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. Overwhelming consensus despite convention Xavexgoem (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia[edit]

2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An event of no extraordinary importance elevated by sensationalist media. The percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with the percentage of Indians with in the total population showing that assaults/robberies are not against just Indians. But equal with the rest of the population. Just because the Indian media has been over stating the situation doesn't mean an article is required. Unless, wikipedia now wants entries for every attack against a minority group in every country. Bojach (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"percentage of attacks on Indians against the total number of attacks is inline with ..." Anything to back up that claim? Even if such were the case, since the unfortunate episode casts a shadow on the relations between the two countries it does wholly warrant its own article to catalogue racism and xenophobia as an issue between nations. "An event of no extraordinary importance ..." Time magazine, BBC, CNN and others differ from your view and secondly it is not for wikipedians to judge about the "real worth" of notable items. We must only record as best as possible. - Varun (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: I have renamed this article to 2009 protests by Indian students in Australia and rewritten the introduction to focus on the protests rather than the pattern of attacks. This change has been discussed on the talk page and no opposition was raised. I decided to rename the article while the AFD was still open because I felt the problems should be fixed sooner rather than later because it is linked from the main page. - Borofkin (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a courtesy, Please don't move the article during an AFD discussion to avoid confusions among the users. Feel free to edit the article based on RS and NPOV. I have moved the article back to the orginal title 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia. Let the outcome of the AFD decide the rename/keep/deletion of the article. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What confusion will be caused by an entirely appropriate move that has been widely discussed? Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion says that if the page is moved it should be noted on the deletion page, which was done. The AFD process will take days, and a name that is bad and wrong should not have to stay that way when the article has such a high profile. - Borofkin (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is no consensus as of now to rename and keep the title. Let the closing admin take care of this -- Tinu Cherian - 07:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the article talk page there have only been comments supportive of the rename. This page is for discussion of the deletion. If you want to discuss the name of the article do it on the article talk page. - Borofkin (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see here a consensus here or at the talk page for the rename of "2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia" to "2009 protests by Indian students in Australia". Let the article say how it happened and please dont try to push a POV tone. Things doesnt change if you change an article in wikipedia, but I request it to keep the article NPOV based on reliable sources. There is no "chicken or egg first " issue here. It is blatently evident that attacks came first and protests later. Whether there is any racial element to the attacks is not yet proved and till then it should stay allegedly racist attacks only -- Tinu Cherian - 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not proven that attacks have increased or that Indians are over-represented in crime statistics. To say so (as your editing seems to support) is non-factual. It is not a question of POV, rather one of accuracy. While there may or may not have been consensus, there is nothing to say a page cannot be moved during an AFD process. If there is, then please let me know where. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no policy page cannot be moved. but in the present situation where significant disagreement exists among interested editors would it not be better to wait for a consensus instead of having the page moved back and forth and edit warring. CheersWikireader41 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Tea Party protests is one such example of what is considered important in the US versus the rest of the world... I was not aware of this before it was pointed out to me in relation to a different, yet connected matter... I am, however, perfectly aware of the protests being discussed here... --candle•wicke 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have added that I'm in a neutral enough position geographically - not in Australia, India, China, the US, New Zealand, Asia, North America or any of the countries or continents I have mentioned... --candle•wicke 16:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Nazrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath talk 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Above comment was added by 161.12.7.4, but he/she signed as User:Nazrani. —Amplitude101 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Thanks Amplitude101! I have signed in to validate my above comment. --Nazrani (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete-I don't think anyone is disputing a "problem" or denying the high level of media attention. But the article is written as if these incidents of assaults are a part of a systematic/central problem. Editors have simply cherry-picked references that report x assault on foreign exchange students and then wrote an article combining all notable 2009 incidents. This is totally against the laws of wikipedia and encyclopedias in general. If the assaults revolved around an event, say...a terrorist attack by Hindus or something that would generate a systematic response then I could see the logic in writing an article, but this is a joke. This is an acceptable article: Antisemitic incidents during the Gaza War, 2009 attack on Indian students Australia is not. We might as well write an article titled 2009 attack on African Americans in the United States or 2009 attack on homosexuals in Egypt. If and when the issue is clearly systematic and continues as a result of laxed laws in the government/politicians, SOME of the info could be absorbed in Human rights in Australia but that's a maybe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' - and only when a systematic/central problem exists can we have a wiki article. which wikipedia policy are you referring to may I ask ?? it would help if you did not come up with your own set of guideleines on what should be included and what should notWikireader41 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with your