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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi

[edit]

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

The "swearing-in ceremony" of any leader, however important he/she may be, can hardly claim a Wikipedia article of itself. Here, too, an entire article for such a topic, seems inappropriate. Maybe there can be a brief section (much shorter than this article) about the swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi in some other related article (e.g. Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi). But such a detailed article about a medium-importance, short-duration event like this seems overkill. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an in-depth account of every event that comes in the news. This article seems like an example of WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a record of news. Sarthak Sharma (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses the Template:Infobox historical event. But can a swearing-in ceremony really be called a "historical event"? Agreed, the SAARC leaders were present at this ceremony (something that happened for the first time), but even after considering that, was this swearing-in ceremony such a high-importance historical event that it deserves its own, separate Wikipedia article? I do not think so. Besides, there are no other Wikipedia articles for any swearing-in ceremonies, of any leader of any country. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Infobox event replaced with Infobox historical event by this edit. I think User:Powerplant786 taken it from this article because most of the inauguration articles using this template. Gfosankar (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sarthak Sharma (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sarthak Sharma (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom, does not qualify for a stand-alone article. Delete per WP:INHERITED and WP:INTHENEWS. — LeoFrank ^Talk 05:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event acquires high importance due to all SAARC leaders being present (an unprecedented first) and it is one of the largest attendance for a swearing-in of a PM. The controversy over the attendance of Sri Lankan President and the celebration of the Pakistan PM were other highlights. Just to answer to "Besides, there are no other Wikipedia articles for any swearing-in ceremonies, of any leader of any country." see First inauguration of Barack Obama, Inauguration of Benigno Aquino III, Inauguration of Uhuru Kenyatta, . --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those "inaugurations" may have been more than just "swearing-in ceremonies". They may have had more events, lasted for longer duration, had more attendees, all of which may have increased their significance. (Besides, creating an article just because others have created similar articles seems poor reasoning. It is a repetition of mistakes.) The swearing-in ceremony of the Indian Council of Ministers is not such an extravaganza. It does not merit its own separate article. The presence of SAARC leaders, controversy over attendance of Sri Lankan president, etc. were important points (probably the only points worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article), but all this can easily fit in a section of the Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi article. There is no need for a whole new article for all this. If this article is allowed to exist, then in the future there will also be articles for other swearing-in ceremonies (even though nothing remarkable may happen in those), and this article will be cited as an example to support their existence (please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE). Wikipedia must not become a newspaper-like record of everything that happens. It must remain an encyclopedia. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing-in ceremony of Modi was a historical event, as mentioned by many commentators, e.g 1, 2, 3, also it must be mentioned that Swearing in of Indian PM, is just like US inauguration of presidential office, and there are many pages for the latter. Modi's swearing in was a talked about event in many countries and was historic in nature. So a page for it is of good utility and should be kept. Powerplant786 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what there is of worth Narendra Modi. (most is eye-wateringly trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheLongTone (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost each and everything that happens these days can be linked to Modi. We have to understand that the article on Modi is a biography and can't accommodate everything in it. Mergers now are later on pruned and completely deleted after sometime over there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic meets the event notability criteria: widespread international coverage, complete with analysis by political and international relations experts. WP:NOTNEWS is applicable when the article contains news-like updates, announcements, daily happenings etc. Multiple non-Indian sources (e.g. The Sydney Morning Herald and CNN) have called the event historic. "If this article is allowed to exist..." is a slippery slope argument: if another such ceremony is not notable, an article on it will be deleted. Besides, I don't see how can we blame this article for starting a trend, when Wikipedia already has 70+ articles on the various US presidential inaguarations. This event is certainly more important and more historic than most of its US counterparts. To quote CNN: "For the first time, leaders of an entire South Asian region attended, including Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister of India's traditional archrival, Pakistan. But it's not just the guest list that makes this inauguration historic. Never in the past three decades has a political party taken up the reins of the world's largest democracy with an absolute majority." As for ((Infobox historical event)), that template is just a redirect to ((Infobox event)) -- I don't see what the problem is. utcursch | talk 20:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever content makes this article notable can (and should) be accommodated in a section of the article Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi. Articles are meant to be of substantively important things. As far as events are considered, they should be notable and have a long enough duration, to merit the need of separate articles. Otherwise, a brief section about them in an article of a larger or more inclusive topic, is sufficient. And the swearing-in ceremony described in this article lasted a brief time (an hour or two). There was not enough significance in it to merit the need of a separate article. As for comparing it with "inaugurations" in other countries: the Indian ceremonies are comparatively low-key and brief affairs. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a "low-key" affair - that's the entire point. And, no, there is no minimum duration for an event to be considered notable - by that logic, we will have to delete the the 130+ articles in Category:FA Cup Finals. Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony was a "substantively important" event:

It was attended by the heads of 7 countries that represent over 1/5th of the world's population. This is without counting Bangladesh (which was represented by the speaker of its Parliament) and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. This was the first time in India's history that all the SAARC heads were invited to the swearing-in ceremony of a PM (Narendra Modi's swearing-in: SAARC makes history, comes together for a new experience)
The media as well as political & IR analysts discussed its significance beyond the mere oath-taking, in multiple contexts (e.g. India-Pakistan relations, India's attempt to showcase itself as the regional leader, the release of fishermen by Pak and SL, the Tamil issue etc.)
It received widespread coverage internationally, with media from Australia to America explicitly using the word "historic" to describe it (the ceremony, not the electoral win).

