Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congress high command: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
category |
Doctorbruno (talk | contribs) →[[Congress high command]]: Comment |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
**'''Comment''' - I should specify that I would like it '''replaced with a redirect''' to [[Congress Working Committee]].[[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
**'''Comment''' - I should specify that I would like it '''replaced with a redirect''' to [[Congress Working Committee]].[[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''It is common use in politics in India .There are 38000 google hits for the term.[http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=%22Congress+high+command%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=.] So article should have place on wikipedia looking at interest . The article does inform what the term indicates. If the Congress high command and congress working committes are the same sure media would not specified Congress high command for some situations and Congress working committee for others.There are different terms . Hornplease says it is actually incorrect without providing reasons why it is incorrect .The reference is provided and no reference is no ground for deletion.Keep and allow time to develop .[[User:Shyamsunder|Shyamsunder]] 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC). |
*'''Keep''' It is common use in politics in India .There are 38000 google hits for the term.[http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&q=%22Congress+high+command%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=.] So article should have place on wikipedia looking at interest . The article does inform what the term indicates. If the Congress high command and congress working committes are the same sure media would not specified Congress high command for some situations and Congress working committee for others.There are different terms . Hornplease says it is actually incorrect without providing reasons why it is incorrect .The reference is provided and no reference is no ground for deletion.Keep and allow time to develop .[[User:Shyamsunder|Shyamsunder]] 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC). |
||
::Oh, please. The above comment is by the article's creator. I am not sure that his claim that the "media would have specified" needs an actual response. However, just in case: the media occasionally uses phrases like "the White House" and "the Hill" to refer to individuals or centres of power. The "Congress high command" is one such phrase which, as I said, is in fairly common use in India. I think the phrase itself cannot have an article much more than a dicdef, and could be speedied under the criterion that an article with content that adds no more information than the title meets [[WP:CSD]]. However, it also has a single line of information about the historical period when this title came into force, which is completely unreferenced and quite clearly [[WP:OR]]. "Allow time to develop"? Into what? What could possibly be added to an article about a term? Might as well have an article entitled [[Bombay Remote Control]]. What would be in that article that would not be in a [[Bal Thackeray]] article? [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
::Oh, please. The above comment is by the article's creator. I am not sure that his claim that the "media would have specified" needs an actual response. However, just in case: the media occasionally uses phrases like "the White House" and "the Hill" to refer to individuals or centres of power. The "Congress high command" is one such phrase which, as I said, is in fairly common use in India. I think the phrase itself cannot have an article much more than a dicdef, and could be speedied under the criterion that an article with content that adds no more information than the title meets [[WP:CSD]]. However, it also has a single line of information about the historical period when this title came into force, which is completely unreferenced and quite clearly [[WP:OR]]. "Allow time to develop"? Into what? What could possibly be added to an article about a term? Might as well have an article entitled [[Bombay Remote Control]]. What would be in that article that would not be in a [[Bal Thackeray]] article? [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
::'''Reply''' - are you trying to discredit his vote? The articles creator may know more on this phenomenon, which is a more useful term than "working committee"[[User:Bakasuprman|Bakaman]] <font color = "blue"><sub>[[User talk:Bakasuprman|Bakatalk]]</sub></font> 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
::'''Reply''' - are you trying to discredit his vote? The articles creator may know more on this phenomenon, which is a more useful term than "working committee"[[User:Bakasuprman|Bakaman]] <font color = "blue"><sub>[[User talk:Bakasuprman|Bakatalk]]</sub></font> 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
*'''Weak keep, or merge''' Like a lot of political parties, there are formal structures and committees, and a "real" core leadership that's smaller. But in most cases the core is an individual leader, like Indira Gandhi, or Tony Blair, so we don't need another separate Wikipedia article about the leadership group. If the Congress high command is ''collective'' (and different from the formal committees) then develop this as a separate article, otherwise merge. [[User:Mereda|Mereda]] 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Weak keep, or merge''' Like a lot of political parties, there are formal structures and committees, and a "real" core leadership that's smaller. But in most cases the core is an individual leader, like Indira Gandhi, or Tony Blair, so we don't need another separate Wikipedia article about the leadership group. If the Congress high command is ''collective'' (and different from the formal committees) then develop this as a separate article, otherwise merge. [[User:Mereda|Mereda]] 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