comments Wikifan12345. However, they do not apply to the proposed renaming of the article and refocus on the protests. The protests are notable and an article about the protests will not be synthesis or OR. - Borofkin (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment TIME did a story specifically on this subject. clearly that suggests its not OR or SYNTH. even BLPs have to establish notability otherwise we would have 5 billion BLPs. it would help if you point out specific wikipedia policy this article does not satisfy. it is clearly not OR and meets notablity, verifiabilty and NPOV guidelines. Clearly improvements need to be ade and I am sure they will be. before you comment that editors not agreeing with you dont know wikipolicy you might want to read these yourself especially WP:AGFWikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you explain that a bit better? In terms of what is a notable news item, Wikipedia uses the news to help recognize what is a notable event. We recognize that when an event/person/place/show/song etc... receives substantial coverage in the media, theres a prima facie case for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Theres notable, verifiable, references. The Australian Prime minister commented on the situation, the New Zealand Government have been directly referencing the events and discussing them. I agree the article needs work, and I believe it needs to be renamed. But just because there is a problem with the content, doesn't mean the whole thing goes. And I don't think that "clearly" can be used at all to describe your views, they're your views - but many others here have differing views. Let us have those views, and you have yours, and lets discuss it without talking down to people.Icemotoboy (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. just because an article is not FA quality doesnt mean it needs to be deleted. WP has very specific guidelines when an article may be deleted. WP:UGLY is NOT a reason to deleteWikireader41 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the question of what WP should or should not be doing is not being discussed here. the question really is that does this article satisfy the current WP policy of deleting articles or not Wikireader41 (talk)03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is a very pertinent question. I'm not sure if you realised I've been around a while and participated in hundreds of these things over time. :P It comes up again and again in deletion debates and it is indeed a relevant question - WP:NOT has the status of policy. See "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" in particular. Orderinchaos 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is a pertinent question ( what WP should or should not be?) . but this is not the place to discuss that issue. And I am not questioning your experience. it would help if you could specify what specific policy this article violates. WP:IDL is clearly not a reason to delete. if a specific policy is being violated in your opinion then please point it out and lets debate it. as far as I can see this is not OR , clearly Notable ( which ordinary crime is discussed in the parliament of 2 of the biggest democracies in the world and gets a write up in the press over multiple continents?), fairly NPOV and easily Verifiable and so meets WP criteria for inclusionWikireader41 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yes the attacks came first. but the protests are what is attracting the media attention. 124.179.170.87 (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
glad you have changed your view somewhat. maybe you should also complain to TIME about the absurd title they gave to their story Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do they "fit in with current history of Australia"? Orderinchaos 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how (through what media) you look at the issue. If you were one of those who follows Indian media everyday, the attacks are exceedingly notable, but, apparently, Australian media started covering the issue only after the protests. Guess User:Wikireader41 gave this example of Natalee Holloway, an ordinary teenager killed in Mexico, the only reason for her to have her article is due to the the coverage it received in the United States, it eventually didnt matter whether the issue was covered in North Korea or Tonga. It didnt also matter whether the issue was worth such extraordinary coverage which is still debatable. --Like I Care 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the protests would not have happened without the attacks. that the attacks led to widespread protests makes them notable. most non notable attacks are not followed by protests. do you know of any similar protests without the attacks? plenty of Indian students in USA have been mugged, killed and beaten up. nobody has brought up the question of racism there. also have to keep in mind the hidden agenda everywhere to push such issues under the rug. I am sure these attacks are embarrassing to many people and some of them would want these attacks to be quickly forgotten.Wikireader41 (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nothing is stopping you from writing those articles. and how are you predicting that this articles doesnt have 'lasting notability'. lasting 1 year, 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. does the article on Australia have 'lasting notability'?? are the editors voting for keep ignoring arguments or the editors for delete ??Wikireader41 (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this article in TIME is about the attacks and only cursorily mentions the protests Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in AustraliaWikireader41 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the information related to attacks were earlier removed from the article for reasons that they were not written in an NPOV way. Some of the attacks which received widespread coverage in Indian media are listed in the article talk page here. I hope someone will take the time to expand on this, I honestly dont have the time right now considering the time it will take to write in an NPOV manner. Notability is not something we sit here and arbitralily decide, each of these attacks were repeated on TVs across India several times. --Like I Care 00:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep) I believe an expand and correction to the article can easily be done when dealing with issues regarding to POV. But for now we have to keep this article in order to improve it, not delete it. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Liquidluck (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009 (UTC)

