Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Hyderabad gang rape

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 keep. Discussion has swung strongly in favour of keeping given more recent events. Sam Walton (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Hyderabad gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

2019 Hyderabad gang rape : (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2019 Hyderabad veterinary murder(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOEARLY to make article on the person. Person is social media sensation in India at this moment. This article had even contained the name of alleged rapists, however, I removed it under WP:BLPCRIME.

Wikipedia is not news. Article can be created if protests or something like that will be continued after a week. Till then, this is case of news and sensation and this person has no lasting effects.

Also, article is written from non-neutral POV and gives too much sympathy to rape victim and chasing headlines. Like, murder plot has not been proved yet and this article directly gives judgement that this happened and that in murder section. No judgement has been given in this case, so, judgement section is also reluctant. There is section called significance of case which is directly chasing headlines and gives no encyclopaedic POV or content. Not much details about this person is available in public and nothing major had happened yet which can be called as encyclopaedic. It even uses quotations from OpIndia, Gulte and Dreshare. Article can be created later if event passes GNG, currently it is POV fork and just recentism.

Hence, this discussion. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Harshil169: I got that, may be its too early. But, even if the article got deleted for now can be recovered after a week?--Unknown3599 (talk) 07:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unknown3599: IMHO, this article is not useful at all and if it is created then it should be from scratch. You should not take name of alleged rapists without any convictions. You can see WP:REFUND for content.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: Even its WP:TOOEARLY to create this article, as per WP:NOTABILITY this article can contain her bio-data and rape/murder incident under Current Events since it is from reliable secondary sources.--Unknown3599 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: Agreed its bit too early to add confessed culprits to the article, but since most of the article's data is from reliable sources which cannot be altered unlike the judgement. As per WP:N data related to her birth, recorded incident & protests can still be on the article. And I'll try to make the article WP:POV.--IM3847 (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IM3847, not really all data is from RS. OpIndia, Gulte and Dreshare fails WP:NEWSORG from long mile and its long standing consensus in Indian wiki community. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harshil169 I've made a few changes, now all the data on the article is supported by a reliable source.--IM3847 (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IM3847, I agree with changes. Article is somewhat neutral but still lacks notability and WP:LASTINGeffect. After this rape, nothing major, except few protests and dp changing, happened. This page must be moved to 2019 Hyderabad rape, if this remains so. See page on Kathua rape case, death penalty for child rapist was introduced, thus, it was notable. For Nirbhaya, police introduced helpline on her name and many things. This is not case here. Hope it clarifies. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 08:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NOTNEWS. ∯WBG^converse 08:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With today's extrajudicial encounter/murder, this saga has gone way south and is receiving huge levels of coverage in MSM. With thanks to DBX for the ping. ∯WBG^converse 13:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to 2019 Hyderabad gang rape as the event and not the subject is notable. This is one of the notable crime cases in India with widespread national and international coverage (2012 Delhi gang rape was also an example of such case). BBC, Gulfnews CNN and La replublica and many other international media outlets have covered the incident. The aftermath section includes attempts of politicizing the event, changes made in the security of the area, suspensions of the cops and many more to come.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DBigXray, Nirbhaya is notable because key laws were being added after her rape which is not case here. There’s no WP:Lasting effect of this event and if there is then we can have it later. This is regular news, after a week, I doubt if there’ll any coverage on this. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The incident came to light just 2 days back. It is too early to claim that it does not pass WP:LASTING but based on the items I listed above, it seems good enough for me to predict that this event will pass it. For Now the WP:GNG is met and claims of LASTING will need some time to be pondered upon. This AfD at this time is a waste of everyone's time. you should have waited a month or so to AfD it if LASTING was your claim. User:Harshil169 It will be a good learning experience for you if you could go through similar cases for example Category:Rape in the United States, to understand what kind of coverage is acceptable for crime/murder and rape articles.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray I’ve claim of WP:TOOEARLY even. Read first line. It should be draftified. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169 If you have nominated this to be draftified, you must say so in the first line of your nomination (preferably in first few words).You have not even said it anywhere in the nom, the default expectation is DELETE if u are nominating for Articles_for_deletion ( AfD where D stands for Delete and not Draftify.) You must do it right now by updating the nom statement. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, I mean to say that if you say that time is remaining to check LASTING then it should be draftified in mean time. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Harshil169, first, speak clearly, do you want this article deleted or draftified. they are different. Don't confuse between the 2 outcomes. you are asking me to read the first line ? well the first line does not say that you have nominated this to be draftified. I am asking you to add that in your first line. Secondly, there is no rule that requires us to wait for few weeks/months for current events. Articles are created on their perceived notability and WP:GNG --DBigXrayᗙ 12:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, My concern is simple.

1. This is simple not notable and news, thus, should be deleted.

2. But if this is notable, according to you, then also this must be moved to draft section because it is case of too early and nothing major like LASTING effect happened yet.

