Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Wing Fascism in India


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Left-Wing Fascism in India

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I declined to delete per WP:CSD G10. Though soapboxy, I don't think it qualifies as a negative, unsourced BLP or an attack page. Seems to me it treats a legitimate subject and is supported by references. But I don't want to detag it without a discussion either. The deletion reason would be "negative BLP concerns outweigh encyclopedic value." Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to decry what one sees as the evils of the world." Dloh  cierekim  21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)   Dloh  cierekim  21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Must Retain Article. The article supports all the citations with valid references. The author has presented the material collected from different sources and presented in the Wiki Page. --User:Mahanteshwar 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) — Mahanteshwar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong delete, the entire article is a pov soapbox. The article fails to present a coherent definition of its subject. --Soman (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--this appears to be soapboxy to say the least; the article is full of weaselwords that have as their reference various blogs and other non-RSs. Legitimate news sources and even events (such as the Nandigram violence--clearly of an entirely different kind than for instance violent acts by Indian Maoists) are called upon to make some broad claim about left-wing fascism (channeling Jonah Goldberg?); there is no chance that this, as nominator suggests, could ever lead to an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Clear attempt at using wikipedia as a soapbox. Agree with Drmies's analysis on how the article synthesizes unrelated information from non-rs blogs, and reliable news sources to create a POV diatribe against "Left wing facism in India". (Incidentally, I didn't even find the term "left-wing fascist" used in any of the listed sources that I checked.) Abecedare (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't delete Soman wants to say, I have made personal attacks in this article. Please show me one personal attack that is made in this article. The citations are reports of official agencies and reputed international human rights agencies like 'Amnesty International'. All the quotations are well referenced and are in double quotes. This article is a genuine attempt at looking at the phenomena of marked departure of Leftist organisations from the Left ideology. The phenomena should be understood for academic reasons if not for anything else. Concealing ones record of flaws and curbing even academic criticism about it, is not in the best of interests of wiki. Constructive criticisms of the article are welcome, but I strongly believe the article should not be deleted. Michonuri (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) — Michonuri (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment, I had not understood G10 as exclusively dealing with BLP violations. The article in question is created with a sole soapboxing purpose, in my view that constitutes an 'attack page'. That is however a different matter, since now we are discussing a AfD, not a speedy delete. --Soman (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, You are retracting from what you said on my talk page. You explicitly said I was indulging in "personal attack", which definitely was unsubstantiated. Comming to this discussion, please come up with the lines from the article that you believe do not have references or have been misquoted or are not from genuine sources.Minten (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, oh the irony. I had posted a message (a generic template for CSD:G10) at 's talk page. Now uses the wording 'on my talk page', thereby admitting to sock-puppetry. My personal guess is that not only Minten and Michonuri, but also  are one and the same person. --Soman (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this post, Minten created User:Minten which says that's an alternate of dougweller (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - clear soapboxing, not to mention falling foul of WP:SYNTH Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * strong no to deletion I agree with Dlohcierekim that it treats a legitimate subject and is supported by references. I have gone through the article and find that all the references are from genuine sources. Only one reference out of the 29, leads to a blog, which is an article written by a author who is being quoted. Many Leftist groups have been doing good work around the world. It is also well known that Leftist groups have been involved in violence and human rights violations like groups of other ideological leanings. Why should anybody have a problem, when these aspects too are being documented? Have we become intolerant even to academic criticism? Gabriel N (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment,I have put more references and removed the lone reference to the blog (if that would make any difference).Minten (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What about these rediff references? And SATP? And the opendemocracy article? Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Legitimate topic. If one views it as POV, one should edit it to make it more NPOV -- deletion is not a proper solution at all. Collect (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, please elaborate further if possible. What should, according to you, be the scope of the article? Which organizations in India could, in an npov manner, be defined as 'left-wing fascists'? --Soman (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A clear example of original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is clearly original research.  The author, Michonuri, is writing an article about two Maoist groups (Naxalites) and one unrelated Left Front state administration and calling them left-wing fascists.  However there is no evidence presented in the article that anyone has called them that.  Nor does Michonuri explain in the article why he considers them left-wing fascists.  Furthermore, there is no academic agreement on use of the term left-wing fascist.  The sources indicate that some obscure political opponents have called the groups listed fascist or accused them of using fascist tactics.  That does not prove that they are fascists, left-wing or otherwise.  The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some of the content here might possibly be useful in an article on political violence in India, but we would need to get rid of the unsupported claim implied by the article that the use of violence equates to fascism. Fascism has a specific meaning that goes far beyond just the use of violence, and shouldn't be used in articles, or article titles, simply as a term of abuse. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment--Phil, that is a good point, and it agrees what I see as one of the main problems with the article. Some editors above say that these references are real and all that, and that's true for at least some of them (and I wish that the authors had properly used reference templates, so it would be easier to see what kind of sources we're dealing with). But facts are one thing, interpretation thereof another. You can cite the Times of India all you want about incidents, but to turn that into fascism is a huge step.The South Asia Terrorist Portal--how is that an RS? It is used to support the claim that "Some Leftist groups in India have proclaimed that violent struggles form the core to their ideology." Well, I don't buy that, not on that authority, and certainly not to make the political and philosophical argument that this is fascism we're talking about. Then, as Abecedare says, the sources don't even mention "left-wing fascism"--Abecedare, I think that really clinches the OR case, if the SOAPBOX case weren't enough. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Original synthesis, nothing salvageable. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I have boxes of soap which are less categorical soapboxes than this. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is about a topic that has not been the subject of verifiable, third-party, reliable sources. Putting links between &lt;ref&gt; tags doesn't mean the links satisfy WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Personal essay masquerading as encyclopedic article. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Per nom.-- TRU  CO   23:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Isn't the subject a self-contradiction? Anyway, this opinion piece is nothing but original research, and pretty bad research at that. Themfromspace (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Essaylike OR.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Per nom, not to mention the stinky smell of sockpuppets and meat puppets.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  11:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are likely already articles about various political movements and incidents of violence in India, which are part of a reasonable parent / child article tree structure. Making a cross-section of a country's history and politics from this particular angle, the intersection of violence and place on the political spectrum, has an inherent tendency to create a biased article.  It is also very poorly written from the standpoint of neutrality, weight, and clarity.  Thus, even if this material is worth covering on the encyclopedia, it probably: (1) is already, and (2) cannot be saved from an irredeemably flawed article like this.  It is better to start from scratch than try to fix an article this inappropriate.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename, merge or delete - If no reliable references verify that this phenomenon is actually called left-wing fascism, then the whole article is based on a false premise. At the very least, the article should be renamed, and all unsubstantiated uses of the term left-wing fascism should be deleted from this article.Spylab (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (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.