, including AP, Reuters, AFP, BBC, Hindustan Times, Independent, NDTV, CNN-IBN, PTI, etc. See a roundup of media coverage about this report. I've made substantial improvements to the article, including describing the content, adding more references, and adding many more cites for notability. --Anirvan (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is covered by the media need not be included on wikipedia, I don't think that sajaforum is even a RS. What happened after the sting operation? Nothing. -sarvajna (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the last few paras here you will know that this was somekind of sensational report that was produced by Tehelka, I do not see why it can be considered as notable. -sarvajna (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The report was criticized and proved to be inaccurate. Apart from factual inaccuracies the report also mixed it with a Bollywood film. (& that was hilarious one.) Plus, we already have the sensationalization of the report and its fakeness covered in various articles like 2002 Gujarat violence, Naroda Patiya massacre, Gulbarg Society massacre and a bit at Narendra Modi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already many articles dealing with the subject . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Please sign your comments and also bold your opinion. The AfD Vote counter counts only bolded votes.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:LFaraone you deleted the page but relisted it? Ansh666 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I decided the AfD could use some more participation, but had not yet undeleted the article. L Faraone 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Ansh666 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had deleted the article at 15:11, 20 May 2013 and also closed the debate at 15:11, 20 May 2013 but undid that all. Could you please give your rationale for doing that? Are you counting votes? You feel the discussion is still inadequate? Or was it maybe because one of the Keep voters wrote a personal note to you at 00:37, 21 May 2013 after which you reopened the AFD at 01:00, 21 May 2013? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators are allowed to modify their determination as to the result of the debate; this is allowed per the steps one takes pre-deletion review. There wasn't enough policy-based discussion to justify closure; saying the report was "inaccurate" does not have any real bearing on its notability. We have articles on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, despite them mostly being entirely bollocks. Similarly, "many articles dealing with the subject" would imply maybe a merge, but there's a not a good reason to only have one of September 11 attacks and 9/11 Commission Report. I'm not commenting on the notability of this specific article, as I have not investigated it personally beyond reviewing the discussions here. L Faraone 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are the king. You can do anything. But you still haven't answered my question. Did you reopen the AFD and undeleted the article after receiving the personal note from one of the keep voters? And am sure you went through the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in your induction period. Or should i debate that NACA Report No. 761 were NACA Report No. 133 were deleted when you point us to other theories that exists on Wikipedia? And if many article are already dealing with it, what will you merge? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a trivially answered question; I'm curious why you seem to be WP:POINTy here, as the answer isn't relevant. As stated previously, if you look at the discussion prior to the relist, none of the readers made justifications for deletion other than "it's wrong" (not relevant) and "it's talked about elsewhere" (does not disqualify a discussion of this particular topic). L Faraone 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to the editor who posted a personal message to the admin after deletion : 1) Please read WP:GNG again because it also says significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion If everything that would be covered by reliable sources would become Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia would become a mess 2) You should know what a genocide is before starting to use that word loosely 3) The courts said that this was not even suitable to be considered as evidence. Can you please tell me now why this report is notable ? -sarvajna (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was a significant media event that has been noted in fora in India and beyond. SAJA discusses it here. Amy Goodman discusses it here. New York Times covered it here. The creation, legal standing, ethics and politics of the Tehelka tapes are all notable (and are hotly debated still), and deserve place in the article. Chaipau (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal standing? The investigation teams did not consider the tapes as an evidence, these tapes have no legal standing, are all notable (and are hotly debated still) Can you please provide me with any source which shows that these tapes are still talked about? -sarvajna (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About SAJAforum: "SAJAforum is a blog from SAJA, the South Asian Journalists Association.We cover new desi (South Asian) stuff daily. Since the blog launched during the 2006 SAJA Convention & Job Fair, we have had 1,000+ postings on dozens of topics - from the serious to the silly, and 3,300+ comments from our readers." I dont know if they categories this under their serious or silly post. And people discuss Aishwarya Rai's Karva Chauth also. We don't make articles on any and everything. