Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Decade


 * 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   keep. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pink Decade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reference available no scope of improvement if necessary can be included as a sub section under malayalam literature Benedictdilton (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The current article text is very specific to Malayalam culture. However that is a particular instance of a term which has been more widely used, in particular by Arthur Koestler in The God that Failed to characterise the fellow-traveller intellectuals of the 1930s. See for example this; a Questia search turns up several books and magazine articles using the term in that context. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as an unsourced article which could be either a neologism or an issue of synthesis - it's hard to tell without many sources in English which directly address the term. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep However, it should be expanded beyond Malayalam literature.  "Pink decade" can be assigned to many communist or communist leaning writers in India, China, Russia and beyond.  Refs include  for Indian writer Mulk Raj Anand,  for Russian writers,  for an American writer and  for English writer Harold Laski. Bgwhite (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Query: Can we find many reliable sources establishing the term "pink decade" as something commonly used? I see what you're saying but we might need to change the articles name, don't you think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep a reasonable expectation of expandability has been presented, and it appears to meet NOTE already. As to MezzoMezzos's point, actually the title is fine, it seems the real edit is the LEAD. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly needs work, but I concur with Maury Markowitz and AllyD. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2013 (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.