::There's no content to merge. "High command" is a phrase usually used in the states as a reference to the central committee in Delhi, or euphemistically to the supreme leader if there is one. So any content here will be speculative at best, OR at worst. [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
::There's no content to merge. "High command" is a phrase usually used in the states as a reference to the central committee in Delhi, or euphemistically to the supreme leader if there is one. So any content here will be speculative at best, OR at worst. [[User:Hornplease|Hornplease]] 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment''' This is a term used in Media. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">[[User:Doctorbruno|''' Doctor Bruno ''']]</font><font style="color:#000;background:#ffd700;">[[User talk:Doctorbruno|Talk]]</font></span> 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:15, 24 September 2006
Contested prod. Term in not uncommon use in the Indian media, but basically a dictionary definition that does not extend knowledge beyond the obvious. I tried to replace it at one point with a redirect to the Congress' apex decision making body - its 'high command'- but that was removed by the pages creator, an anon editor with no other edits. The one line of "information" in it is unreferenced and actually incorrect. Hornplease 23:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as Hornplease stated it is commonly used by Indian media.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I should specify that I would like it replaced with a redirect to Congress Working Committee.Hornplease 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is common use in politics in India .There are 38000 google hits for the term.[1] So article should have place on wikipedia looking at interest . The article does inform what the term indicates. If the Congress high command and congress working committes are the same sure media would not specified Congress high command for some situations and Congress working committee for others.There are different terms . Hornplease says it is actually incorrect without providing reasons why it is incorrect .The reference is provided and no reference is no ground for deletion.Keep and allow time to develop .Shyamsunder 13:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
- Oh, please. The above comment is by the article's creator. I am not sure that his claim that the "media would have specified" needs an actual response. However, just in case: the media occasionally uses phrases like "the White House" and "the Hill" to refer to individuals or centres of power. The "Congress high command" is one such phrase which, as I said, is in fairly common use in India. I think the phrase itself cannot have an article much more than a dicdef, and could be speedied under the criterion that an article with content that adds no more information than the title meets WP:CSD. However, it also has a single line of information about the historical period when this title came into force, which is completely unreferenced and quite clearly WP:OR. "Allow time to develop"? Into what? What could possibly be added to an article about a term? Might as well have an article entitled Bombay Remote Control. What would be in that article that would not be in a Bal Thackeray article? Hornplease 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - are you trying to discredit his vote? The articles creator may know more on this phenomenon, which is a more useful term than "working committee"Bakaman Bakatalk 02:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- That is an incredible response. The Congress Working Committee is a specific organisation, the highest decision-making body of the Congress Party. A more 'useful term'? And I am not trying to discredit his 'vote', I am pointing out that his statements are not helpful or in line with WP policy. I should also add that the only factual assertion in the article claims that the term "began to be used" when Indira Gandhi "became Prime Minister" in 1971. This is factually untrue. She became PM in 1966. Hornplease 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep, or merge Like a lot of political parties, there are formal structures and committees, and a "real" core leadership that's smaller. But in most cases the core is an individual leader, like Indira Gandhi, or Tony Blair, so we don't need another separate Wikipedia article about the leadership group. If the Congress high command is collective (and different from the formal committees) then develop this as a separate article, otherwise merge. Mereda 06:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's no content to merge. "High command" is a phrase usually used in the states as a reference to the central committee in Delhi, or euphemistically to the supreme leader if there is one. So any content here will be speculative at best, OR at worst. Hornplease 07:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is a term used in Media. Doctor Bruno Talk 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)