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to substantial coverage in domestic and international news media, the report has been referenced both in the Indian Parliament and US Congress, and also mentioned in at least 20 books (Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India, The Making of India: A Political History, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia, India Since Independence, Attacks on the Press in 2007, Tehelka As Metaphor, Breaking the big story: great moments in Indian journalism, South Asian Media Cultures: Audiences, Representations, Contexts, Narratives of Gendered Dissent in South Asian Cinemas, South Asian Cinema, First Draft, Religion, Caste, and Politics in India, Defend the Defenders, Resisting Attacks on Human Rights Activists in India, My Hindu Faith and Periscope, Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India, The Rough Guide to India, Field notes on democracy: listening to grasshoppers, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia, Violent gods: Hindu nationalism in India's present, Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media). One can agree or disagree with the contents or journalistic ethics of the report, but I fail to understand how someone could reasonably claim that it's not notable. -Anirvan (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many of these publications have mentioned the report after it was found unreliable? And what is the nature of mention? We are also already mentioning it in related articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "found unreliable," but the following books referencing the subject of the article were published in 2012 or 2013, suggesting that it remains a topic of continuing interest half a decade after release: Indian Cinema by Alka Kurian, Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India by Parvis Ghassem-fachandi, Defend the Defenders, Resisting Attacks on Human Rights Activists in India edited by Harsh Dobhal, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia by Dilip Hiro, My Hindu Faith and Periscope, Volume 1 by Satish C. Bhatnagar. - Anirvan (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anirvan. Aurorion (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new additions have brought the article to the point that satisfies WP:Heymann in notability and in quality! Crtew (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did hesitate about the title. Perhaps that is why some would see this as a "sensational report" (to be fair). I don't know if this would help, but often articles have (newspaper) or (magazine) in the title. Perhaps the (report) or (article) could follow this naming convention. Or it may be that I'm just skeptical about anything called "The Truth" and there is really no problem at all!Crtew (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially per WP:HEY. Good deal of secondary source coverage is demonstrated sufficiently. — Cirt (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the praise they got for this story, see Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media p521 onwards for more details. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and merge to 2002 Gujarat Violence, per Dharmadhyaksha. It is the prime example of scandal-mongering which wikipedia tends to avoid. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The whole thing and it's validity is pivoted upon the claims of one man Ashish Khetan (who performed the sting operation). Sensationalist claim does get shared between news sources, and is often printed in hundreds of papers but that doesn't make them true, does it? Tehelka is a downright partisan source, if this gets its separate articles then I have dozens of articles in store. Some critics even argued that the inaccuracies of the claims detract from its validity as evidence(^{[1],[2], [3]}). The Supreme Court Special Investigation Team eventually did not admit the Tehelka recordings as evidence because of dubious and inaccurate claims.(source: Jaffrelot, Christophe (25 February 2012). "Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims? The Supreme Court, the SIT, the Police and the State Judiciary". Economic & Political Weekly. xlvii (8): 77–89.) Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's comment above addresses criticism that journalists/journalism receives from people who don't like the facts or the focus on the content, which is standard for controversial investigative reports like this. However, the editor also shows per WP:GNG that the work of journalism received WP:SIGCOV. The citation above is, in fact, already included in the article.Crtew (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now as to the content of the article you cite and the point you're trying to make with this article. Your characterization of the article is false. The author, in fact, criticizes the SIT for being "dysfunctional" and one of the reasons is that it dismissed evidence like that offered by the journalists. Why are you trying to use this source to discredit this work of journalism when the SOURCE is not saying this. That's an inappropriate use of a citation.Crtew (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crtew, I hope our discord here won't reflect on the amicable relation we share.
A minor observation: this report didn't get SIGCOV per se, the allegation got the coverage. Kindly see WP:109PAPERS and WP:NOTNEWS. Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This article is essentially about a first-hand report with dubious validity. Come on, Crtew. There are literally thousands of well-noted reports presenting theories that are drastically different from accepted reality of a situation, but that doesn't mean we should start developing stand-alone articles on those reports themselves?
We ought to be using these reports as "reliable sources" for supporting the claims about the subject (in this case 2002 Gujarat Violence) in the article where the subject is discussed. That really is all I can say. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While for you the topic of this report is 2002 Gujarat Violence, for me and others it is also notable in the topic Investigative journalism in India. The coverage of investigative journalism is stronger for the US and UK but India is underserved in Wikipedia on this area. Our different focus is probably also why we also disagree about the issue of WP:SIGCOV. Yes, reports can be used as a reliable source (about this we all agree) and the same report can be examined as journalism, like a novel or a movie. Still I see no reason why our difference in focus would lead you to mischaracterize what the source above said about the report. Crtew (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (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.