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.
Keep This act was adopted by ruler of Sovereign Manipur( which short lived between 14th Aug 1947 to October 1949) and validity of the act is still highly debated as stated by experts.This act and constitution come in effect before Indian constitution come in effect in 1950.as for Chinese law firm that source can be removed but I kept it because it was written by a notable google scholar learned in law.[1]this article is properly written without violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RSis not violating WP:PG,here is a link from google books which shows the article notability [2],[3], do point out my mistakes if I made any , I am ready to open discussion ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 09:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution of India contains both a Union constitution and a state constitution. The latter was negotiated in consultation with the princely states of India, and the entire process is transparently explained in Political integration of India, a featured article. It is the state constitution part of the Constitution of India that presently applies to Manipur, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that it is wanting in anyway.
Given that this page is only of historical interest, if there is a proper study of the constitutional issues appearing in RS and the page summarises them, it would be of value. But as I see it, it is only a proxy for POV pushing, as indicated by terms like "Sovereign Manipur". (Manipur was a British protectorate during the British Raj, and acceded to India before India's independence. So whatever is meant by "Sovereign" does not agree with the common understanding of that term.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This page can be improved,I was quite busy with other things so I had little time to focus on this page,but I will do my best to bring this article to a notable wiki article...well Manipur was indeed sovereign for a short period of time after British Empire gave its freedom on 14th Aug 1947,one day before India independence...,please quote this line the King of princely state were given choice by British to either stay independent or join india or pakistan but the King choose to remain independent.Manipur had been sovereign for more than 1000 year before losing against British Empire in 1891.also "The section 9 (5) of Indian Independence Act, 1947 says " No order shall be made under this section, by the Governor of :any Province, after the appointed day, or, by the Governor-General, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, or such earlier date as may be determined, in the case of either Dominion,. by 'any law of the Legislature of that Dominion." . Thus the retrospective effect of any order made under section 9 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 could not remove the Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA), 1947.".Manipur acceded to India only after 1949,with the controversial force Merger agreement of Shillong as claimed by many experts.again The section 8 of the Instrument of Accession says clearly " Nothing in this instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over the state or save as provided by or under the Instrument, the exercise of any power , authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or validity of any law at present in force in this State.",
Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA)-1947 was never repealed or dissolved by the Indian Parliament or by the Manipur State Assembly.
By this act Maharajah of Manipur was no longer the supreme head of Manipur in 1949,he already devolved his power to the elected council of ministers.He was only a nominal head just like President of India.
And these lines are quoted from work of a google scholar I had given link in the article
The fact that the Manipur Merger Agreement of 21 September 1949 was con-
cluded by procuring threats or use of force is illustrated by the following events:
The Telegram dated 18th September, 1949 sent to VP Menon, Secretary, Ministry
of States, Government of India for Sardar Patel, Deputy Prime Minister, Birla
House, Bombay by Sri Prakasa, Governor of Assam reads:
“… Had discussions with His Highness of Manipur this morning. HH
threatens returning to Manipur without holding any discussions or signing
agreement.
HH must not under any circumstance be allowed to return to
Manipur with his advisers and I have accordingly instructed police to de-
tain here his party if they attempt to return before signing of agreement
.
Please telegraph immediately repeat
immediately authority for detention of
HH and advisors under Regulation III or by whatever other means you
consider might be appropriate
.
Have already warned sub-area to be pre-
pared for any eventuality
in Manipur. Grateful for further instructions ...”
