Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparent Media Portal


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Transparent Media Portal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a form of advocacy rather than an encyclopedia article - I considered a G11 CSD, but thought it should be looked at here instead. The text is full of POV, editorializing and unsourced arguments in favour of the proposal it's describing, and the sourcing is a mess of facebook pages and YouTube videos, plus an editorial in the 'opinions' section of a newspaper's website, and a couple of documents on Google drive that I'm not prepared, from a safety point of view, to download and open. It's perfectly possible that this is notable, but this article fails WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ADVOCACY, and is TNT-worthy Girth Summit  (blether)  20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Girth Summit  (blether)  20:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It's not a good sign when an article cites something in Google Drive. Having said that, I'll withhold judgment until I look at it further. UPDATE: Even Modi's website about his Quest for Transparency doesn't mention this. As such, and in the absence of any other hits in a Google search, I'd have to go with delete. In addition, I had to remove an entire section that seemed to copy and paste the proposed drafts as it violated WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Earwig's tool said that it was not a copyright violation, but even if it isn't it's still not appropriate for the article if it's kept.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC) I believe the article has been sufficiently improved, and adequate sources introduced, such that I can vote keep on it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I'll have to go back to delete given continued NPOV issues. Also, the main editor's continuing tendentious behavior, while not directly relevant, does not reflect well on this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * John M Wolfson I admire the effort you've put in to trying to improve this article, but I can't understand your reasoning for believing that notability has been established. Unless I'm missing something, all of the sources brought up at the article talk page are websites belonging to groups that are advocating for this proposal - not a single genuinely independent source has been identified so far. I don't see how we can get this past WP:GNG with the sources that have been brought up to date - am I missing something? Girth Summit  (blether)  14:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You bring up a fair point. Especially Modi's website on transparency does not mention it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear ,
 * The article we are discussing is a proposed law which is part of a public movement. While the Modi link you have referred to is not a website, it is only a general statement on increasing Transparency.
 * ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you have any sources from opponents of this proposal, or at least from neutral observers? That would make for a much better article. Without such sources I might have to change my !vote back to delete (albeit without prejudice for recreation if/when it becomes more notable.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear ,
 * Please QUOTE the wiki policy which says that opposing view or neutral view is necessary for article in Wikipedia to be acceptable? I did not find anything like that in the Wiki Policies.
 * I feel the editors themselves do not follow any Wiki policies. They just give links of the wiki policies and then make their own decisions subjectively. They do not compare any articles and do not take care about any discrimination even if unintentional which might be done in the treatments to the articles.
 * The whole exercise goes against betterment of wiki and betterment of society. I oppose such activities.
 * ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy (and it is a policy, not a guideline, so must be adhered to) is WP:NPOV. The article has to take a neutral, dispassionate approach to the subject - it should not be trying to say that the proposal is a good (or a bad) idea. We can and should quote what other people have said about it - the sources you've identified so far would be sufficient to establish that these particular political groups are in favour of it, which could be mentioned in a neutral article - but we are still lacking independent, third party sources which would demonstrate notability. If all any of us can find discussing any subject is promotional material, we don't write the article, we wait until uninvolved sources write about it. Girth Summit  (blether)  12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear ,
 * Again you do not abide by your own given links and give your own viewpoint.
 * Quoting from the link given by you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)
 * “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”
 * Please note the word “published”. Nowhere any Wiki policy says what you are saying that opposing viewpoints or neutral points are necessary, it only says that those viewpoints published as of that time should be given and that is what I have done.
 * So, once again I would request you to quote relevant portions of the links you give and using those portions establish how you got to the conclusion you got to.
 * ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no reason for the article to cite neutral or opposing viewpoints, on the grounds that no source has ever been published about it that is not the website of a political party or pressure group that is campaigning for it. That is a very eloquent argument for the deletion of this article. Girth Summit  (blether)  20:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete G4 per Articles for deletion/Transparent Complaint Procedure. Promo-spammer. In case versions don't match, take this as a delete based on my argumentation in the linked AfD. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear ,
 * I found one difference of view point given in one of the sources. I have added that in the article. Please see that.
 * You have talked about Neutral point of view. I looked up the Wikipedia Policy on that subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)
 * Quoting from the same – “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”
 * Please note the word “published”. Nowhere any Wiki policy says that opposing viewpoints or neutral points are necessary, it only says that those viewpoints published as of that time should be given and that is what I have done.
 * Should we really follow what is written in the Wikipedia policy articles? If yes, I would request you to quote relevant portions of the articles of the links you give and using those portions establish how you got to the conclusion you got to.
 * ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your effort, but that viewpoint is still supporting the proposal. As Girth Summit said earlier, if no opposition to the proposal or even an unbiased appraisal of it has been published, then it is not "notable" under Wikipedia's definition of that term and thus not article-worthy. Please do not take offense at this, but Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for ideas. I wish you the best of luck for yourself and the proposal; maybe if it does in fact become law it can be considered for Wikipedia, but as of right now I still don't think it meets the standards. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

ParthaSarathiMishra (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2019 (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.