Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young India Party


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Young India Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a political party, "referenced" only to its own self-published presence on Instagram rather than any indication of reliable source coverage in media. Since any random person or group of people can easily call themselves a political party whether they're actually registered as such or not, however, a political party is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because somebody set up a social networking account -- the inclusion test requires registration with the appropriate electoral authority, some actual evidence that it has fielded real candidates in real elections, and some actual evidence of real reliable source coverage about it in media to support all of that. But this shows no evidence whatsoever that any of those conditions have been met here. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The registration details have been added. Some are in Hindi as well. Media has not covered the party, because it was just founded as stated on original stub, which is why I didn't add an actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero (talk • contribs)
 * If media haven't covered you yet, then getting a Wikipedia article will have to wait until they do. For one thing, the sources you added were mostly just random shit that had nothing to do with this political party at all, and were there just to make the article look like it had a lot of references so long as nobody actually read them — and the one source that was actually a list of new political parties seeking formal registration from the Election Commission of India does not even have this party's name in it at all. Wikipedia is not a social networking platform on which you're entitled to have an article for publicity purposes just because you want more attention than you're getting from the media; our job is to follow media coverage, not lead it, and as a person with a direct conflict of interest you have no business starting the article at all. You pull one more fake-referencing stunt like you just did, and I'm going to immediately speedy-delete the article with no further discussion. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to say: your tone of language really is off-putting for someone editing articles behind a computer screen. While you can critique the ECI registration papers, what you cannot do is take your position of editor to your head and speak in the tonality and language in which you've added. If you knew Devnagri, you would have looked at the Hindi document. The only power which you hold you have already threatened of a 'speedy delete.' Go ahead, but at the same time, get some etiquette on how to speak to people. We're all here trying to learn and get better. Be grounded about your Wikipedia status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly, when people are breaking the rules, my job as a Wikipedia administrator is to be a disciplinarian, not a comfort doll — I'll acknowledge that my writing tone is pretty direct and doesn't beat around the bush, but I do not have a responsibility to be Pollyanna and just let anybody do whatever they want on here without ever raising my voice, or warning people that their breaches of our rules may have consequences.
 * Secondly, there was not a single Devangari source present in the new sources I'm talking about. Every single new source you added was written in English, not Devangari, and none of them included any content about this political party at all — one of them was a generic English-language glossary of abbreviations for scientific terms, one of them was an English-language journal article about science education, one was an English-language academic book about how politics affected the development of literature in 19th-century England, and the only one that had anything whatsoever to do with political parties in India was still written in English and didn't name this political party at all. I don't know whether you meant to add a Devangari source and forgot, or whether you're just lying about the sources you used in the hope of making me look negligent, but there were zero non-English sources in the article. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have to make you look negligent, that is not my provocative to do so nor my intention. This debate does make the arrogance in which you hold yourself and your position to. No one has asked you to be pollyanna or someone's comfort, but basic civil decency is expected, but this can't be expected from people from your stature, since they take it too far. You've got to be kidding me, I explicitly put ECI papers in Devnagri and tried to be cordial enough to take 45 minutes off to find the English translations, so it would help the editors out. While I'm first to admit that I am not an expert at editing, but it's always peaked my interest and have wanted to try to better edits or include things about my interest. Coming across such distasteful people who lack the ability to be even cordial is disheartening. Be however cruel you want behind your screen, my friend.

Side note, adding the civility page on Wiki. Hoping you take something out of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

And on the Devnagri party on the registration aspect, here are official ECI papers that I had sourced: https://eci.gov.in/files/file/4254-list-of-political-parties-and-election-symbols-main-notification-dated-13042018/

