Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Part One of the Constitution of 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 without prejudice. Note that the article's original content is at Constitution_of_India/Part_I. The current content is "Part One of the Constitution of India concerns the union and its territory.", content like this is less than even a stub, and worse than having a redlink since it fools readers into thinking there is an article when there isn't one, and I cannot in good faith keep an article in a condition like that. "Cleanup" indicates that there is tangible content to work with, in this there is none. As Uncle G noted, AFD closers cannot be expected to write an article, that responsibility falls with the editors who want an article on Wikipedia. The subject is without doubt notable, and I will reiterate that writing an article with substantial will be a very welcome addition. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Part One of the Constitution of India

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm not sure how to proceed here, but I'm thinking deletion on account that Wikipedia is apparently not a repository for constitutional documentation. I am taking into consideration, here, the articles about the United States Constitution - the individual articles within the US Constitution do, indeed, have their own Wikipedia articles, but the WP articles are far more descriptive than just a transcription of the document. To be frank, an article of that grade would be a Good Thing here, but with the current state of this article, my opinion is that it is probably best to delete and start over. --  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 06:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep & Alter Completely: (I am not voting keep just for the reason of being Indian or nominator not being one. I feel The Tiger is concerned that he will be sprung upon by all patriots. Hence clarifying this.) I get the nominator's concern. I agree with nominator that this is not a place to paste whole constitution as it is. That is available at Wikisource Constitution of India/Part I. But this article should not be deleted but only be cleaned to summerize the Part I, just as part 13 is done here. The topic needs to have its own space. Hence keep! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, sort of. The subject is unquestionably notable - and the US Constitution Article articles (!) give us a roadmap for how to do an article of this type correctly. In short, this is salvageable. But it does need a complete rewrite, from the ground up. If that isn't forthcoming, I'd recommend that we stub it or redirect it in the interim. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but radically rewrite, as explained above. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that closing administrators are not magic article writing services. Articles don't get rewritten unless and until the people wanting them rewritten themselves do the very work that they want done.  That includes AFD discussion contributors with boldfaced words.  It's far better to say "I've rewritten the article, take a look." in an AFD discussion than "rewrite".  Boldface isn't a magic incantation.  Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to an actual article being written. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an excerpt of the document to which it refers.  I don't have any problem with the subject meeting notability, either directly under WP:GNG or as a structural member of Constitution of India under WP:SPINOUT.  But this "article" is essentially content-free.


 * I don't buy the keep-and-rewrite votes; a keep is a keep, and there's no way to enforce the rewrite. There is no  reason to keep a content-free page around on the hope and prayer that someone will jack up the article title and slide an actual article under it.  Nothing prevents the proper article from being written whether it is kept or deleted; and keeping it merely keeps a page that does constitute an article.  This "article" is merely using Wikipedia as a "Mere collection[] of public domain or other source material such as ... laws"; see WP:NOTREPOSITORY.


 * There's no justification for a redirect or a stub, either. It's neither a likely search target nor any of the other bases for having a redirect; and there's nothing in it to stub to. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Move content to Wikisource; >DONE. Not by me, it was already there: Constitution of India< . Redirect current title to Constitution of India >TO DO after the AfD<, and place a link from that article to the Wikisource article with the tag; >DONE. Not by me, it was already there: Constitution of India<.
 * I do not believe that Wikipedia could not have been a repository of documents, dictionary definitions Wiktionary, or quotes Wikiquote (and there are probably a ton of others I do not even know about), and it most certainly SHOULD have been a place to summarize the sports and computer game experiences and give information about their details. However, this has been destined, so far, to not be, except for of course the articles that tell the tale of the double standard like Golf stroke mechanics and King's Gambit, Fischer Defense. (I should like to be quite clear that I would find the removal of such articles abhorrent, just as I did that of their unfortunate brethren; I would rather have a double standard than a wholesale slaughter)
 * There are a couple of things that keep an article from being recreated; the nasty pink notice at the top of the page, and its wording, that suggests to anyone who isn't bloodyminded, that it should stay deleted, and purports to mandate, without basis in WP rules, unnecessary roadblocks in the path to re-creation. And we are here at AfD to discuss the subject of the article as indicated by its title, and whether that has a possibility of becoming a good article, not the current content. In real life, of course, and contrary to WP's own rules, I might add, this translates to a likelihood of the article becoming a good article, which is why I voted Move and Redirect.
 * Sections of the article have been blanked by User:Lord Roem, contrary to the specific wording of the notice at the top of the page. Anarchangel (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not blank the article, I removed the material that was already on Wikisource. This article is effectively a stub, in need of expanding by someone familiar with the subject matter. Lord Roem (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Constitution of India without prejudice to someone creating a proper analytical article comparable to Article One of the United States Constitution. I don't see anything wrong with this topic, but the content of the article should neither be just a copy of the text of the Constitution's Part One (which belongs on Wikisource) nor a one-sentence stub (which isn't helpful because the same content could have been placed in Constitution of India instead of referring readers to a separate article). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why redirect? Is "Part One of the Constitution of India" a likely search term for someone who would not search on "Constitution of India" or "India Constitution"? TJRC (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, delete in preference to redirection, because having a bluelink on Template:Indian Constitution TOC would imply that Wikipedia has an article about this Part, and it won't if we replace this one-sentence stub with a redirect. If someone wants to improve the article during this AfD period, that would be great and I might change my recommendation, but that hasn't happened yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as cleanedup as stated. Around The Globe  सत्यमेव जयते 07:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form (a one-sentence stub), but allow recreation as an article summarizing and analyzing this part of the constitution.  Sandstein   06:10, 23 May 2012 (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.