Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Per consensus from established editors. If someone wants this to work on in Draft, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 18:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article cannot be possibly attributed to reliable sources, and based on original theories and conclusions. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC); Possibly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of separate articles (Left Democratic Front, Left Front (Tripura), Left Front (West Bengal)). Similar content also discussed in a separate AfD almost 3 years ago.12:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it : Wikipedia reviewer User:Onel5969 has already reviewed the page and told me to add more citations and then I added many citations and informed him and then he did not raise objection against it. This article contains information derived from many reliable sources and wikipedia pages, no speculations by me. Editors should add more citations to the page if required. User:XYZ 250706 — Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides I have added some more citations today. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This comment about a review is disingenuous. Onel5969 most assuredly interacted with this article, once to send it back to Draft space, and a couple more times to tag it for deficiencies. This message is to draw the closing admin's attention to the edit history and to ask them to compare it with this comment. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent Yes, I added citations and submitted draft. Then one day I got a notice that the draft has been reviewed and from then no objection has been raised against it. Left parties are part of government in 4 states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Jharkhand) and previously ruled WB, Assam and Tripura. So they are well notable. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Please understand that AfD is a full and formal review of this or any other article. This is where the community decides. Any comment by any individual editor is always superseded by the community's view. Your talk page shows that this was draftified. That is the review you speak of, again disingenuously. In other words it was not ready. While you were technically entitled to move it from Draft to Main space on 11 December 2022 rather than await an AFC review, this subjected the article to community scrutiny. This process is that scrutiny. This process is that objection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a great fan of the way the title is written, but a page about alliances between leftwing political parties in India seems to be both encyclopedic and self-evidently notable. The latter because it is clearly something that the media routinely discuss. JMWt (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :- Here is the opinion of User:Shakya2007 in Talk:Alliances formed by left-wing parties in the states of India#Opinion about this Left Wing alliance article. XYZ 250706 (talk) 9:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC) (strike duplicate !vote — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    @XYZ 250706: While likely added in good faith, this is functionally equivalent of canvassing and does not stregthen the arguments for keep. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldsztajn I did not perform canvassing now, I only added one editor's comment on the article talk page. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer What is the meaning of duplicate vote?? XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not express the formal opinion for retention nor deletion more than once, though you may make other comments. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs major editing, conflates left-wing alliances with the various CPM-Left Front incarnations, the latter being a subset of the former, but nevertheless there's no end to the reliable sourcing available on this subject that begins with the Freedom Movement itself. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm here after the nominator's ping, It needs to be edited in good manner. Left-wing had ruled various states for years, so it would be nice if this article is Live. But it should be edited. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Disclosure: I have been asked to come here by the nominator, but they have not sought to influence my opinion. I do not see this as canvassing within the project's rules
    This article is troubling. It appears to be WP:SYNTH, with many disparate sources, many of which are not RS, and which are Primary, brought together in order to reach a conclusion, though the conclusion is left to be drawn by the reader.
    I feel an article on the topic is merited and has a place, but that this article is in need of WP:TNT in order to remove any hint of Synthesised Original Research.
    I see at least one other person offering an opinion that the article's writing is not appropriate.
    I am concerned that a number of the keep !votes so far have a rationale that can only be distilled into WP:ILIKEIT. I would rather see policy based arguments
    While AfD is not cleanup, this could be a useful subject for WP:HEY, though I feel the article should be rewritten from the facts in references which have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic
    tl;dr summary: The topic may be valid, but this article, as written and referenced is not 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: For clarity, my !vote is not based upon the reliability or otherwise of the references. They are not all reliable and at least one is a 404 error, but that is not even important. I could perform a full source analysis, which would be arduous and pointless.
