Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav


 * 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. Ugh, political articles are always a problem because partisanship often leads editors to toss policy out the window. The deletion arguments are essentially ESSAY, POV & POVFORK. I’m also concerned by the argument that this contains material that wouldn’t be suitable for the bio - so is this a coat rack or a disguised opportunity for hosting blp vios? Not sure but it means we need to be cautious in the outcome.

On the keep side, the argument is that its notable and has sources and some ridiculous comparison with other articles which is invalid per wax.

This therefore comes down to an issue of notability and since its an article about bihar under lalu prasad yadev have the sources been demonstrated to discuss that intersection in a nonpolemic and scholarly way so that we can create a neutral and balanced article? My read of the keep arguments is that this argument has not been made and that the sources have been asserted and not demonstrated. Given the concerns about blp and pov expressed in the delete argument we need to be very clear that polemic or partisan sources wouldn’t be a suitable fit for a neutral article but that’s a question for another day. Spartaz Humbug! 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete --This is not an article it is an Essay and should be deleted as per WP:NOTESSAY. If articles which are mostly an Essay are allowed then others will create articles like Gujarat under Narendra Modi, West Bengal under Mamta Banerjee, Orissa under Biju Patanaik, United States of America under Donald Trump in order to push their Point of View and opinion. Such essays are usually created either to glorify or castigate the person. Heybata (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) — Heybata (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep See Russia under Vladimir Putin and Presidency of Donald Trump and its not a valid ground to delete an article having a lot of reliable sources.No personal opinion are mentioned, everything is from high quality sources, read the policy carefully, u mentioned, its backed by large number of sources and not a original publication. Heba Aisha (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination is itself a big issue in this case as the nominator is a WP:SPA, mostly having any issue with the subject. The route of Afd was chosen though the cleanup might have been a good idea with the article having a lot of reliable book sources from high quality publishers and authors in the topic area. I can see many comments are just posted by people who haven't edited in this topic area in the past nor do procedural grounds indicate the need to delete such article. Meanwhile some of the initial comment also indicates WP:COI issue of the voters in this Afd. The attempt of one of the voter in the original article of Lalu Prasad Yadav to keep criminal conviction in the lead seemed POV violation as  a whole section talks about multiple criminal conviction of the subject. I want to clarify, I know about WP:uncensored.  Heba Aisha (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. A WP:CFORK like this could be appropriate if the information does not fit in the article about Lalu Prasad Yadav. However, I find the current article a bit confusing. First of all, the WP:LEAD does not seem to give a summary of the article as the lead is supposed to give, but instead provides background. A fork also does not need to contain a short biography of the person of which it is a fork (Lalu Prasad Yadav). That is no reason for deletion though. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yupp, the article discusses about transformation of Bihari society in his tenure, including the changes in contemporary politics. You can call it partly political and partly a historical article. Actually, it also mention the background of politics of 1990 Bihar, which paved the way for RJD coming into power, the lead indicate that particular thing only. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the article could be improved (e.g. the lead should be the Background section and a new lead is needed), but that's no reason for deletion. There are 79 sources used; most of them look decent, and the topic seems notable enough. I suggest that the nominator might better address their perceived complaint of bias by finding reliable sources that give the other point of view, and use them to improve the article. --RexxS (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes u suggested. ThanksHeba Aisha (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a good WP:CFORK since it mainly offers a perspective about his rule than rely on facts. Equally . Comparing the subject with  Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is also far from making any sense because these individuals reigned has presidents of their nations. Lalu Yadav was just a chief minister. Once WP:UNDUE sections like "Background", "On Yadavisation", "Colonial roots of underdevelopment in Bihar" and others have been removed then the article will become small already. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends upon WP:Notability of issue, and here you can find 100 of books about governance during his period. I can see wikipedia going to miss a historical article if it gets deleted as articles related to Bihar are already in poor state with non verifiable sources. All the old politics related article were written by using sources that are not accessible and a lot of information was veiled. This is the first time I tried to give visible and verifiable source for every point of the article.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see sections like personality cult in Russia under Vladimir Putin, these are the things mentioned many a times in the news articles and the sources, similar is the case of Yadavisation, which has gain notability in political circle of Bihar, a simple google search will tell you that its not WP:UNDUE.Heba Aisha (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Should I assume WP:SILENCE ?