In which you'll find the Young India Party listed in both English and Hindi. Guess you didn't look hard enough. Crazy that there are backed up sources, and you still refuse to believe it. And mind you, I created a stub, nothing else, since it's too early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero (talk • contribs)
 * That's a new source you've added to the article now, not a source that was in the article before you attacked me. I correctly described the sources that were in the article at the time, none of which included any content about this political party at all, and adding new references that weren't in the article before is not dropping the mic on me.
 * It still isn't a notability-supporting source, however: the notability test for getting a topic into Wikipedia requires evidence of reliable source coverage in media, and topics that do not meet that condition are not exempted from having to meet it just because they're technically verifiable in a government list or a social networking profile. Evidence of registration is one of several conditions that a political party has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article, not the golden ticket in and of itself: it's evidence of registration and evidence of actual candidates appearing on the ballot in actual elections and evidence of real media coverage, not just your personal pick of any one of those three things. It's not Wikipedia's job to have an article about every single thing that exists, whether it gets media coverage or not: it's our job to be about things that get media coverage, and not to be about things that don't.
 * And I'm not engaging you any further on the topic of whether I had a responsibility to be "nicer" to you or not. You say "no one has asked you to be pollyanna or someone's comfort, but basic civil decency is expected" — except that not being Pollyanna, but rather explaining to you that we have inclusion criteria that have to be met and rules that have to be followed, is exactly what you're attacking me for. Your evidence that I'm being uncivil and arrogant is that I didn't just let you do whatever you wanted, not that I actually crossed any lines of civility at all — I did not insult you, I did not call you names, I did not beat you over the head with a golf club. I simply pointed out that we have rules and you're not following them — and if doing that is being uncivil, then there's no way left for administrators to do their jobs at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course you won't entertain this further, because after abusing me, using language that is not appropriate (as stated on Wikipedia's own discourse) and humiliating a user, your ego of your position is far too great. In terms of the sources, I sent them to you and added them. You were just too occupied of trying to be mean and nasty to look into the Hindi text, so I gave you the English version from the most official body that clearly states as of 2019, 'Young India Party' is an official state unrecognized party, directly from ECI sources. Again, I created a stub, because as they contest, they will get coverage. If this isn't enough info (which by far exceeds more proof than half the parties that have full articles on Wiki) to have JUST a stub article, then that's just your ego getting in the way. Young India Party has been proven to be an official party while contesting in in the 2019 elections, Wiki can at least have a stub article since an active party is contesting. I'd love to get someone else's perspective on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero (talk • contribs)
 * One more time, because you're clearly not getting it: I did not "fail" to "look into the Hindi text" in any source, because there wasn't any Hindi text to look into. The first time you even tried to add a Hindi-language source to this article was after you had already attacked me for "failing to read the Hindi text" in a set of sources that did not have any Hindi text to read, because they were all written entirely in English.
 * And again: the test for inclusion in Wikipedia requires that the article topic has already been the subject of reliable source coverage in media. Not that it expects or hopes to receive such coverage in the future: that such coverage already exists today. Bearcat (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - does not meet WP:GNG - no significant achievement, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (Instagram as a source, seriously?) - Epinoia (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete In addition to the subject in no way meeting any notability standards, there appears to be a possible WP:COI situation regarding both the article's author and within this AfD which I am requesting User:Pundrihero disclose. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a general election currently taking place in India (the elections are spread over a period of weeks), and several states are conducting elections for their legislative assemblies at the same time as the national general election or later this year. However, nothing in this article even claims that the Young India Party is contesting any of those elections, nor that they have received any media coverage (in English, Hindi, or any other language). In fact, the article creator stated in this discussion that the media "has not covered the party". If the party later receives coverage in independent sources, the article can be re-created at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all the drama aside, it simply does not meet the criteria for inclusion due to a lack of reliable 3rd party, significant coverage. It's a new party, so that isn't a shocker.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Beyard508 (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Confirmed sock puppet user - striking vote.  ~Oshwah~  (talk)  (contribs)   16:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NORG due to a dearth of third-party, independent reliable sources. It is also outrageous that User:Metropolitan90 thinks it's OK for socks to weigh-in with arguments, such as here. It is irrelevant whether they are known to be infuencing the !vote on any party's behalf; the point is, no-one would know. So they're sacked on principle; it's the only way to be sure. See WP:DENY, WP:BMB, and the entire culture... ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it's OK for socks to weigh in with arguments, but rather I asked for clarification about the policy on what to do about recommendations from sock puppets. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a sock-puppet user, but will delete until more coverage comes about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pundrihero (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPRIMARY. The other references show very little coverage. Syndicater (talk) 22:03, 13 May 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.