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 delete. Consensus appears to be that NOTNEWS applies here. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Stalking Case (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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS.No evidence of notability. Razer(talk) 17:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are ample evidences to support its notability. This case has been a subject of news reports and discussions all over the country for the last few days. One can see about it on the first page of every national newspaper these days. The evidences are notable and reliable. So it deserves to be there on wiki as an article. Of course it needs to be expanded and a neutral point of view as per the guidelines of Wikipedia should always be maintained. --arunbandana 07:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Arunbandana (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. Ajf773 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand widespread coverage of a major event. Article needs to be more than one sentence to be of any use though. CJK09 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is being expanded Some more time is required. All suggestions are welcome. --arunbandana 10:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete the article has been expanded but I still think the event itself is fundamentally non-notable per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. No doubt the event was traumatic for the lady involved but we can't have articles on every relatively minor crime that gets reported in the news. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources in article, and more sources that came up on my search of Eve teasing + Chandigarh, Here: [1], make it claear that this case garnered national attention India. I wonder whether the Eve teasing article might benefit by the creation of a List of sexual harassment incidents in India.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A response to the points raised for deletion I strongly feel that this topic is notable and there should be an article on this in Wikipedia. It was under the scanner of the national and international media and the public for more than a week. The honorable chief minister of Harayana, the member of Indian Parliament representing Chandigarh and several personalities of national importance made public statements on this issue. It also came for discussion in the Parliament of India. A simple google search of these two words, Chandigarh stalking, would give you ample reliable references to support the notability of this topic. One may discuss a change here and there to improve the article. But should we even discuss its deletion?

Of course it would too early to call it a crime, whether major or 'minor' because it is for the court to decide that. --arunbandana 05:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Merge into Eve teasing with one-line info in History section would be enough if the case seem important. Fails WP:NEVENT due to no lasting effect and not enough scope. It was stalking case covered widely by media for a week (and then forgotten, fails WP:PERSISTENCE) only due to political connection of accused and victim was daughter of an administrative officer. --Nizil (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That the 'case was covered widely by media for a week' in India is itself enough reason to justify that the article should be kept and it should never be merged or deleted at all. It was due to the pressure of the media and public that the police had to file fresh charges against the accused and arrest them again. This is also a notable case that reveals the influence of people in power over the enforcement agencies like the police etc. Had it been a minor case, there was no reason for the executive head of a state of Haryana and other political leaders to make statements. This case has remained on the psyche of India for more than a week. What more do we expect for notability? --arunbandana 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I struck out the duplicate !vote of the page creator. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepIn every country, there are cases which become important from criminal justice and governance perspective and this case is one of them. Not only position of power was misused, the police and ruling elite continued to disregard evidence, implicitly supporting the accused and working overtime to dilute charges. Hence, this article maintains its relevance and importance, in spite of concerted campaign to silence voices of reason. --Anand Aparna (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A response to the comments It is ok to strike out the vote of the page creator if it is found to be duplicate as per wiki guidelines. However let us discuss some of the guidelines given in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS given as a reference in the above comment. In the first para it says, "....we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion......." The page creator would like to clarify that all the 15 sources given in the article under the subheading, 'References', are reliable, verifiable and third party. Then the topic sentence of the concluding para in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS says, "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." Again the subject of this article has been amply reported in the mainstream media in India and even abroad. A list of the mainstream media given as sources in the article include The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Tribune (Chandigarh), India Today, NDTV. In fact the given list is longer. If we include even those that have not been given as reference, then the list would be much longer. On the basis of the above points given as a response, the article should, thus, be kept, not deleted. --arunbandana 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Firstly, if you understand the reasons given by the above !voter for keeping the article, you shouldn't have any problem in understanding the context of my comment. And it has nothing to do with reliability of the sources.

Secondly, you made points that the event was covered for one week & that the sources are reliable. But there is no need to repeat them again and again, as no one even questioned your these assertions. Thanks. – NitinMlk (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as WP:NOTNEWS. I was almost going to support a merge to Eve teasing but that article would start to get very long eventually, and sadly this type of behavior is reportedly all too common. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)}.

• Delete - Article reads like a news piece, even if it is improved it was still remain a news report, instead of encyclopedia article. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is also about a WP:SINGLEEVENT which seems to have stopped getting coverage .As I am familiar with Indian media I can comment about the coverage, they mostly hype a single event to get more revenue through ads, on their articles on social media.

Additional comment: Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, seems to be a case of temporary notability. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 05:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. this is the sort of articlethat nOT NEWS was intended to prevent--temporary magnification of a very minor incident that happenned to attract attention. We'd need actual evidence of long-lasting impotance here. DGG ( talk ) 12:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The event certainly meets the criteria of reliability / diversity of sources and is a notable event as per guidelines. We should be in no rush to delete the article, as per guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Several weeks after, the event continues to generate national media attention and forms part of national discourse on sexual harassment and misuse of power in the country. The article should be re-listed and potentially considered for discussion, after one year or more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.8.164 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS and failing WP:10YT. User:Arunbandana said it perfectly in his argument above: This case has been a subject of news reports and discussions all over the country for the last few days. We are an encyclopedia, not the nightly news. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2017 (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.