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.  Sandstein  19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Canning 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)

This is about a recent event in West Bengal where a renowned Muslim cleric has been shot dead while returning from a religious gathering which sparks some violence in the area as cited by various news agencies but this incident is presented here portraying the Muslim villagers as criminals and solely responsible for a riot in Hindu majority area. None of the news sources cited in the article verifies the claims in the article. Portion of the article is based on rumors by Hinduist[hinduexistence.wordpress.com] who provided the images and claims without verifiability are potentially dangerous for the local people of the are.  Mrwikidor ←track 05:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This event was covered by national media like NDTV, Times of India and Hindustan Times. It was also covered by international media like Gulf News (Dubai). The article is based on the reports published by the above mentioned media. The article passes all the notability criteria. BengaliHindu (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the event was covered by several media unlike the so called Murshidabad beheading crap where you accused those medias for their professional journalism. Anyways, i've decided to clean this up and remove the accusations without verifiability made by the article creator.  Mrwikidor ←track 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brother, you are welcome to clean up the article where required. By deciding on a clean up, you've agreed on principle that the article is a candidate for keep. You should therefore close this discussion. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  Mrwikidor ←track 05:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Keep?)There is no doubt whatsoever that these riots took place and it was well covered by the media. You only need to go to the affected areas and ask the villagers and they too will verify that the riots happened and that a lot of houses qwere destroyed by the muslims. Hence this article should not be deleted. Pl refer to http://www.niticentral.com/2013/02/21/riots-erupt-in-bengal-48746.html and http://news.oneindia.in/2013/02/21/west-bengal-homes-torched-shops-ransacked-in-riots-1155624.html as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paritoshvyas68 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links you've provided are not reliable and riot took place but both parties were involved.  Mrwikidor ←track 15:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you and your gang don't get to decide which sources are reliable and which are not. If you have questions and reservations about a particular source, you need to follow wikipedia rules and policies and begin a discussion in the talk page of the article. Sources like blogs etc. are de-facto unreliable and can be summarily removed, but the situation with news media (especially in India) is more complex and requires discussion and consensus. If you continue with disruptive editing that removes such sources without attended discussion in the talk page. I will report your actions to the administrator noticeboard.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As such i don't know your disrupting edits regarding dalits? You should stop your disrupting edits like[1] which falls under {{uw-tpv1}}  Mrwikidor ←track 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is you third and final warning concerning violations of Assume good faith. If you cast further false aspersions on users then you will be blocked from further editing.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I find it very difficult to WP:AGF on your part, since you keep accusing others of inserting partisan sources while you yourself cited a viciously Islamist source (here in this edit) that makes libellous assertions not verified by mainstream media. Of course, such obviously partisan sources such as the al-Qaeda front 'twocircles.net', or excessively pro Hindu Nationalist sources like 'organiser.org' (a newspaper published by the RSS) and 'globalhinduism.whatever' (dunno who publishes this, but looks too partisan to be reliable) are not appropriate for wikipedia, and I have removed them from this article. All the other sources, as they currently stand, satisfy WP:RS and are mainstream publications.Handyunits (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (Keep?)This article should not be deleted as It has focused on Islamic terrorism against Hindus in Indian soil. Everyone should know the real incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazla Rabbi (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't related to islam as supported by User:BengaliHindu here[2].  Mrwikidor ←track 19:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that this is related to Islam the religion. This is related to Islamism, an extremist political ideology not subscribed to by most moderate Muslims in the world. In addition, when wikipedia discusses the concept of Islamic terrorism, it is understood that it is not to make any non-neutral aspersions on Islam as a religion, but refer to the acts of a minority of extremists.Handyunits (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Bad faith nomination by political activist. Incident is mentioned in several mainstream media outlets. Any article can accumulate issues that can be fixed, that does not render it worthy of deletion.Handyunits (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear Ad hominem.  Mrwikidor ←track 19:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The logic is not clear for deletion request. The subject is notable and this riot cover in several mainstream media. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 06:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you! Mrwikidor ←track 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well-sourced article about significant event. Any issues of neutrality should be addressed by discussion and editing, not deletion. --Stfg (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally disagree with you! I'm amazed how you found it well sourced? Sources from Organiser.org or globalhinduism.com aren't reliable at all plus vastly based on original research without any citation from reliable sources.  Mrwikidor ←track 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS. You do not get to decide which sources are reliable and which are not. If you have issues, raise them in the talk page. Again, this is the second warning not to engage in racist attacks.Handyunits (talk) 05:24, 3 April 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.