Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adivasi Democratic Front
- 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. Issues with the notability of this particular party.
- Adivasi Democratic Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Two-sentence stub article, the only web references I can find are wiki-mirrors, no hits in a news archive search. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:V. Thomjakobsen 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I based this entry on an article in Red Star. I'll try to dig it up, and put a proper reference. --Soman 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could also not turn up any independent references to the group in English (it's always possible that there are more sources in Hindi). Nonetheless, I did find a few references that stated that the adivasi population lacks both political organization and clout, which would seem to reinforce that this party isn't notable. SkerHawx 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ? So if a particular group is socio-economically weak = non-notable people. If you'd apply the same standard for people in the US, then what would the result be? --Soman 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's not saying the adivasi are non-notable — they have their own article — but that this particular organization may be. A reference commenting on their lack of political organization supports the idea that this movement hasn't had much of an impact among the adivasi or wider society. As a counterexample, we have articles on the related Dalit movements, activists, incidents e.g. Dalit Buddhist movement, B. R. Ambedkar, Kherlanji Massacre. So it's not about socio-economic weakness, rather whether the organization has generated enough coverage in reliable sources to show their notability and form a balanced, neutral article. I'm not sure whether a single Red Star article would do that, as it would tend to be skewed towards exaggerating the importance of this organization. Thomjakobsen 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's exactly correct. I by no means intended to imply that the Adivasi are irrelevant, just the political party. If that were applied to America, there would be an article about the Navajo people, but not the United Navajo Party, which is exactly the case. (Although here's a link to the United Navajo Party mySpace page, if you care to browse. [1]) SkerHawx 23:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's not saying the adivasi are non-notable — they have their own article — but that this particular organization may be. A reference commenting on their lack of political organization supports the idea that this movement hasn't had much of an impact among the adivasi or wider society. As a counterexample, we have articles on the related Dalit movements, activists, incidents e.g. Dalit Buddhist movement, B. R. Ambedkar, Kherlanji Massacre. So it's not about socio-economic weakness, rather whether the organization has generated enough coverage in reliable sources to show their notability and form a balanced, neutral article. I'm not sure whether a single Red Star article would do that, as it would tend to be skewed towards exaggerating the importance of this organization. Thomjakobsen 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ? So if a particular group is socio-economically weak = non-notable people. If you'd apply the same standard for people in the US, then what would the result be? --Soman 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.