Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. In addition to being a clear minority, arguments in favor of keeping the argument did not provide evidence to refute the core claims of the deletion argument, which is that lasting notability for the session in itself, independent of the notable matters that were discussed in it, has not been demonstrated. signed,Rosguill talk 17:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Special Session of the Parliament of India

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

In India, Parliament sits at least three times a year - in the Budget, Monsoon, and Winter sessions. These sessions last for months, and discuss and promulgate many pieces of legislation, similar to the sessions of other countries. When even the Budget sessions, arguably the most important parliamentary sessions, do not get their own individual articles, I fail to see how this five-day session, that passed one single piece of legislation, is notable.

Most of the article is either a list of individual statements and minor speeches made by politicians or a load of media speculation that turned out to be nothingburgers. We shouldn't include these since WP is NOTNEWS (nor is it the Hansard).

There are two, and only two, notable things in this article, and none are inherent to this special session - Parliament started functioning in a new building, and the Women's Reservation Bill was passed as the 106th Amendment. The Amendment already has its own article, and the information about the inauguration of the building more properly belongs to the New Parliament House, New Delhi article. Other articles that can absorb info from here include 17th Lok Sabha and second Modi ministry.

The article subject - the special session itself - shows no enduring relevance; searches for "special session" dropped sharply after the close of the session, and even the sources themselves talk less about the importance of the special session and more about the Amendment. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. W. Tell DCCXLVI ( talk to me!/c ) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Event of no lasting significance, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 18:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete:Event has not demonstrated enduring relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro-Koji (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete/selective merge to 17th Lok Sabha. I don't see any other articles on Indian parliament sessions, so I don't see why we'd need such a detailed news-style agenda of a two-day session. Reywas92Talk 16:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit cautiously. I do agree that there are weird implications of this special session being played up as especially important when other sessions don't have such detailed articles.  I also think it may be worth adjusting the tone to make more clear that this did indeed turn out to be a "nothingburger".  But, well, nothingburgers in politics that have hype at the start but is unfulfilled happen, and can be relevant to document, too.  If we have more detailed articles in the future on what each session of the Lok Sabha does, that's probably okay?  As a fallback, redirect/merge but do not think the content is worthy of outright deletion.  SnowFire (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Information in this Wikipedia article is verifiable and there are numerous reliable independent sources which can be found on this topic. Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a topic. Content in this article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data in this article is put in context with references to independent sources having "significant coverage". Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Policy clearly states - If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).
 * This article page was created as an offshoot of Special session of the Parliament of India. Requesting fellow editors to help the community to preserve the editorial effort and this useful information on 2023 parliament session with historic significance.
 * P.S. - Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. --Anand2202 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Find the response on my talk page here
 * Above comment posted by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Anand2202. You wrote: "[E]ditors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." I truly cannot understand what that task could possibly entail. We search for sources but find none, yet we should continue to believe sources exist?! They might, since that probablity is never zero, but how does that help our search, or, more importantly, our assessment of an article's notability? It smacks of "well, sources might exist". -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete since subject fails the notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, NOTNEWS, LASTING.  // Timothy :: talk  14:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.