Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Rajasthan


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Party, Rajasthan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are two sources in the article. One is self published and another is routine coverage. The article clearly fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:NORG and WP:GNG do not have to be judged only on the references currently in the article. If there is scope for expansion and improvement on an article on a notable subject, then deletion shouldn't be the first recourse. BJP in Rajasthan is clearly a notable article topic, in 2018 the party obtained over 13 million votes in the state (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/nota-costs-bjp-dearly-in-rajasthan-too/articleshow/67069295.cms). See the discussion at Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Karnataka and the expansion of that article. --Soman (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as a significant party of government, this article is undoubtedly about a notable topic. It's rival, the Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee also has an article. --RaviC (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. First of all BJP is not a significant party in Rajsthan government. The second point is let the rival of X is Y. Y has an article. But, X can not claim that Y has an article but, why I don't have? And notability WP:NOTINHERITED. A thing should pass our notability criteria differently.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand my argument - I haven't made any such point. The party's performance in regional elections is notable enough for coverage. --RaviC (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In one word, Did the article pass WP:NBRANCH? If yes give prove. It gets coverage for being the state wing of BJP.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , BJP has lead governments in Rajasthan for 17 years, see List of chief ministers of Rajasthan. --Soman (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it. But it was directly claimed here as a significant party of government, this article is undoubtedly about a notable topic is not a good thing for AfD. So I commented that. We can't claim any article undoubtedly notable in AfD if proper references are not given.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Only in the case of WP:BLP is there a requirement to include references in an article. There is no requirement to delete other articles due to lack of references. Unreferenced claims may be challenged and removed, but if we all agree that BJP in Rajasthan lead the state governments for 17 years and pulled over 13 million votes in the last election, there is essentially no need for an AfD. --Soman (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned earlier about votes and other info to you why it is not important.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Party of government doesn't necessarily mean party in government. --RaviC (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In Rajsthan Congress is in power.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously. But as I just said, party of government doesn't mean that. Check the Wikipedia article's definition. --RaviC (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone knoews in central government BJP is in power. But, it doesn't mean that its all branch is default notable. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BRANCH. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:BRANCH. It really isn't the practice to have have articles of political parties in different states. It also complicates the process with somewhat smaller political parties unlike in the case of the US where there is just two major parties in every state. There is no Bharatiya Janata Party, Madhya Pradesh or Bharatiya Janata Party, Chattisgarh or Indian National Congress, Rajasthan, etc. Per WP:BRANCH, one should make appropriate sections for the a party in their main articles and then split from there if required. Ideally the state level politics might be added to the article for politics of that state, which is Politics of Rajasthan in this case, which is currently in a pretty bad shape. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are free to create them if they are as relevant as this subject.  M L 911 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Soman and RaviC. We have one for Congress too (see Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee) so having one for BJP is within policy. Subject meets WP:GNG.  M L 911 02:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the parent article. This article is a very short stub and there have been no convincing arguments why this one state branch of the party should get its own (very short and content-light) article when other state branches do not. Reyk YO! 07:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep State level analysis of political parties in India is an extraordinarily detailed area of sociological, political science and psephological academic research.     No evidence of BEFORE carried out.  AfD is not cleanup.
 * Comment More.


 * --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In short words the subject still did not pass our notability criteria per WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BRANCH §1: As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. (emphasis mine) .--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. So, the subject still did not pass our notability criteria because there is WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * BRANCH does not support deletion in this case. The text of the guideline indicates when it is appropriate to have an article, which is clear here and quite easily revealed with a reasonable BEFORE process. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject can be redirected/deleted in that case. Not can be kept.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment there is clear community consensus that state-/regional-level governing parties, especially, but not limited to, those in federal governance systems, are accorded stand alone articles: eg Ontario New Democratic Party, Australian Labor Party (New South Wales Branch), California Democratic Party, Republican Party of Florida, Scottish Labour Party. Still no evidence of BEFORE. AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we have Indian National Congress, Rajasthan, Bharatiya Janata Party, Uttar Pradesh? The political scenario is different in India.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rajasthan Pradesh Congress Committee.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So create an article Rajasthan Pradesh BJP Committee.


 * Keep passes WP:GNG per Goldsztajn. The nominator clearly did not follow WP:BEFORE. A quick WP:BEFORE search of my own shows a plethora of resources including academic articles in peer reviewed journals.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Still the article did not pass our notability criteria because there is WP:BRANCH. They got coverage for being state wing of BJP.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a reasonable content fork per that policy.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep ample evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as demonstrated by 's references. (i.e., WP:GNG). Before it gets brought up yet again, WP:BRANCH does not supercede the GNG. WP:NORG's criteria are intended to assist in judging if it is likely for a subject to be notable.  If GNG notability is established, all SNG's are either satisfied or moot. Continued WP:BLUDGEONing of BRANCH begins to take on the appearance of either unfamiliarity with the policy that is being quoted or political animus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject still fails in our notability criteria. No doubt BJP is notable. But it does not mean that its every single branch is notable. Please see WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I will not "please see BRANCH". Anyone directing any attention towards my !vote would see that I have clearly already "seen BRANCH" and preemptively rejected the argument. You, on the other hand, really, really should "please see" WP:BLUDGEON.  Every time you tell another editor to see that which has already been rejected as an argument you expose yourself as an editor who has no concern for the actual content of the policies they quote and instead are just using them as weapons in their WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You should also "please see" WP:SEALION.  I hope these links help explain my reasoning here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - based on some of the other discussions in this AFD i get the distinct impression that the nominator does not fully understand either BRANCH, the GNG, or how the notability guidelines work. Michepman (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a very significant political party in India as a whole (it is the current party of the ruling government) and is relatively prominent in the state in question. While the article itself is of poor quality right this second there are plenty of sources demonstrating that it passes WP:GNG which can be seen above. This AFD was not appropriate. Michepman (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. No doubt BJP is notable. But it does not mean that its every single branch is notable. Please see WP:BRANCH.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep BJP has quite a few  times been ruling party of the Rajasthan a state of India with population of over 60 million.  The page relating to state unit of party is useful and necessary to discuss the political dynamics .Shyamsunder (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG . Quite unfortunate that we get into non-constructive edit wars instead of collaborating to create/ curate interesting content, in good faith. Devopam (talk) 16:52, 3 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.