Hope it clarifies, Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it clarified that you want this deleted. Twice above you said draftified, which caused the ambiguity. 2. Yes it is notable and deserves its seperate article. IMHO it is ripe enough to remain on the mainspace. I understand that you disagree with me. I would leave this at that. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. We should revisit this once it becomes clear whether there is any lasting impact. This looks awfully WP:NOTNEWS right now, and analogous to "missing white woman syndrome". Guy (help!) 11:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 13:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I would request you to read this article by Gulfnews.^[1] After knowing the facts of the case and the tremendous reaction right from the leader of opposition of Indian Parliament to international publications, I believe you may change your stand. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, still too soon. Events cause anger. Do they provoke change or lasting coverage? That's why we have WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (help!) 13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, Hope you have read the entire coverage of the case on Gulfnews by scrolling down and not just the top article. Indeed, I strongly believe in WP:NOTNEWS and we cannot possibly have an article on every rape and murder. But we have to look for notable cases. If a case recieves a disproportionate amount of coverage, it often tilts the balance in its favour. I am sure you are aware of 2012 Delhi gang rape. That case did had a lasting coverage and provoked many changes. This case is just 2 days old and we will have to make an informed guess on the applicability of Lasting. If you still disagree then we can agree to disagree and leave it at that. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, if you look at my !vote, it is draftfiy per TOOSOON - which is fully consistent with everything you say above. I have friends in both Hyderabad and Bengaluru and have visited both (we have offices in both). I am reasonably well aware of the situation here. I will confess I don't fully comprehend the social position of a Reddy, I find the details of the caste system difficult to navigate with confidence, but my understanding is that this was a young attractive middle class girl, hence the reference to missing white woman syndrome. My instinct is to wait. Guy (help!) 14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is quite appropriate, in that upper-caste and economically affluent rape-victims (as is the case over here) get fairly disproportionate coverage in national media. ∯WBG^converse 17:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I went ahead and renamed the article and the AfD to 2019 Hyderabad gang rape, mainly due to the WP:BLPNAME concerns on the privacy of the victim and her family, also it is against the Indian laws to name a rape victim. Moreover in my opinion the case is notable not the subject. The discussion on the case can continue. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per name change. And per sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not news. Just because an event is atrocious does not mean it is encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy and John Pack Lambert, I have updated the #Aftermath section with more updates and subsections on 4.1 Second corpse, 4.2 Protests, 4.3 Clash with protestors, 4.4 Discussion in Parliament, 4.5 Legal Improvements, that clearly show this is a case with far reaching consequences.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC) updated by 13:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is in the process of developing and getting wide attention similar to the 2012 Delhi gang rape and I agree Wikipedia is not a news source. Abishe (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per name change.—IM3847 (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, at least for the time being as it meets WP:GNG, but whether it will have lasting impact remains to be seen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article is now well updated and well sourced as it meets the notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 08:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article is well written and is a useful souce for people who don't know anything about the crime. Gravestep (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep— Hammad (Talk!) 13:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. It's just too early to know whether this is actually more than just a horrific crime that is making headlines now. --valereee (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Obviously an article of good notability. Cant see any proper reason to delete it. Need good editing which can be done. But obviously not worthy to deleteEdward Zigma (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cwmhiraeth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Too early. I would generally say delete per TOOSOON, but there is slow-moving additions that suggest it could become a more encyclopedic article. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I don't agree that this is in any way akin to the missing white woman syndrome. There is a bit of a class issue, and also a bit of a Hindu–Muslim issue, but most importantly it is a women's freedom issue. In the middle class families in India it is now taken for granted that women have equal rights, and the women are giving themselves the freedom to move about freely unaccompanied. This runs against the traditional norms. All the women and their families protesting have a sense of "this could have happened to us". So this case is symbolic of the social transformations happening, and the tensions caused by it. There may be no new laws as a result of it (plenty were passed after the 2012 Delhi gang rape), but certainly better law enforcement will be demanded. A couple more sources to read: Guardian, The New York Times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It has been over one week since the incident happened. Various media houses are still covering the news event. I don't know what users are refering to as "lasting impact" but I sure do now think that over one week of continuous national media coverage is a lot in today's world; is enough. Easily meets other criteria too. DTM (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This must not be deleted as it is on a wide spread rape incident just like 2012 Delhi gang rape. It's also crossed the national borders and all the independent medias across the world published articles on this topic. Kitaab Ka Kida (talk)
• Keep - there has been plenty of significant coverage in major news sources over the past week. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Firstly, this is a TOOEARLY article, but there is a very good coverage on national and few well known international channels. The article is well cited with a good number of well known reliable sources. Considering one previous article, my suggestion is to drafity this and bring into the mainspace after the judgement is out. Nivas10798 (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nivas10798, TooEarly doesnt make sense here now. The incident happened on 27th. It has been nearly 10 days. Also there are other articles Kathua rape case and Unnao rape case where the articles were in the mainspace before the judgement was out. Why should the judgement make a difference? DTM (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: To be precise, the incident happened 8 days ago. This article has very good citations and there are more chances for this article to have a high encyclopedic value. I suggested to draftify this article because, this article should not be deleted and judgement can actually support the article from not getting deleted from the mainspace. Hope this clarifies. Nivas10798 (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are using draftify as a safety valve rather than accepting that the article meets basic requirements? DTM (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bearian. Those who cite Missing White woman syndrome are missing the point since the incident has regardless already reverberated in government and legislative corridors. StonyBrook (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, StonyBrook. The story is still in the news as of today, so it has ongoing coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As per recent data, police have encountered the accused this morning.—IM3847 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with the same. DTM (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject without any doubt complies to notability criteria, more so considering the police shot dead the suspects, that has resulted in the subject being notably mentioned, days after the incident, in multiple, independent, reliable sources, adds to the notability. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now the case is reaching a turning point as the accused people have been shot killed by police officers. Needs to be updated with the fulfilling of WP:NPOV. Abishe (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks to the police's assassination of the suspects, it's maintaining a global lead. ——SN54129 12:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed now it has become a Human rights violation issue as well. courtesy pinging folks voting delete, if they would like to change their !vote due to Recent updates on the case. [[User:Winged Blades of Godric Guy John Pack Lambert --valereee Nivas10798. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tooearly perhaps, but we have it now. It's a clear pass for GNG, as it's all over my news, even on the other side of the world. There is also rather more to it than most, as the alleged perpetrators have now been killed. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2019 (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.