Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Hathazari Violence

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. Per the same closing rationale as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chirirbandar violence, since the debates are essentially identical. -Splash - tk 23:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Hathazari Violence

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}}.

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

Doesn't meet the criteria for Notability Zayeem ^(talk) 15:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 22. Snotbot t • c » 16:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The event is a gross violation of the religious rights of the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh. The destruction of Hindu temples is a strong case of religious persecution, similar to the 2012 Ramu violence. The event was widely by the Bangladeshi press and media. Considering factors such as Geographical scope, Depth of coverage and Diversity of sources, this article should not be deleted. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Nominator's vote): The human rights abuse was not much severe to have a significant impact on the community, hence, the article surely doesn't meet the WP:EFFECT or WP:GEOSCOPE. The article also fails to meet the criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE since only few local newspapers covered it and the electronic media totally refrained from covering it, besides, the incident was also not featured in books, feature length articles in major news magazines or in the TV news specialty shows. Zayeem ^(talk) 06:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The daily Star, new Age & Samakal covered this violent outburst thus proving the gravity of the incident.Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— Unknown.citizen12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Not convincing, as I said only few newspapers covered it and no interest was shown by the electronic media (TV channels), thus, it lacks WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Zayeem ^(talk) 12:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years. This article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 14:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Well, as mentioned in my earlier comments, the incident didn't get enough media attention, hence, the statement "This is one of the most significant incidents that has shaken Bangladesh in the recent years." doesn't make any sense. Also, only a small number of Bangladeshis are actually aware of the incident. Zayeem ^(talk) 17:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the state media of Bangladesh doesn't report on the persecution of its minorities, it does not mean it is not notable. If the Turkish mass media does not report on the persecution of Armenians or Kurds, it does not mean that the persecution is not notable at all. The same with Tibetans and everyone else. It was also reported outside of Bangladesh, this article from Jihad Watch reports on it citing Indian media. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/bangladesh-muslims-vandalize-hindu-temples.html It would also be possible to merge the 3 articles into an article on Religious conflicts in Bangladesh in 2012 --Trphierth (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, its not about state media. The fact that the incident is covered by only few newspapers clearly proves that it doesn't pass the WP:DIVERSE criterion. As mentioned mentioned in my earlier comments, it also doesn't meet other criteria such as WP:INDEPTH, WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE, hence the article is definitely not eligible to be in wikipedia. The article should be deleted according to WP:NOTNEWS. --Zayeem ^(talk) 06:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, the persecution was reported at least in some newspapers, both nationally and internationally, and you cannot expect books already when it just happened this year. And you are the only one claiming that it was not reported widely in the Bangladeshi press. But even if you read every newspaper, which you probably don't, I would need to know from a more neutral observer. (Bangladeshi media is ranked at 136th out of 178 countries on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, which in some cases should also be taken into account.)

Doing a very quick Google search, I find quite many different reports and even pictures on this, and that even though I should probably search for this event with several different search terms. Of course already the article links to some of these reports.

Also, I take objection to your comment on the Bangladesh notice board, because you seem to imply that you know just from their edits if they are Bangladeshi are not, and you seem to imply that editors writing from the point of view of minorities in Bangladesh are not really Bangladeshi editors or that only right-wing Muslims can be Bangladeshi editors. It is surprising that nobody has commented on this at the notice board. --Trphierth (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in the noticeboard is definitely not about this article and the comment is definitely not similar to how you mentioned here. Coming to the AfD, the google search shows results mostly belonging to different blog sites, search sites, facebook pages, translation pages which are of no use here. The incident surely can't be stated as Persecution, so please choose your words wisely. Your argument is not convincing enough, it could be if you provide sufficient reliable sources. I will still stick to that the incident is only covered by few dailies which is not enough to pass WP:DIVERSE. Besides, as mentioned earlier, the article also fails to pass WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH and WP:GEOSCOPE. The duration of the coverage is also not convincing to pass WP:PERSISTENCE. -Zayeem ^(talk) 16:39, 2 November 2012 (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.