Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape in Northeast India

:{{la|Rape in Northeast India}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rape_in_Northeast_India Stats])

:({{Find sources|Rape in Northeast India}})

Originally speedied by RaviC claiming of WP:COI, contested by Recorderz who was reverted as sock. Speedied declined by Magog the Ogre who PROD'd with the rational "This article currently looks like a POV-pushing nightmare" and prod-2 by Vibhijain with "The article has many controversial statements which desperately need sources". Prod contested by Shrigley who "believe a neutral article on this topic can exist". So here we are. KTC (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• So what's your rationale for believing this should be permanently deleted? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• :I don't have one. It's an article that I saw has legitimate concerns expressed by multiple users, including the person who contested the PROD. I felt it was best for this to go to AfD for a community discussion instead of quietly removed from CAT:PROD after a contest. (And before anyone say, deletion rationale had been advanced in the nomination even if they weren't originally from me, so this fails WP:SK#1 even if DBigXray & Vibhijain hasn't posted already.) KTC (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with Human rights abuses in Assam, Human rights abuses in Manipur: Looking at the article itself, I don't see any justification for outright deletion. The tone could use some refinement, certainly, as regards NPOV, the but the facts are largely sourced by very reputable sources. If anything I just wonder if the content is in the right place. It seems that, as we already have pages for human rights abuses in this region, the content could find a home there and be more accessible to readers and integrated into the larger context. Well documented mass rape or rape as a terrorist weapon certainly passes notability guidelines, but I just don't know if its practical or desirable to have an article for every occupation in modern history where it has occurred. That being said, whether on one article or another, this is clearly keepable content (though again, it could use some tweaking). Snow (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:*However, upon closer examination of the article I've found there's at least one instance of a claim that was not verified by the source that was attached to it (though the source was relevant to the article at large), while several other controversial claims are not supported by sources at all. Easily addressed issues but better sooner than later. Snow (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is notable, with several reliable sources being present which discuss rape in the ongoing conflict in Northeast India. This article should be kept as it documents human rights abuses concerning rape and has a similar purpose as many other location-related rape articles. Some things are easily verifiable and corroborate with other sources. Cleanup or content dispute on a few things is itself not a reason to start am AfD. Mar4d (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Deletecomment WP:POV article written as a WP:COATRACK against Indian forces by cherry picking incidents of rape and adding in the article. Just a cursory look on the infobox explains it all. WP:COI also seems to be valid here. Also agree with User:Magog the Ogre that this is a POV-pushing nightmare--DBigXray 05:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

:::*as several people feel the WP:COATRACK needs to be kept, so will edit the article accordingly--DBigXray 22:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

:*And yet Magog does not seem to support the delete, or at least he has not endorsed it despite participating here. Probably because he is aware that, per AfD guidelines: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." POV issues are not sufficient reason to delete; the article has been established in both notability and verifiability in its sources and no one here (even those who claim that the original contributors have cherry-picked sources to present the facts in a certain light) really seems to disagree that the events (or at least the claims) are significant. If anyone feels the current material presents a lop-sided account of the events in question, then I'd postulate they probably are familiar enough with the events to know of alternative and balancing sources. Acquiring them and adapting the article's content is probably no more time consuming than engaging in an AfD which, honestly, approaches SNOW territory. No condescension intended. Snow (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Written completely in a non-neutral manner. I though that someone will neutralize the article before removing the PROD tag, but that doesn't happened. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - that it is written non-neutral at the moment is really not a reason for deletion. More so a reason to keep and re-write it. Its a notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies GNG, just needs to be re written. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see what the "pov pushing nightmare" is article is well sourced with neutral western sources which are highly respected and it seems to be a very notable issue Dozenlegalrty (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Obviously sourced and notable topic. No attempts of discussion have been made on talkpage by any editor who has an opinion on neutrality. AFD is not clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and clean it up for neutrality. It's notable and sourced. Vertium (talk to me) 02:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This page is non-neutral but that's not a reason for deletion, but in fact it's a reason for us to improve the article. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

::As you can see, current state of the article says why it was created, to serve as a WP:COATRACK the edits to rectify it will be reverted and we will have an AFD 2 soon.--DBigXray 14:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

:::It's not nearly coatrack. It addresses genuine cases. If you think there are other perpetrators too, add them by all means... but if you want to remove the current ones, that would be censorship as the material is sourced. If there's another objection that belongs to the article talk page. Deletion is not for this purpose. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Adequately referenced. A good candidate for cleanup and a possible merge if the subject matter is deemed too specific and it is thought that the information would be more effective as part of a broader article. But I don't see a reason to kill it outright. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

: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.