(Das, 1973).54"
last but not least it is said that there had not been any legal proclamation made either by Parliament of India or Manipur State Assembly which made Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 dissolved or repealed.[1]The act is highly debated for its validity till today.Manipur is a state included in North East India only after 1972,before it was a union territory since 1956 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 03:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I dont see this article being more than few lines ever. Earlier the article was a copy paste of website e-pao.net and was trimmed down to avoid WP:COPYVIO . The author has a history of copy pasting material from the same website into different articles. possible WP:COI with Independent Manipur movement and SPA for the same. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There are mentions, but not SIGCOV. Sources in article are not IS RS secondary sources. // Timothy :: talk12:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above sources and changes are about the history of this period, not the legislation Manipur State Constitution Act 1947. To establish notability you need SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth. If there is a suggestion for a redirect target or move idea, please propose. The article is completely lacking information on the Act. There are no details about how it was written, it's provisions and how they relate to the circumstances, how it was received and what impact it had on events that followed. This article needs to be about the Act, not just a stub transformed into a speedy content fork of a history page because ISRS SIGCOV can't be found for the actual subject. // Timothy :: talk03:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is no more a single or few stub line I have added information about the act and it addressed the subject directly,further suggestion is welcomed.have a look at[4] this revised content.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 05:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This law has caused significant debate and resulted in long-standing disagreements regarding Manipur's status within India - it provided for Manipur's independence as a separate state (before merging with India); the Act continues to be the basis for claims for Manipur's independence or further autonomy. No doubt the current status of the article is woeful, but that is irrelevant for an AfD discussion. Multiple reliable sources discuss the act and its impact, indicating passing of the GNG.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
This comment illustrates how this page is a WP:POVFORK. Its advocates intend to use it for discussing the issues regarding Manipur (princely state), its status in 1947, the legality of its merger etc. This page is being created as a WP:COATRACK, seemingly about one topic but a proxy for discussing something else. Quoting from WP:POVFORK:
POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
CommentKautilya3: To me, your comment focusses on content and (perceived) editors' intentions, both of which are irrelevant for a discussion at AfD. I reiterate, the issue at hand is whether or not there are reliable sources which contain significant coverage related to the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What another editor does elsewhere is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, please focus on whether or not reliable sources establish notability of the subject of the article. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing suggests independent notability of the act beyond the wider issue of the princely state, accession etc. which are best covered in its own article (as we do with other Indian princely states), the article only appears to have been created to shoehorn in a fraught point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:Otherstuffexists is not relevant here. The contents of the article are not relevant. The question is whether there are reliable sources to satisfy BASIC/GNG; discussion should focus on that issue, please.--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Gotitbro referred to this princely state's article, Manipur (princely state), of which this article is a FORK. Referring to the parent article here is entirely legitimate. It is in fact the crux of this AfD. The policy page WP:Otherstuffexists warns you not to cite that page without explaining how it applies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay, not policy. Gotitbro may well have started in the singluar, but they concluded with: "as we do with other Indian princely states". None of which changes the point that there's a lot of commentary on intentions and content and very little from the delete !votes addressing the issue of whether or not notability is achieved with reliable sources. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW claims here that the article is a POVFORK is only to assert a lack of NPOV (which is a content issue), a FORK in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. The WP:CFORKguideline outlines appropriate forking - the sourcing both in the article and here satisfies WP:RELAR. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article, written from a Manipur POV, differs from Manipur (princely state)#Incorporation into India which gives the Indian POV. I consider that the best solution would be to have a rather fuller account of the context and subsequent events, covering the history of Manipur 1947-62 from princely state to being a full Indian state. This is only covered rather briefly, so that there is scope to expnad this into a "main" article, linked to the suggested merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be withdrawing the nomination because I have now found enough sources to write a decent article on it. Contrary to expectations, it is not going to have any "Manipuri POV" in it because the so-called "Manipuri POV" is basically misinformation and propaganda. The real Manipuris are happy leading normal lives, doing their jobs and voting in elections. It is only the axe-grinders that come to Wikipedia to waste our time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The real manipuri!!??...who are you implying that too...how do you define a manipuri?..the term Manipur itself is an alien imposition after 17th century..its the mainland indian propagating such lies,,,,North east part of India historically culturally religiously very unique ....its good that you are withrawing the nomination..Stop the vote propaganda the one living in Manipur know the real deal,how fair the voting are and what influenced the voters...CAA is a big example..the natives are against it but the elected politician of NE voted in favour of CAA....ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 23:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hahahaha vote again!!!!..time and situation change every minute..I pointed out how the elected person differ from the general native demand and opinion....I hope an admin with a fair mind give a conclusion to this AFD discussion..ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 03:48, 29 November 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.