- Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The page was deleted even though there were third party independent sources cited It is a more than century old organization and certainly worth encyopedic Jethwarp (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we get a temp. undelete please? Hobit (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, I had participated in the discussion. The AfD Nominator had raised the concern appropriately and the AfD participants rightly pointed that WP:ORGCRIT was not meeting. The closure is justified. Good close by Sandstein. --Walrus Ji (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion nomination did talk about self-published sources and a COI primary author; but then it shot itself in the foot with its references to "unacceptable unencyclopaedic fonts" and its telling admission that the nominator had tried to clean it up but been reverted. I see some red flags for the misuse of AfD for cleanup. What might in fact be needed here is not deletion, but for a sysop to step in and restore order. Before we go there, though, the concerns about sources need input from a previously uninvolved, trusted Hindi speaker in my view.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)ou[reply]
- Comment Thank you S Marshall for your perfect reading of situation and red flag for misuse of AfD for clean-up. The problem here was not with article's worthiness it was due to some ip and user Tathya the Fact trying to promote his personal vendetaa on this page , whom I got immediately blocked [1] and also informed the participants in Afd. Instead of dealing with vandals and PoV pushers by Admin intervention, the nominator took AfD route, which is inappropriate and not proper. Wikipedia has policy on how to check and deal with vandals and POV pushers. AfD route to deal with this is misuse of AfD process, as you correctly pointed out. Regards Jethwarp (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jethwarp, you have created this article that was judged as failing WP:ORGCRIT by the community. Where are the third party sources you claim to exist? Instead of resolving the actual WP:ORGCRIT concern you are now attacking the nomination on technicalities. Considering that this article is about an advocacy group, can you please clarify your Conflict of Interest with this group? are you a member of this group or from Khsatriya?--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:59, 14 January2021 (UTC)
- Let other editors decide about the cited sources and I don't have any COI interest in the aricle. Anyone can check the page history to see what are cited sources and which editors could have CoI intrest in the page. Jethwarp (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact I just got curious about using of AfD route by Heba Aisha and found out to my surprise that user is after all articles related to named Rajput, Kshatriya and even Jats. Just check the articles user has been able to via delete AfD procees[2] one example is Sodha it was deleted thru Afd where as independent sources are available [3] (talk)
- Jethwarp, all these article which I tagged were one or two line article with almost no source and some of them were already tagged that they may not meet WP:GNG for years.example: [4] Noone tried to improve them and I believe that this was because, they failed to possess required number of third party independent sources.About the page we are discussing here,: I didn't object after you provided explaination in delition discussion.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I would like to clarify, if you have checked the pages nominated by me. You would be knowing that I have also nominated many movie related articles too. And, those who commented in the AFD deletion discussion expressed their view after checking whether the source exist or not.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I also possess the same concern that Walrus Ji possess, most of the pages you created are related to a particular social group or notable personalities associated with them I.e Rajput. Example: the pages of many of the landlords who you edit regularly also belong to same social group and this organization was also of the same social group. I would like to tag admin Bishonen, about the disruption that has happened in recent times with pages related to this caste. The pages which got deleted faces the same problems example Rajput weeding, admins can check.It was with one source and the whole commentary was nothing but a WP:POV violating castecruft. Heba Aisha (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- the Wikipedia deletion policy clearly states that if no one is improving article that cannot be reason to nominate articles for deletion. If reliable third party sources are there one should try to improve it. just in case of Sodha you should in this particular case should have opted for AfD process diligently. thanks and regards and please don't discuss on my edits and personal attacks, I am here to save this particular article and not saying all your nomination were right or wrong. Jethwarp (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that because you also accused me of taking Afd route and not warning the disruptive user, but [5], you should have checked that I warned him three times. Also, I still believe that most of the hindi sources you are keeping are not independent and anyhow related to that organization possessing COI related materials. As I couldn't see enough quality newspapers itself in the source list, those flashing there were just poor materials of dubious quality news websites. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Requesting speedy close according to the Clause 8 of WP:DRVPURPOSE Jethwarp, This is not the page to attack Heba Aisha, you can take your grievance to Heba Aisha's talk page. If you read the definition , it says Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions;. Instead you have started this for all the wrong reasons listed st WP:DRVPURPOSE (1) because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome. (2) to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion; (3) to argue technicalities (4) to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed). Walrus Ji (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The red flag were first raised by S Marshall and As I realized that arguments are drifting away from main cause I remarked that I am here to save this page and would like to stick onwards only for this deletion review in future also Walrus Ji you first deviated from Deletion Review Clause 8 by asking me questions on my affliations etc. ThanksJethwarp (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - would request all to please check the cited sources all are independent third party reliable sources cited in the article:-
1. Singh, Ujjwal Kumar (2007). The State, Democracy and Anti-Terror Laws in India By Ujjwal Kumar Singh - the book mentions how the organization took up fight against Mayawati government for her targeting of Rajput and Thakur castes
2. भारत रत्न महामना. बालमुकुन्द पाण्डेय, देवेन्द्र कुमार शर्मा · 2015. 2015. p. 85. - the book on Madan Mohan Malviya clearly states about the Akhil Bharatiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and it's meet of 1922 under chairmanship Nahar Singh of Shahpura and it's pioneering role in bringing back Muslim Rajputs in to Hindu Rajput fold. The book also mentions Mahatma Gandhi was averse to this idea but the organization was blessed by Malaviyaji, who later passed similar resolution Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha
3. Government Gazette: The United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. Year 1910. p. 144 mentions about the organization and it's meetings etc
Cited here only above 3, Any one can verify the other cited sources non- are self published sources or advocacy group links
Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity I looked at the reference 1 posted above. In this 350 page book, this organisation has only a single mention in a line saying that it wrote letters to the legislators. This is not what Significant coverage is supposed to mean. It appears that Jethwarp has some competency issues in understanding WP:Significant Coverage. In any case, if this is the #1 source in the list of top 3 sources then this only proves the non notability of this org. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also known as All India Kshatriya Mahasabha google book search for same [6] Jethwarp (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Check link [7] and [8] and [9] and [10] and [11] and [12] and [13] and [14] and [15] and [16] for example.
