Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Kamala

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kamala

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are multiple issues with this article. A large part of the introduction is a direct copy/very close paraphrasing of a source, and there is another direct copy of a sentence in the Madhya Pradesh paragraph. Secondly, while the term "Operation Kamala"/"Operation Lotus" is possibly notable, four of the eight references in the article don't even mention it, and two mention it only in passing. There is more than a little original research and personal interpretation in the application of the terms "Operation Kamala" or "Operation Lotus" (which, according to sources, refer specifically to what happened in 2008 in Karnataka) to 2020 events in Madhya Pradesh. And finally, the article is pretty much an opinion piece. This can be cleaned up to some extent, and I will try to do so, but the combination of copyvio/OR/POV issues, and the fact that it isn't actually shown in the article that the term is notable, means that it should at the very least be deleted and rewritten entirely from scratch. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until such a time as someone can write an article without original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term was coined by Main stream Media in India. This is not a socially used term anymore. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after some cleaning as per nominator and let others to expand. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to notify me and 12 other seemingly unrelated editors of this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, what does "cleaning as per nominator" mean? If I gave the impression in the nomination that I thought that "cleaning" the article could make it salvageable, I must have expressed myself very badly. I don't see how any amount of cleaning could address the fact that notability is not shown and the fact that almost the entire article is a copyright violation that would have to be revision deleted and the original research issues and the POV issues? "Cleaning" would mean rewriting the entire thing, but the lack of sources to show any notability would still not be addressed by that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 11 October 2020 (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.