Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (2nd nomination)

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a social media term (not widely used) and is neither notable nor concerned with the development of India. The article has used a satire website in the list of references to make the point. Most importantly, it is a meme and not a suitable subject for Wikipedia. Katyaan (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note this nominator has been blocked.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a new social media term. New origin, not ambiguous.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just a nonsensical meme on social media, hardly any serious coverage in reliable sources. - Aurorion (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems IDLI nomination. Article already has enough reliable sources and can be improved. Passes general notability. It is equivalent term used against Bhakt. --Human3015^TALK 14:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC, Hindustan Times, NDTV and other sources have reports over the usage of this term. That clearly shows that it passes the general notability criteria. Bharatiya29 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be the Indian version of Limousine liberal, Gauche caviar, Champagne socialist or Chardonnay socialist. At least in some senses of the term offered, the affluence part. This one seems to be more wide-open in terms of the critique though, less focused on just the affluent hypocrisy part. (Can't believe we need Champagne and Chardonnay, but that's not to say we don't keep this one.) I guess I've talked myself into a keep: I'm seeing enough notable coverage in Gnews. No reason why it can't also be in Wiktionary, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It would be nice if we all check the references and try to understand the context. The subject is not at notable. The term is coined by a section of people, later used by the print media to point out the on-going tussle between the followers of two political parties. E.g. BBC's link mentions an anonymous Twitter handle named @AdarshLiberal. Moreover, other references talk about the hashtag #AdarshLiberal. Everyday numeorus hashtags make a place in the top trends, are we going to allow such tags to have a separate page here? Another thing to note is that 8th reference is from a satire website and is not an authentic citation. It is important for all of us to understand the context and take a decision or else we may end up allowing such pages in the future.Katyaan (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strike vote of User:Katyaan as they are the nominator and their "delete" opinion is quite obvious. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've suggested we merge Chardonnay socialist into Champagne socialist. If anyone wishes to weigh in, please do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Katyaan: This is not article related to any biography or scientific concept. This article is about "sarcastic" term or internet troll. And Faking News is reliable source for such stuff. Faking News is owned by Network 18 which also owns CNN-IBN. Faking News is one of biggest online satire website of India. Such kind of stuff are most discussed in satire magazines, though we also have sources of BBC, NDTV, Hindustan Times for this. Who said you satire magazines are not reliable sources? Don't forget Charlie Hebdo is also a satire magazine.--Human3015^TALK 18:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Human3015: This article is not about Faking News but a term used by Internet trolls. Moreover, this is not a widely used terms. As far as credibility of Faking News is concerned, tomorrow if this site says that Osama is alive and livng in US, we are not going to use as a credible reference. What kind of notability does this term has?Katyaan (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced article on the lingo of a political moment.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not a notable subject but a term created by Internet trolls. Although few newspapers have covered it but it doesn't make the subject notable as it has been done in a different context. Although Faking News in itself is a satire website but the news that it carries has no worth. One cannot use its link as a credible source. On the other hand, had this article been about Faking News, then of course, we could have used other credible references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertseo (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC) I have stricken !vote of sock, see this SPI--Human3015^TALK 15:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Katyaan Intersecting in wide range articles with Expertso (Total 77 edits)?. Meat? Came in, when the keep votes from neutral editors increased. The Avengers 11:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Expertso's first edit in 2015. Last was one year ago in Dec 2014. The Avengers 11:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Best case scenario, it is a WP:DICDEF, but we aren't a directory of all slang terms used by social media, nor of buzzwords used by said sources. It isn't sufficient to just have a couple of sources use a word. Encyclopedias considers the enduring value of topics, and this fails that test. To call it a "meme" is probably giving it too much credit at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not "couple of sources". There are several, BBC, Hindustan Times, NDTV, ABP Live, IndiaTimes, Deccan Herald, IBN Live. All of these are reliable sources. Also I can provide sources in Hindi and other Indian languages. This term does passes GNG. There are Category:Internet slang, Category:Internet trolling for such terms and it is encyclopedic. --Human3015^TALK 13:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That other terms exist can't be used to justify inclusion, see WP:WAX, and GNG isn't the only principle at work. Some of those probably need deleting as well. With so much media, you can get 5 sources if Lady Gaga farted in public, that doesn't make it notable. There has to be some showing of enduring value. We aren't a repository for the "buzzword du jour". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles like Cuckservative and Binders full of women are no different than this one. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator of this AfD has been blocked as sock, I have also stricken !vote of their sockmaster above. See this SPI.--Human3015^TALK 15:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 460 results in news alone, with dozens of articles just about this term (and Google News notoriously skips Indian newspapers). Btw, that was a terrible outcome on previous AfD by since KOd Black Kite, clearly should have been kept or no consensus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For all the reasons above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see related (by topic) Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhakt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2015 (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.