- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anjana Mishra rape case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
WP:NOT#NEWS, not notable either (WP:BIO) Tazmaniacs 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This is not encyclopedic. Things like this belong at wikinews.--SJP 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep having 23 instances of news coverage spread over 7 years would seem to fall outside of the definition of "brief period of time" [1]; the case also appears to have had an effect on state-level politics due to the position of the criminal. [2]. cab 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If immediately revised to satisfy WP:BLP, else stub for now. This is not a typical rape case. In fact the article should be renamed to show that it is "rape cases" rather than one case. It starts with an alleged rape attempt by a government official, then there is a gang rape for which multiple persons were convicted and sentenced. Several of the external sources appear to be mainstream press sources, but those more familiar with India would have to judge that. This matter has been in the news, and apparently even looked at by the British parliament, over several years. That said, it is clearly a WP:BLP minefield, and every incriminating statement should have an inline cite to a reliable source, with any unsourced statements removed. Just making a series of allegations and having several external sources at the end violates WP:BLP. Edison 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is not just yet another rape case. Article is certainly encyclopediac and is notable in all sense, given its publicity and the high profile people involved in the case. Some inline citations are needed, though. - KNM Talk 14:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Since there seems to be nothing solid against J. B. Patnaik (currently only a stub), former Chief Minister of the state of Orissa, the only notable thing in this crime seems to be the condemnation of Advocate-General of Orissa Indrajit Ray for attempted rape. The rape case in itself does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, in particular when concerns about WP:BIO arise. WP:NOT#NEWS: We can't register every single case of rape, alleged rape or even gang rape here. Henceforth, unless Patnaik's role here is better defined and his involvement proven, I think that, since Advocate-General (India) seems to be the equivalent of Attorney General of India in each state, that only Indrajit Ray would, perhaps, fits notability guidelines. Therefore, why not create an article for the latter and keep the controversy there, instead of creating a nominal article for this most unlucky woman? Tazmaniacs 18:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.There are over 700 google hits.[3]. This is not just yet another rape case. It has significant effect on state politics. The case led to replacement of then chief minister by party president Sonia Gandhi. The rape case contibuted to defeat of then ruling Congress party on Orissa assembley election .- Shyamsunder 01:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a difficult choice to make, ultimately I wish that we had better protection mechanisms in place beyond just user watchlists for these type of sensitive articles, but the case does appear to be notable and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Yamaguchi先生 23:49, 15 September 2007 (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.