Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Narendra Modi

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.

Premiership of Narendra Modi

Premiership of Narendra Modi (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)

The current article is content forking of main article

• Delete . All of the contents are already covered, in BLP of Narendra Modi, nothing new about this article to be separate, it is a mere replica copy and paste [2] from main article Narendra Modi. Junosoon (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Junosoon: It's not generally a good idea to post a separate "delete" !vote in addition to nominating the article for deletion in the first place, as it's assumed you are in favour of deleting unless you state otherwise. It's an especially bad idea to post your duplicate !vote below after others have already !voted, so I have moved your !vote up here. I hope you don't mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I wish I could have edited the article to make it better, but it seems other editors are not very comfortable, after receiving this alert message on my talk page .[3]. Junosoon (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That alert was simply a coirtesy notification of discretionary sanctions being in place. You don't seem to have understood it, because if you had your first reaction would not have been to AFD the page because you think it (and the other article from which it was split) has POV problems. You realize that as soon as this AFD closes someone is probably going to ask for you to be TBANned, right? Your best bet would be to withdraw the AFD now and study up on our policies and guidelines before making any more edits in a discretionary sanctions area. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOV.Junosoon (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

How on earth is that sentence not NPOV? Do you think he didn't express such hopes and Wikipedia read them in? Or do you think "hopes" is taking something he said at face value when we should be interpreting it critically? Wikipedia doesn't do the latter unless our sources did it first. I can't access the source but have you read it? Your English makes me think it's possible you simply don't understand what the words in the article mean, but if that's the case making a big fuss about it and assuming bad faith on the part of other editors is not the proper way to comport yourself on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I donot find a source to that statement, it looks like an opinion expressed as a fact in Wikipedia's voice.!Junosoon (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited inline is Manor, James (2015). "A Precarious Enterprise? Multiple Antagonisms during Year One of the Modi Government". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 38 (4): 736–754. Have you read it or not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for citing it, no I don't have access to it, so not read it!Junosoon (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment :Concern: The Prime Minister of India, has a personal website [6], writing articles, even unknowingly, related on his policies, is nothing but next to
  WP:PROMOTION of his policies, [7].Junosoon (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Junosoon: Nonsense. If you think the article has POV problems, edit the article to fix them. And if, as you say, it is a copy-paste fork of the main Modi article, then deleting this article wouldn't solve the POV problem anyway. As several others have already pointed out, there are an abundance of articles of this type, and those are never accused of being POVFORKs. Additionally, please stop posting "Comment"s and !votes at the bottom of the AFD. that make it look at a glance like your proposal has received support from anyone other than you. If you want to reply to someone else, use proper indentation or otherwise indicate to whom you are replying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is a borderline disruptive AfD. This is a perfectly acceptable spinoff article, in line with
  WP:SPINOFF, the relevant guideline. The nomination indicates a lack of competence, and a failure to read the guideline that is used in the rationale. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 06:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. It is a content fork, as Vanamonde93 has pointed out. The suggestion for the fork was made and discussed at Talk:Narendra Modi. I believe it is the right thing to do in this situation. In fact, "Premiership of X" or "Presidency of Y" articles are quite common on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Subject is as close to "intrinsically notable" as we could want. We have articles on the premierships of like six British PMs and the presidencies of I don't even wanna count how many POTI. The only reason not to have equivalent articles for the PMs of the second largest country on the planet. It would be different if Indian PMs were like, say, Japanese PMs and their premiership lasted on average around a year or if the current topic was ambiguous because Modi was serving his second or third non-consecutive term, but these simply are not the case. I was initially inclined to favour deletion in the short term because most articles I have read on Indian topics are very poorly written and a copy-paste of an article I hadn't read but had reason to assume contains grammatical errors and unsourced claims sounded like a terrible idea, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There may be some latitude to discuss and review whether some of the content is appropriate or speckled with
  WP:POV problems — however, articles like this are permissible and expected for people who have been national leaders. See, frex, Presidency of Barack Obama, Premiership of Justin Trudeau, Premiership of Theresa May, Presidency of Hamid Karzai, Presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy, and on and so forth. There's room to question whether the content of the article is neutral and objective and properly sourced — but this type of article is a thing we are expected to have whenever possible, precisely to help avoid overloading the BLP with content that weighs it down and makes it longer than manageable. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Bearcat: You are among the first serious/competent user to suggest that there might be POV issues with that content: as the person who wrote most of it, I would be most interested in hearing your concerns. I have tended to ignore most complaints about the article, because they take the form of "It is too critical! Scholarly sources are just opinions! You need government sources to discuss policy! No court has found anybody guilty of these accusations!" and so on and so forth. If there are serious concerns, I will treat them seriously. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the article myself; I'm merely acknowledging the possibility that such concerns may exist in the sense that it's always a possibility in any article but not so's it would necessarily force deletion if the article is fundamentally a valid topic. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2016 (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.