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this subject holds enough currency to require a stand alone article. I also don't see similar articles for every chief minister/state combination. Some of the sources don't even mention Lalu Prasad Yadav so the article also violates WP:OR. Important content already exists on Lalu Prasad Yadav. Any important content in the article should be shifted to under Bihar article.Santosh L (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's better to keep an article seperate if enough information can be included in it and it becomes too big to be included in any article. This topic needs seperate mentioning considering the notability and reliable sources present on the topic. Heba Aisha (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources which donot mention him, must mention the background of his political ascedency, afterall everything is accessible, anyone can see clearly, its nothing like an WP:OR.I would like to mention wat admin said above:There are 79 sources used; most of them look decent, and the topic seems notable enough Heba Aisha (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Should I assume WP:SILENCE?Heba Aisha (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOPAGE. You can easily find more than 80 sources for expanding a subject like this, but the main article Lalu Prasad Yadav should be enough for all relevant content. That article is only 66k bytes, and there will be no issue with adding roughly 10k bytes more there. --RaviC (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As per administrator, the article couldn't be merge being too long and the content can't be included in Lalu Prasad Yadav article being not suitable for biography. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge The article Lalu Prasad Yadav doesn't seem long enough that it needs to have a separate article focusing solely on his political career. Whereas if we look at articles like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, those articles are huge and as leaders of a country, definitely can be able to spin off their own pages on their political careers. Whereas I feel much of this article contains excellent and detailed information that can easily be transplanted to Lalu Prasad Yadav, where the additional content would be a good addition to beef up the page, because currently, Bihar under Lalu Prasad Yadav is longer than Lalu Prasad Yadav itself. Also the information can be put on History of Bihar which also could use some more additions.Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am agreed to put some content like colonial roots of underdevelopment in History of Bihar.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nomination ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic with plenty of sources, and potential merge targets are long enough already. AfD is not cleanup.  Mini  apolis  15:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes Its not possible to merge and many fine sources are used. The nominator seems to be a novice who seems to have some dispute over the content, but it is not a sound criteria for delition. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not there. Uses selective sources to support his views. Shows Laluji and Bihar badly. This person is anti-bihari. Delete and block him. Pintu the dude (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked for meatpuppetry.Heba Aisha (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC) — Pintu the dude (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Some of the best authors in the area has been used here including Christophe Jaffrelot and Jeffery wistoe. The Afd is not a route to clean an article. It is open to add up what others know in seperate section without delition of sourced content. Heba Aisha (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Yoonadue and WP:NOPAGE. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NOPAGE properly and relevant examples like Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign clearly says the opposite what's kept here.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously a notable topic. Being essay-like is not grounds for deletion. If it is essay-like, improve it. That seems to be a cosmetic objection anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:CFORK. Comparing him with Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump as an argument for keeping doesn't hold water -- he's nowhere as consequential as the other two. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , please see the number of books written above his rule. The topic is highly notable as a simple search on google books will take you to plenty of materials from publishers like Routledge and Penguin uk also the oxford university press. Being a national leader or president of a big nation shouldn't be the criteria to decide WP:Notability. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable topic since a large part of media coverage during Yadav's tenure as the chief minister (or his wife's) was concerned about his "rule" of the state and was largely critical about it. Any WP:POV in the article can be ironed out however. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Article reads like a WP:POVFORK as described above, particularly by Santoshsatvik. Most of the section about Bihar_under_Lalu_Prasad_Yadav has barely anything to do with the subject. Lalu Prasad Yadav is nowhere in the List of longest-serving Indian chief ministers. None of those 40 longest serving chief ministers of India have their own "xxx(state) under xxxx (CM name)". There is no need to develop a new standard for this subject as pointed out by the nominator. Tessaracter (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the Afd is not about cleanup. If anyone think that there are pov issue in the article, the opposite view along with source could be presented. Meanwhile, I would suggest you to go through the sources as the sources say what is there in the article. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, I would also urge you to do necessary edits if you feel the word " Assessment " is problematic there.PS: Various high quality sources are provided along with the preview and it is upto other editors to iron out any pov "if they think it is there ", though I have tried to remain totally neutral. Heba Aisha (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're not convincing other editors of your POV by bludgeoning the discussion. Let the community have its say, and I hope you don't have an undisclosed conflict of interest with this article.  Mini  apolis  14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , sure I dont have any COI, I was just saying it is open to be edited if one thinks so.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that would lead me to conclude that this has been treated by sources as an independent topic. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it certainly has issues, I do not buy the argument that there's a lack of precedent—subnational entities and their leaders are perfectly valid targets for articles, see e.g. Governorship of Phil Murphy or Governorship of Rick Perry. (And Bihar dwarfs both Texas and New Jersey). There may be a lack of precedent for India but I would argue that is a reflection of Wikipedia's under-coverage of non-Western countries more than anything else. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.