Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aam Aadmi Sena


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience  t 21:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Sena

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL the news paper citations comes under one time event as per WP:BLP1E Shrikanthv (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  08:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  08:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This was a stub article. Why the need for censorship ? What happened ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How about merging to Aam Aadmi Party? Two little peices of info are not enough for an article. But deletion is also unnecessary.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur but i guess this has to be discussed before on the relevant talk page, I guess there are some editors who are involved in this topic, a view from them could be interesting again in the relevant talk page Shrikanthv (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What is going on here ? I added some information about a dissident group to the main article page of AAP, and along comes some guy, who deletes it. This is not "controversial" information. It is sourced to news reports. This is fact-based information. After my edit was deleted, I created a stub article, in hopes that that way the information can survive further acts of vandalism. And then the same guy, who vandalised the information on the main article page for AAP comes and flags my stub article for deletion. How does this make any sense ? You over look the vandalism acts to delete the information, but colour acts to defend the information as meriting discretionary sanctions ? In what parallel universe do I find myself in ? It was a starter article. If there are any questions about the subject matter, the first thing -- in the interest of making fact-based, sourced information more to Wikipedia's standards -- would be to expand the stub article, not delete it. What is going on here ? It seems rather fishy that there is a specific rule for Indian politics. That's a flag right there that Wikipedia is deleting information just because, why, it's too controversial ? Controversial to whom ? It's not conversion, because it is fact-based and sourced. So, Wikipedia's way of dealing with information one valdaliser (in the position of an editor) doesn't like is to automatically delete it ? And I get accused of being in a Twitter war by the vandaliser, just because I'm trying to protect the information from heavy-handed acts to delete/vandalise it ? Wow, what a way to defend free access to fact-based, sourced information. Maslowsneeds (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, do not take things personally it was a routine check for me, please go through Verifiability, take time to read and discuss with fellow editors before pointing and passing "one's personnel" truths as facts , there may be many faces to the same facts Shrikanthv (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have fluffed the stub article with substantive amendments to show that the group has been active in Delhi politics, and certainly it has had a measure of impact on holding AAP to account itself to Delhi residents. The group has been engaged in actions to hold government officials accountable on a range of issues from making improvements to the electrical power grid, to providing security on Delhi buses for women's safety, and to force the government to address corruption. I provided citations to reputable news Web sites, including to citations to Getty Images, where you can see some photographic indication of the size of some of the group's demonstrations. Certainly this much information should be sufficient to allow the sub article to survive your determined efforts to delete it (at least for now). As it is a stub article, I'm sure that other Wikipedia contributors can add to the sub article, as is meant to be. There should be no bias against stub articles -- unless there are other motivations at work here ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I don't see anything like one-time event here. The group finds mentions in 2014 news and as recent as Jan 2016 news. Merger might be a option to be discussed on talk page, but nothing to delete and censor. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep if this was a passing protest act, it would have already dissipated. This is sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Curro2 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and I would've almost closed it as such, as this seems keepable and also improvable if needed. SwisterTwister   talk  06:21, 30 January 2016 (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.