Most importantly right from 1910 till date you can find different google books of every decade mentioning about the organization. Jethwarp (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jethwarp, I have checked Reference 1 with your new search string. The alt name has zero mention in reference 1. I also clicked and reviewed all the links of google hits that you have provided above. They are trivial mentions. I could not even find one source that could convince me to vote a Keep. While we need to find multiple as WP:ORGCRIT demands. Walrus Ji (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With due respect your opinion is already known. Let other knowledgeable editors check the links. You have already voted in AfD and saying same thing again, with regards. Jethwarp (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mentioning some important contnent from book for benifit of participants about notability of organization
1. Writs staying the act were secured from the High Court immediately after it came into force in 1952, and the legal controversy continued until 1954 when the Supreme Court of India finally upheld the act. The Kshatriya Mahasabha served as the central co-ordinator for the jagirdari class, extending its support to a broad coalition of candidates from several parties, as well as independent candidates State Politics in India - Page 354 Myron Wiener · 2015 [17]
2 A number of organizations had been established to deal with the issues related to Kshatriyas . The All India Kshatriya Mahasabha had been established with the purpose of social upliftment of the Kshatriyas . Female Infanticide and Child Marriage - Page 252
Sambodh Goswami · 2007 · [18]
3However , the smaller non - Muslim organisations like the All - India Hindu Mahasabha , the Bihar Provincial Hindu Mahasabha , the ... the U . P . Sikh Conference , the All - India Kshatriya Mahasabha , all with varying tones of indignation reprobated the Pakistan Plan Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, Volumes 8-10 Faculty of Social Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, 1982 - Pakistan [19]
4. The Kshatriya Mahasabha sent a representation to Prime Minister Nehru who deputed Pt. Govind Ballabh Pant to adjudicate. The Pant Award while conceding many demands of the Jagirdars contained a provision that the Jagirs having Party Politics in an Indian State: A Study of the Main ... - Page 84 <books.google.co.in › books
K. L. Kamal · 1969 ·
5.The Rajasthan Kshatriya Mahasabha accepted the Pant award and was doing its best to solve the problem by constitutional means. The Sabha conducted negotiations on behalf of the Jagirdars with the State Government on various issues Indian Recorder & Digest - Volumes 1-2 - Page 15books.google.co.in › books
1955 PAGE 15
6.The earliest known caste federation is that of the Rajputs who constituted the Kshatriya Mahasabha.. sometime in the later decades of nineteenth century , mainly to consolidate unity among... Journal of Social Research, Volume 27 Council of Social and Cultural Research, Bihar., 1984 - Anthropology pg 76
The above sources clearly indicate that organization is notable :- Source 1-4 gives notabality to organization
1. In 1952 Supreme Court accepted Kshatriya Mahasabha as central co-ordinator for Jagirdari case
2.It clearly mentions The All India Kshatriya Mahasabha had been established with the purpose of social upliftment of the Kshatriyas
3. It mentions that the Pakistan Plan was disapproved by organizations such as Hindu Mahasabha, the National Liberal Federation of India , the All India Forward Block Conference , the Khalsa National Party , the U . P . Sikh Conference , the All India Kshatriya Mahasabha ..
4. Govind Vallabh Pant Chief Minister of UP and Jawaharlal Nehru PM of India had to negotiate with Kshatriya Mahasabha with respect to Jagirdar case and Pant Award, clearly indicating the organization's notability.
Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted even though there were third party independent sources cited It is a more than century old organization and certainly worth encyopedic. I request administrator to please restore the page with only content which have sources cited even if it is third party independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tathya The Fact (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tathya The Fact, is blocked from editing this page.Walrus Ji (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Walrus Ji is also blocked indefinitely Jethwarp (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
