Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Inkaar Karta Hoon


 * 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 merge to Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Consensus is that there should be no standalone article. I will merge the useful information to CAA, and leave behind a redirect. (non-admin closure) Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Main Inkaar Karta Hoon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this is not notable enough for a stand-alone article like this. The poem finds mention in Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests and is nicely placed there. DTM (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge to Citizenship Amendment Act protests. General notability of this poem outside of the particular protests is not established. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * comment: What you think that does not matter, you must clarify with which reason of deletion policy justify your move. Standalone article as it follows WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:CONTN, WP:NRVE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:SUSTAINED. Dey subrata (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * delete the poem fails general notability criteria. Whatever coverage the subject has, it is only because of Citizenship Amendment Act protests. Without the lyrics, and translation, the article is just one paragraph. Like the nomination says, it is placed in the protests' article well. No reason to have a separate article about a non-notable poem. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It follows WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:CONTN, WP:NRVE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:SUSTAINED and it follows almost all points of notability criteria including relaible sources and citations and thus suitable for standalone article. Dey subrata (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that Diannaa has removed the entire text of the poem from the article Main Inkaar Karta Hoon for copyvio, do you really think the rest deserves a standalone article? DTM (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. WP:CONTN states Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Thats what I am saying too. The subject of the article, the poem, is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article.
 * WP:NRVE says No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest[...]
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY says Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. That means the subject has to have significant coverage, to pass the general notability guideline.
 * WP:SUSTAINED says Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.
 * Regarding the article's subject/poem, in a nutshell, what we are currently having are news bursts because of the protests. But notability is not inherited. Regarding WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY; it is too soon to tell if the subject has received sustained coverage for itself (not as a part of, or related to the protests).
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY states The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists. Here it means, if the subject of the article is notable, then the notability criteria do not apply to the verifiable content. We are discussing about the notability of the poem here, as I described in the previous bullet point.
 * To put everything together with examples: most of the articles about dead people have section for their death, or at least two-three lines about their death. Like "XYZ died at the age of 77 due to cardiac arrest." Even if XYZ's death is not notable at all, it merits inclusion in the article of XYZ. Thats WP:NOTEWORTHY is about. But just because it is verifiable, and has been covered in reliable sources, we dont have article on XYZ's death. What I am trying to say here is, we dont have an article on "Death of Stephen Hawking"; but we do have an article on Death of Michael Jackson. And even though Stephen Hawking had an amazing brain (for sure, I bet my life on it), we dont have Stephen Hawking's brain, but we do have Albert Einstein's brain. But the lack of article Stephen Hawking's brain doesnt mean he didnt have brain, or that it wasnt amazing. Just because something exists, and can be verified, doesnt mean it deserves an article.
 * The poem in discussion hasnt received significant coverage independently of the protests. It is too soon to tell if it has received or will receive WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage to become WP:NOTTEMPORARY. For now the article should be deleted, with the content merged in protest article. And if the poem receives significant coverage in the future, without in the connection of the protests (passing mentions to protests are okay), then the article can be created again. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests as it is a plausible search term. No need to delete the article as redirects are cheap.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2020 (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.