Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right to Recall


 * 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The result was Nom withdrawn. Article near-nuked and (sort of) hijacked to the generalized theme, which passes GNG, IMO. (non-admin closure) &#x222F; WBG converse 17:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Right to Recall

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I fail to see anything resembling any significant (or trivial) coverage of the subject, discussed here-in by any reliable media-source or recently published books in the Indian-political-scenario or academic journals of repute.

Frankly, going by it's proposed ramifications, if it had managed to evolve to anything beyond the brain-storming-stage, it ought to be national-fodder for a span of time and I don't remotely recollect reading anything about this in print-media.

Also, the write-up style significantly indicates that we are being used as a promotional-tool to promote the proposed idea and Rahul Mehta, a wannabe-politician himself.

Also, the reference to HT, is a fake reference in the sense that it talks about an entirely and radically different idea of recall, which further points to some probable nefarious purpose.

Furthermore, an integrally linked-article is Transparent Complaint Procedure, which has it's own share of problems and has been dispatched for it's trial by fire &#x222F; WBG converse 13:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Post-deletion, this can be redirected to Recall election. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ughh. It was created in 2012; has it been a "proposed law" ever since or was it passed? That should be easy enough to esatblish (I guess); If the former, then I votes delete, if the latter I votes keep. News outlets give bugger all, whilst GBooks makes only a vague mention of such a thing under...err...the East India Company :D  although I wonder whether Google tailors my results to where I am, and thus native searches (hope I've expressed that OKm, apologies if it sounds cretinous) might bring up far more nuanced results. Cheers,  —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , self-described-activists who are often wannabe politicians have a tendency to come up with glorious ideas as to reformation of the system.It's one such idea, which failed to get any traction out of his own website.Even the mere tabling or mention of the bill in the parliament is a far-fetched idea(:


 * The one, which is reffed at HT was proposed by Varun Gandhi, (an INC MP) and is radically different, way too simpler and has no minimal association with Mehta. It was rejected, though.


 * I did a news-search on Mehta, the brain-child of all these fuckwitted-ideas (check my contribs...) and there is expectedly not a single mention anywhere that can be prominently scoured.Obviously, as some off-wiki evidence indicates, (Check the author of a Quora answer on this topic and search for the article-creator's name + RTR, over Google:-) ) they were utilising WP for plain spamming.


 * And, EIC, you've crawled umm..... about two centuries back....Whilst, that's not much long and old is gold, I'm inclined to think that the article-creator won't have much admiration for the reference:-)


 * For a note, the broader theme was once mentioned in a parliament session, as an idea, in 1996 in a very minimal manner.The transactions are view-able over here. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Also note, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, AFD is not a substitute for refimprove tags. Notable topic with widespread coverage over a large period of years, easily passes WP:GNG. A topic that attracts attention of Mainstream Media and academia leading to a detailed coverage is encyclopaedic and should not be deleted. Some of the detailed sources from Books and Media are here        -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There has been some in-general discussions and discourses about the broader theme of recalling elected MPs. Barring Varun, nobody ever undertook any concrete step. And, whatever you've used as references is certainly not in any form or manner linked with the subject that is currently present at the article (or rather was present from beginning). At best, you can add a section at Recall election and redirect it to the broader article, as I wrote in the nom. Nothing more.


 * And, whilst you can cite AFDISNOTCLEANUP, I refuse to beleive that somebody spamming WP ought be provided the oppurtunity of preserving some spam in the history of an article.


 * The locus that you've entirely missed is that I have no qualms on creating an article on the general locus of right to recall from an Indian perspective. It's expected (and evident) that right to recall has been discussed for every democratic country. But, the point is that it will be a generalized take on the issue and not something like the current ever-consistent version of the current article.For, pretty nothing except Varun's bill has happened on-ground.


 * Though I believe a better approach is to tackle all such ideas on a broader page about electoral reforms in India. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi WBG, as I replied on my talk page, I prefer to discuss on the notability of the article instead of the author at AfD, we can talk about the Author at ANI. You keep naming Varun Gandhi, did you miss Vajpayee ? As I said, this is not a recent topic but has been going on for years, and has amassed enough SIGCOV to merit an article of its own. I disagree with a redirect to Recall Election due to the same reasons. WP:TNT is not applicable here, not yet. regards-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that the same ereference has been used by me in this very AFD, (before you) it seems unlikely that I have missed it. If you read the entire transcripts of the session, that proposed bill was near-unanimously rejected (by a strength of voice) and Vajpayee spoke for a very short time on the theme, which has been duly noted.It might be noted that multiple broad themes or topics are discussed over Loksabha proceedings and that's not an indicator of any notability. Neither are op-eds. That obviously does not contradict the fact that the right to recall is a discussed electoral reform in India in academic circles and the verity of it is beyond doubt. But we don't need to improve it by discounting our anti-promotional stances.Delete this mess and create a de-novo aryicley on the general theme, which might be merged somewhere, shall it seem to be prudential. Period. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep An article about a proposed law that is neither non-notable nor there is potential that it cannot be written in a non-promotional way. I have no doubt that notability exists. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2018 (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.