Talk:Centre of Indian Communists

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 07:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
A good effort, but ultimately ineligible for DYK per current guidelines. No prejudice against renominating if brought to GA status.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Centre of Indian Communists was banned by the Indian central government in July 1975?

• Source: Manoranjan Mohanty. Revolutionary Violence: A Study of the Maoist Movement in India. Sterling Publishers, 1977. pp. xxi, 166

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Rwanda
• Comment: In 2019 this article was converted into a long incoherent essay, with most of the material unrelated to CIC and references used that didn't mention the group at all. I removed all of that, and began expanding from how the article had looked before.

5x expanded by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 395 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC).

• I'm going to WP:BOLDLY reject this nom. Uncited and rambling-essay-like text still counts as part of the word count especially when it's around ~ 3 years (unless the text was a copyvio). The way I see it, you went from a 8453 byte article to a 2372 byte article which isn't what DYK eligibility is about. (If I have made a mistake, any reviewer is free to overturn this descision.) Sohom (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused: did you mean to comment on this nomination, or a different one? This is your own nomination, but your comment above seems to be talking about a nomination other than your own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: Fixed ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 The account creating the nom is Soman (who has been around for a lot longer) and I'm Sohom Datta, both of whom are very different people. Sohom (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I got confused there; I even tried using hovercards to make sure I wasn't seeing things. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This does seem like this could qualify for IAR, given that the content removed qualified for WP:TNT. I've had a couple of articles accepted on similar grounds (Donna Taggart due to COI expansions, Simone Murphy for BLP violations). That said, a lead section should probably be added and probably some subsections.--Launchballer 14:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede expanded and sections added. --Soman (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, although I've split them into subsections. I'll let an actual reviewer adjudicate on this.--Launchballer 19:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A lot of wikipedians, myself included, do ground-up rewrites for pretty much every article they approach. But I think there's a difference between wanting to start from scratch because familiarizing yourself with others' content is challenging and starting from scratch because the previous article is a policy violation. In this case, while the article clearly had major problems in structure and formatting, I'm seeing a fair amount of content that wasn't violating any particular policy, and the article could have reasonably preserved it. It also doesn't look like the article could have been eligible for any kind of deletion. So, I don't think I could reasonably call this a new article, unfortunately. As such, I'm marking for closure as ineligible, but my thanks to Soman for submitting a healthy article otherwise :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So I'd just emphasize that the pre-expansion article version as of Aug 27 could have qualified for WP:HOAX. There were a various false claims made about the CIC in this article, that seem to be completely made up by the wiki author and with fake references (or rather, real books and articles, but that don't mention CIC at all). The Aug 27 may look like a decent article at a glance, albeit with some need need for copy-editing, but once going through the references it was all fake. --Soman (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)