Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress


 * 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. Steve Smith (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

All India Mahila Congress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is only one source in the article. The source is not enough for WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even, via google search it does not seem to me that it will pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

--WikiAviator (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a quick Google search shows ample RS and proves its notability. See no reason why it fails GNG. New sources can always be found and we shouldn't judge the article only based on the sources it includes and improvements can always be made. Most important is the notability of the subject. Therefore keep but the article needs rewriting. The sources: . Just a minor search and I found loads of sources.
 * The first one is its activities. In the other sources it gets almost mere mention.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed all these sources by and none of them are passing ORGCRIT. They are passing mention or ROUTINE news of a statement of the office bearers or party event. (see analysis below.)-- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral: *Keep: At a rough glance nom. has swamped WP:AfD with a shedload of AFD's that should have been at best bundled; or perhaps a test case for one regional branch that could have been spread to the others. This is the central organisation which should have been kept in any event.  This may even qualify for a speedy keep.  Its easier for me being more familiar with UK politics to see how organisations related to political associations are treated ...  in general these are often retained but I wouldn't expect the local branches to be retained, situation for semi-automonous regions might be different.  In passing I note the BJP's BJP Mahila Morcha has slipped the net and been deleted with minimal participation.   Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Recusing due to risk of sanctions if I continue.  I am shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep My search for sources clearly shown notability for the All India Mahila Congress, but the local branches could redirect to the main article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this article for the national congress, adding a paragraph about the state committees, and then redirect all the state committees (also nominated at AfD, and such poor little stubs that they don't even indicate why they have been listed as "women-related", to those of us unfamiliar with Indian politics) to this article. Pam  D  09:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My best understanding, with assist of Google Translate, is Mahila is Hindi for female, but I am open to correction. Pragmatically I had assumed this from context.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)  (I'd also almost be so bold as actually suggest considering this as "All India Women's Congress"). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)  Thought: Also possible Mahila is a valid word in Indian English dialect, isn't on Wikitionary currently though as far as I can tell.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As a minor point I've now created wikt:mahila, though I have some nervousness if I have done it right and it will stick; but given apparent usage in Indian English and these titles seems reasonable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mahila is the Hindi equivalent of woman. Can we now focus on this AfD and see some source passing WP:ORGCRIT ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @: Pragmatically I personally evaluate this AfD is currently at the point where any closer evaluating a consensus to delete would be taken to the WP:DRV WP:TROUT farm, although things may change. With that triage evaluation I thus may choose to do other things such as brock watching.  I will quite likely of course receive the last word. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ? focus on the content please.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that instead of providing sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH Djm has left the AfD, saying so in edit summary.  D Big X ray ᗙ  12:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per all the above. Also agree with, the state committees should just be merged with the main article (currently a stub) and a substantial article can be created with just all citations there are already in the state committees combined. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 13:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Tayi Arajakate and Cwmhiraeth, and all others, can you guys be so kind enough to share what sources are you using to vote a keep on this ? I have reviewed the sources by and none of them are passing WP:ORGCRIT.  I have reviewed several of these articles since they were nominated en masse and it is clear to me that they are political spam created for WP:PROMO reasons of Indian National Congress party. IMHO almost all of them merit a deletion for lacking any worthwhile content (saying "almost all" since I am yet to review all of them) -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I will do a deeper research on this later but right now I found after a short search. I believe this is notable enough to have its own article, being the women's wing of a major Indian party. Putting a comment to bookmark this AfD for later. I remember vaguely that Sucheta Kripalani founded this sometime before the Quit India movement. That would make this a 75+ years old organisation and it is highly improbably there will be no description of this over so many years.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The link you gave says it was founded in 1984. So clearly your link disagrees with your vague memories. The link above covers the date and reasons for formation of this WP:BRANCH from its charter (party sources that are primary and dependent). We would need significant independent coverage to keep. Indian National Congress is Notable, its numerous sub organisations may not be popular (read notable). Per WP:BRANCH, if an independent page is needed the individual SIGCOV must be shown. If sources meeting WP:ORGDEPTH are lacking, then the page must be redirected to the parent organisation.  D Big X ray ᗙ  08:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was precisely the disagreement over founding date. The links says founded in 1984 but I remember reading about its pre-independence origins. More research is required for this. In any case, if you believe this should be redirected, please feel free to cast your !vote.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The date when this "wing" was created is 1984, there is no disagreement over it. Provide links that says otherwise if you have, your memories are not RS. I have already said that this should be redirected since nothing that I found or the others have presented merits a separate page. Even its parent org, does not find it worthy of its own website . -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, Here are the two sources (links)1, 2. They say the Mahila Congress was founded by Sucheta Kripalani in 1940.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Akhiljaxxn, thanks for the ping, The Mahila Congress Akhil is referring to is the historical one and not the one currently existing. I hope folks know that the Congress (I) is not the same as Congress of Nehru. For those who dont know can read it here on Indian_National_Congress. The subject of this AfD is the All India Mahila Congress (I), although the I is no longer used. And this particular one was started in 1984. ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  19:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding the link. I haven't had enough time myself to properly research. In any case, the historical precursors can be mentioned in this article. The article on INC also lists the historical origins and this one should as well. I see this as a viable article in the sense that it includes not only the present organisation but also information about the historical ones and about women's involvement in the INC in general.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please relist this if possible.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Replying to your inquiry on presenting sources that verify the notability of the article, here are sources that can establish the notability of the subject: None of these are promotional or trivial coverage. These are whole articles that clearly verify the notability of the subject of the article. I don't see why this article does not comply with notability guidelines. WikiAviator (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * [1], [7] (posted a second time) news event covering a minor protest event. No coverage of the org.
 * [3], [8] (posted a second time) covering the political statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
 * [9] A one line mention of the event in [7]. No coverage of the org.
 * [2], [10] (posted a second time) a one line statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
 * [4], [11] (posted a second time) a one line statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
 * [5], [12] (posted a second time) news about a "planned" event covered in [7]. No coverage of the org.
 * [13] statement of its office bearer. No coverage of the org.
 * None of this sources are even covering the organisation and claiming that these sources are passing WP:ORGDEPTH shows a lack of understanding of our stringent policies to keep away political and commercial spam. Based on whatever was shared so far only reinforces my belief that this should be redirected to the parent org INC -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  It seems I have to publicize this.
 * Dear readers, let me tell you what happened. This is his sudden feedback on my talk page:
 * ''Hi there. (1) Please confirm that you have read and understood Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH. (2) regarding the AfD source. Please do not repeat the links that you have already presented in your previous comments, doing so shows you in bad light, as it appears as though you are trying to pass 1 source as 2. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ''@DBigXray: Foremost, I clearly understand WP:ORGDEPTH and I think that the sources pass the criteria. Moreover, I am too busy (in real life) to check which sources have been mentioned before. I am in no means trying to pass one source as two, I simply didn't check. If this has confused you, then i sincerely apologize. Also, please do not jump the gun right away and assume I am in bad light. This makes people feel offended and please learn how to assume good faith (WP:AGF). Thanks for your understanding:) WikiAviator (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WikiAviator, fine. I will respond at afd. I gave u the chance to correct. DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)'''
 * First, I don't think my sources are unreliable or trivial coverage and it is pretty clear that most of them can verify the notability of the subject. And here's when things go funny, he said that I "am in bad light" for repeating the sources. But sorry it's your own problem. I am not trying to pass one source as two. I repeated them because I didn't care to check before posting and it seems that you have ignored the sources above, so I reposted them. Can't see the sources? No worries, I am happy to repeat for blind bats (I didn't say it's you, judge it yourself). Let's look at the sources one by one:
 * [1],[7] Look at the headline, what does it say: All India Mahila Congress stages 'Dharna' outside (...). It is talking about the political activities of the· organisation. Isn't it about the org itself? Of course activities count. If you need a detailed history about an org in order to list it on Wikipedia, then I'm sure even companies listed on S&P 500 will be deleted, and Wikipedia will shrink by 20%. Where on earth does ORGDEPTH mention that activities can't be counted as sources? What's your logic? Stop slurring things into a big lump and repeat the same invalid argument over and over again instead of going into the core of the problem.
 * [3],[8] In the article: "The Congress is on the verge of drawing blank again in the Assembly polls as all its candidates were way far behind their AAP and BJP opponents on all the 70 seats. In the 2015 Assembly elections too, Congress failed to win any seat." Are you sure this is not coverage of the org?
 * [9] In the article:"The All India Mahila Congress (AIMC) leaders also staged a protest against LPG price hike outside the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry office in Delhi on Thursday. The INC spokesperson Sushmita Dev and the Congress leader Alka Lamba led a rally with other members against the rise in prices of non-subsidised 14 kg Indane gas in metros which came into effect on Wednesday." Are you sure this is "one-line" and trivial? Can you read properly?
 * [2],[10] Are you only reading the headlines? Did you read the whole thing or are you just trying to make my sources sound bad? The argument or the leader, who is on behalf of the party's campaign, sparked nation-wide controversy, WP:ORGDEPTH:coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below), and WP:ORGDEPTH#Audience: The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. As stated, this is not local coverage if we look at these guidelines.
 * [4],[11] For this one, sorry, this time I was in a rush. You're correct.
 * [5],[12] Thanks for helping me write my reply. Yes, it is exactly "news about a "planned" event covered in [7]". Planned events count as well. No one said this was forbidden.
 * [13] No one said that replies don't count. And this is not one-line coverage.
 * You see what's happening now, don't you? He's trying to defame my AfD reputation and trying to ban every source I list on every AfD discussion. Who are you "to give me a chance to correct"? I don't think I'm wrong. It is you who cannot analyse sources properly and then saying people are repeating?! This is absolutely bonkers. Please stop that. Thanks a lot. WikiAviator (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC), a native speaker of sarcasm. (I am friendly to most users, but if you're not, then sorry I'm not)
 * There is absolutely no reason to rant like this against an editor at AfD. This only shows you in bad light. Other contributors can and will click the refs to verify the problems I have pointed. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  06:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not ranting you. I'm just pointing out your problems one by one in a manner that you don't like.WikiAviator (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, not a rant, it was a 1000 word diatribe.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep passes WP:GNG.
 * Keep AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passes notability by miles.  If there is lack of ample references then try other tools available first rather go for afd.  Shyamsunder (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject got covered by some leading news agencies of India. Clearly passes WP:ORG. GargAvinash (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Notability is evident. This Afd should close now. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2020 (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.