The article is still on the main page of wikipedia because the attacks continue to happen [3]. Additionaly that very fact confirms the notability of this article. - Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If attackers seek easy targets at night and they were so called "THUG" then why Chinese students or local(australian) people were not attacked??? and what about the incident of petrol bomb ??? Was that for Greed?? and to all those who say India media has imbalanced proportion please Read this Racial Attacks Trouble Indian Students in Australia. This is not India media.--Shekhartagra (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) This article has got enough notability to keep.[reply]

The views of politicians and community leaders, and the perception of a racial motivation in the attacks, do not mean that the attacks themselves were in fact racially motivated. The police chief of Victoria confirms that they (or atleast some) are racial in Nature. The victims themselves allege that the attackers heaped racial slurs on them. With these facts at hand, it would take reliable ciations to show that the attacks dont have the racial angle to them. I agree when you say that the article is not particularly well written, but I'm sure we can fix that. -Varun (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the Indian victims have said that the attacks were not racially motivated. The article contains very few sourced facts about racism. Many people have claimed that the attacks are racist, but these are claims rather than facts. - Borofkin (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whether the attacks were racially motivated or not is immaterial to the argument here . wikipedia is not in WP:TRUTH business. that allegations of racism were made adds to the notability of these attacks.Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you are saying, you seem to be suggesting that unconnected attacks become notable in themselves as soon as an allegation of racism is made. All racial groups in Australia have been the victims of racism, and all racial groups in Australia have suffered incidents of racial violence. But this does not mean that an article is required for every single group in every single year. There is nothing but weak anecdotal evidence to support the hypothesis of a series of attacks against Indian students in 2009 (as currently presented by the article). Yes, the reaction to the perception of racial violence may be notable, which is why I am in favour of renaming the article, but unless you can provide strong evidence of a series of attacks against Indian students (whether connected or not) then there is no validity keeping the article under its current name. Guycalledryan (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nothing to be confused about. even a series of unconnected attacks which for whatever reasons generate this much response become notable. even if these attacks are eventually proven to be hoaxes does NOT diminish their notability. whether these attacks are connected or not is also immaterial to the argument. it is the response of world media ( rightly or wrongly) which makes them notableWikireader41 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, BUT if the notability is due to their response, then the article should be on the response, not on the attacks themselves. Guycalledryan (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled neither Increased attacks on in Indians in Australia nor Racial attacks on Indians in Australia nor Australians attack Indians in Australia nor whatever. The title has 100s of reliable references in support. you might disagree with them. --Like I Care 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I Care, you are correct, but so is WLRoss who is trying to explain that this article quickly skips over a number of facts - indeed, the whole issue seems to skip over them with media and politicians yelling as loudly as they can while ignoring some fundamentals. While the figures WLRoss appear to stand to testing, there is admittedly a degree of WP:SYNTH (albeit very credible synthesis!) and is the only reason I haven't promoted this point more in the article - as soon as there is a reliable source supporting it, then I believe it should be made a prominent point in the article - unless someone can show me I'm wrong. --Merbabu (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem in adding this statistics to the article with support of reliable sources and put things in perspective (but no original research) for readers. we might even include a sentence in the introduction. --Like I Care 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. the naming issue can and should be discussed and sorted out on the article talk page. a bad name is not a reason to push for deletion. Wikireader41 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Atayal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath talk 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha - these events are equal to the Stolen Generation episode? Ie, the forced removal of 10's of thousands of children from their parents. Are you kidding? Further, please don't personalise this AFD or get on your WP:SOAPBOX by commenting on voting of Australian editors. You should note that Australians are voting to keep this article as they are voting to delete (and I haven't voted one way or the other). Note, that no-one has commented on Indian votes here. Yours was not a helpful post. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no colleralation bewteen these events and wouldnt even rate a mention had it not been for the beat-up and outrageous claims from the Indian media that they were part of some greater bias it is this that makes it notable. Atayal your comments are in very poor faith and while I take offense at you lack of GOOD FAITH I still think that the article meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY Gnangarra 13:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Scarish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Priyanath talk 14:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. coverage is also notable, and focused on the attacks (not the protests). The article needs some work to be more neutral, though. There are positive responses from all sides that aren't being covered in the article, including from the Australian government. Priyanath talk 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not one of the best AFD's I've seen. Indeed, time to wrap it up. --Merbabu (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (keep) I agree, it should be time to wrap the discussion up. I can see there is definitely a consensus emerging of keeping the article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not consensus. It's a vote which is not what wikipedia is about. --Merbabu (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia is definitely not about pushing POV. the surprise here is not that the article WILL be KEPT. it is that it was nominated for deletion in the first place.Wikireader41 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a clear vote (as opposed to consensus) to keep and a clear vote for a certain POV. --Merbabu (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2009 (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.
More