    Even were 100% of the references to be significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the fact they reference, the collection of all these references coupled with the way this article is written is Synthesised Original Research. This renders this article written in this manner unsuitable for Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alliances made by leftist political parties in India could be a notable topic, but as things stand, I have synthesis concerns; I don't see how any of the sources cited constitute an overview of the topic, and while numerous scholarly sources discuss Left-wing politics in India, I'm unaware of any that enumerates the very many alliances made and unmade. I don't think the article as it stands is viable, and would suggest a merge to articles about specific elections in each state (for instance; merge the Rajasthan section to 2008 Rajasthan Legislative Assembly election), and then redirect to Politics of India, until someone writes Left-wing politics in India. @Goldsztajn: I think your comment is correct in principle, but does not account for the state of the source material; I don't believe there are sources that exhaustively list all such alliances. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde I feel that all of the citations have been given the overview now. When your commented there was 5-6 citation which had no proper overview. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Again disingenuous, and not correct. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent I am trying to say that when Vanamonde commented there was 5-6 citation which had no proper overview and after he said that I have added that. XYZ 250706 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93 More alliances in other states will definitely be added. Actually other editors should contribute to the article with correct information and citations. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that you don't have any sources discussing the topic as a whole; that is, none of your sources are examining the phenomenon in general. That may work for papers in academia, but it does not work on Wikipedia, because we prohibit original research. Your sources are discussing specific alliances. These are acceptable sources to use in articles about the parties involved, or the elections, which already have a clearly defined scope, and where notability is not in question. That is not the case here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment striking my !vote per comments from Timtrent and Vanamonde93, both raise valid points and (reasonably) shift the discussion towards TNT. Sitting on the fence for the moment, I will relook. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sure, the article needs some polishing and more reliable sourcing, but the subject is pretty notable in Indian politics and should be kept. Ok123l (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Onel5969, this appears to be a canvassed !vote, I've warned the editor. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per WP:TNT, I moved it to draft because I felt that it had possibilities, but was full of synth and OR. Was moved back, but the same problems still existed, which I tagged, the tag was removed, I replaced it, it was removed again. Could this be a valid article? Perhaps. I do not know enough about the subject to state categorically one way or another. What I do know is that the current incarnation, while better than the original draft, still violates WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. I would normally say return to draft, but would think that would be appropriate if the codicil is added that it cannot be moved back to mainspace without AfC review. Also, I was pinged to this discussion by nom, unsure whether or not that was canvassing, since I am unsure if they pinged every editor who touched the article or not. However, some canvassing is going on by User:XYZ 250706, such as the comment directly above mine, and at least one of the other keep !votes attest, having never edited the article prior to this discussion.Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I am concerned that people are invited to come here and offer opinions, I have added {{Not a ballot}} to the head of the discussion. As I stated when offering my own opinion I was also invited offer my own view. I doubt the editor inviting me had a clue what my view might be, though. I am hoping they simply trusted me to give a policy based view. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current article is a mess, and I'm worried that it might not be easily salvageable... The article essentially emerges in the back-drop of the AfD on Left Front (India). It is ridden with recentism, and does not portray evolution of united front politics in India in the lens of an encyclopedia. A better approach would be to 1) improve Communism in India article, talking about the historical evolution of the Indian communist movement, 2) possibly build an article on united front politics in India, I suggest Rao, M. V. S. Koteswara (2003), Communist Parties and United Front as a starting point. And not just list number of candidates state-wise, but actually talk about the historical and broader implications of alliance-building. 3) write articles about electoral campaigns of parties election-wise, like an article on campaign of [foo] party in [foo] year election (including whatever alliances and seat-sharings were done for said election). --Soman (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soman Are you able to offer a formal "keep/delete/merge/redirect/etc" opinion in addition to your comment, please? This will aid the eventual closing admin. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article name is too long and discriptive, The Article name should be changed to Left Front (India) or LDF (India) Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)— Preceding undated comment added 26 January 2023, 17:33 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I note this diff where the nominator has added text to their deletion rationale. My feeling is that this woudl be better placed in a comment. We are too far into this deletion discussion for fiddling about with the deletion rationale. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Timtrent@Goldsztajn@DaxServer@Misterrrrr@JMWt@Cyberbot I@JMWt@Onel5969@ The article does not say about national level left front clearly. Now state level alliances are added only. I think the article needs proper edition but not deletion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: My opinion is unchanged. WP:SYNTH. WP:TNT is still required. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This seems to me to be news commentary, not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Nwhyte (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input from editors who were not canvassed to the discussion would be very helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've given this more thought and, to reiterate, the article conflates CPM and its various electoral front incarnations with left-wing politics in general. While there is more than adequate reliable sourcing on both electoral alliances in general and left-wing alliances specificially from the Freedom Movement onwards, this article does not address those in any form. There are elements of redundant forking and syth in the article. There's material that is just plain incorrect (how are the possibly 22 seats attributable to the "left front" following the 1st Lok Sahba election?). It's not salvageable in the present state. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along same lines as Goldsztajn. The article subject inevitably invites to SYNTH. I can't think of any reputable third party source that adequately deals with this subject as a whole, and with the risks of recentism the article difficult to salvage. --Soman (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article is unnecessary and any important information can be included in related articles. Sahaib (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alliances_formed_by_left-wing_parties_in_the_states_of_India&oldid=1138244332"