By any standard, this event is more significant than most of articles in Category:United States presidential inaugurations. Calling it "not important enough" is just plain systemic bias. utcursch | talk 00:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets our event notability criteria, an inauguration/swearing-in of the HoG in the world's largest democracy should take care of that, but even beyond that basic point, we have sufficient coverage about the uniqueness and notability of this particular swearing in courtesy of the NYT, WP, The Guardian, The Times, Sydney Morning Herald etc etc in addition to the excessive coverage in Indian media. And of course, the fact that it was even broadcast live in Pakistan with running commentary is of greater significance, not to mention that Stephen P. Cohen has been giving tv interviews on this left, right, and center. It is quite silly to say that an inauguration/swearing-in gains notability based on the number of balls or concerts held or the designer for the clothes worn. Not news is an argument taken to absurd extremes as the nom seems to think that the I-P or I-SL issues contribute less to notability than a performance by James Taylor. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly notable, deviates very substantially from oath ceremonies of previous PMs of India. --RaviC (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's clearly a notable event. Schwede 66 22:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much more than a mere oath taking event with attendece of many heads of states and global interest it generated.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was as notable as the swearing in of Obama. The first time that the Pakistani PM came, and other SAARC leaders, the largest gathering in Rashtrapati Bhavan, it was broadcast live in Pakistan and reported globally in all major news. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:GNG and has been described as a "major diplomatic event". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the inauguration of the Head of the Government of the United States (viz. The President of the United States) can be included as a Wiki Page, why cant the inauguration (swearing-in) of the Indian Head of the Government (The Prime Minister of India) be included? Wikipedia has to be fair that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.37.190 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merge: A notable event but need not be linked with Modi himself directly in his article. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, or merge~~ (after shortening) with Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news record. Wikimedia Foundation has another project: Wikinews, for presenting news items like this. But many editors are not satisfied with just Wikinews, and want to create news item- related articles on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is more popular than Wikinews. And if such articles are allowed, then in the future there may even be articles about every budget passed by the government, every parliament session, every new law passed by the government, and other topics that should instead have only sections and not entire articles (or should not be there at all in an encyclopedia). All this may happen for not only central governments, but also for the more numerous state governments. Then Wikipedia will be less and less like an encyclopedia, and more and more like a record of news items. Finally, giving examples of other articles about swearing-in ceremonies or inaugurations (or any mid-importance, short duration events where nothing unexpected happens) as justification for allowing this article to exist seems poor reasoning. That is effectively saying that one poor or inappropriate article should be allowed to exist, because several other poor or inappropriate articles like it also exist. Instead, the opposite should be done: if there are other articles about topics that do not really merit the need for entire articles, then they, too, should be deleted, or merged with related articles of more important topics and of larger scope. Note that already, more than three quarters of all English Wikipedia articles are of poor quality ("stub class" or "start class", which are levels below even "C class"), and almost half are marked as "low importance" (see: Wikipedia#Internal quality control and assessment of importance). It is not surprising, as a lot of articles are about topics that do not need entire articles. They should instead have only sections in other larger articles. (This article itself is marked as "start class" and "low Importance", for WikiProject India) ---EngineeringGuy (talk)

Two votes not allowed. You are already the nominator of this AfD. Hence striking your vote but keeping your comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: The users with signatures "Sarthak Sharma" and "EngineeringGuy" are same as User:Intelligentguy89. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with so many world leaders attending... ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 06:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:EVENTCRIT criteria. It's not WP:Recentism.Prateek Malviya^•✉•✎ 11:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The swearing-in has been covered by media the world over. There has also been a lot of discussion about the SAARC leaders attending. Clearly, notable. If you want examples of non-notable inaugurations look no further than some of the US Presidential inaugurations. Reagan's second has only 2 sources, one of which is the US Senate website and the other is a 124-word newspaper article. I point this out because the nominator states, "Those "inaugurations" may have been more than just "swearing-in ceremonies"." BigJolly9 (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Since almost all the SAARC leaders were present which actually has happened for the first time in Indian history, it deserves a separate article.No merger and obviously, no deletion.Yohannvt (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (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.