Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha


 * 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 no consensus. defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created updated overtime with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you like to elaborate on how BJYM fails to qualify for the primary criteria of WP:NORG? --Soman (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Comprehensively passes both the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Razer ( talk ) 17:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please familiarize yourself with WP:ORGCRIT. The bar at WP:ORGCRIT is significantly higher than WP:GNG. All these 6 sources you have presented are WP:ROUTINE coverage by newspapers with WP:Passing Mention, none of these 6 pass as significant coverage of BJYM, so the WP:ORGCRIT criterion are not fulfilled by any of these links.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The applicable policies seem to be WP:CLUB and WP:NEXIST. The nominator needs to think twice before accusing an editor in good standing of creating an article with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers. Dee  03  14:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Dee03 I have struck creator as the recent updates are to be blamed for the PROMO. Can you also include the refs you are considering as WP:SIGCOV? To be precise WP:BRANCH seems applicable here more than WP:CLUB, since BJYM is a sub-organization of BJP.  D Big X ray ᗙ  16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:MILL wing of the BJP. It does seem like the article and all it's sub-wings BJYM Mumbai, BJYM Karnataka are WP:SOAP. Though if all included, a standalone article may be created but almost all sources that are presented either give it a passing mention and/or in association with the activities of BJP. Even though there are numerous sources which mention it in some capacity, per WP:ORG, it does not fulfill the significant coverage criteria. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is slightly ridiculous. BJYM, which has a degree of autonomy visavi its mother party, is one of the largest political youth organizations in the world. Notability can easily verified. For example, here there claim of 5.5 million members. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bjym-to-enrol-1-crore-new-members-before-lok-sabha-polls/articleshow/21085881.cms --Soman (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While it is clear that it is a WP:BRANCH there is no evidence that it is autonomous. And even if we assume autonomous, that itself still does not merit a separate page. unsubstantiated claims of numbers made by office bearers don't really help.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - examples of independent, third-party coverage where BJYM is the main topic -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , --Soman (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Soman, I have looked into your first 5 links and the first 2 are WP:NOTNEWS WP:ROUTINE coverage from newspapers. the criteria at WP:ORGCRIT requires much more than minor mentions or notnews type coverage. If you think that there are sources that pass it, then mention a few good ones below. FYI, Link spamming AfDs is not going to save an article from deletion.  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs, so you could at least have the decency to review other participants arguments in full. What the posted links show is that there are multiple major news outlets (The Hindu, Times of India, Indian Express, NDTV, among others) that have multiple articles where BJYM is the main article subject. --Soman (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What you did above is nothing but blatant trolling of this AfD. Posting 78 links and asking others to click all of them is not something one expects from someone with good intentions. I looked at the first 5 and they are shit. Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT. If you think there are good sources that pass the criteria, select 5 best and post them below. If they are convincing, I will withdraw the AfD.  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:SOAP. - Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV & WP:NCORP and is a WP:FAILORG and purely WP:PROMO. Dey subrata (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, The article has 7 sources. 3 are from its own website. And other 4 are routine coverage. Even, I have checked some of 78 sources randomly. They are also routine coverage. And I have to say here posting 78 sources on AfD and asking these sources to check is not a normal thing. I agree that the article has coverage on leading Indian media. But, there are differences between significant coverage and routine coverage. Wikipedia want significant coverage.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, to be clear WP:ROUTINE does not apply to notability of organizations, but to the notability of events. --Soman (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is sufficient WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV. Here's another: . Being directed to WP:MILL and  essays is no thelpful.  Seems part of the facious AfD spats that are occurring here with the objective of removing content rather than trying constructively to build an encyclopedia .... do I see evidence of attempts to consider a redirect or merge option, albeit those would likely be contested and I would fear for them to be constructively executed.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the short NEWS article about a protest you shared, The organisation is referred first 2 times as BJP wing, third time as BJYM and at last as "Several BJP worker were arrested". This link shows that BJP is notable (not disputed), and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. According to WP:BRANCH this should be mentioned as a section/subsection in BJP article. If you think there are sustained sigcov, then what is preventing you from sharing them ? IMHO Folks (including you) are commenting on the contributor instead of the content, possibly due to a lack of acceptable sources proving WP:ORGCRIT which BTW is higher requirement needed to pass here than WP:SIGCOV.  D Big X ray ᗙ  05:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some problems I have is time and also the number of free reads I am allowed per month on some publications where are exhausted. The significant coverage is sufficent.  The describing of the Daily Excelsiors's work "BJP Yuva Morcha delegation calls on Lt Governor" as shit above is WP:UNCIVIL to a party outside Wikipedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It may also be noted the only reason I was attracted to this AfD at all was this which appears to be WP:CANVAS, seeking to influence the outcome of a discussion, although the respondent had messages in the discussion which were not answered and obviously the edit not hidden.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I am not receiving warnings on my talk page so will not be commenting further on this WP:AFD so I am silenced.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the "silly and ridiculous accusations" of canvassing via standard WP:talkback template. See the first comment on this AfD and check the timestamps (diff), see the reasonable follow up question (diff) see the WP:talkback (diff) and see the response (diff). Comprende much ? Since you have no sources to back up your claims, you can only fill up the AfD with off topic noise.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete/Merge/redirect: Topic seems to have inherent notability in the same way youth wings for other parties have their own notability, however, this particular topic seems very weak in references and currently many of the lines are very general and seeming to push inherited notability. If not a complete merge, a line or two can be picked up and put in the party article. (Or if there is a list article or something for BJP related articles) Otherwise, weak delete. DTM (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the participation. There is no concept of inherent notability on Wikipedia per WP:NOTINHERITED. The BJP article already mentions that this is its youth wing. Other than that there is nothing to merge really.  D Big X ray ᗙ  13:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep/Draftify: On seeing the article and topic a bit more, I guess it can stay, BUT needs working on. Move to DRAFTSPACE until someone sorts it out. DTM (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , before moving to draft it needs to be demonstrated that WP:ORGCRIT is passed. If it does not pass now, there is no reason it will pass in next 6 months when the draft will get deleted as expired.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have already voted above, but just want to add that youth wings of major political parties are presumed to be notable. Here are some examples: Young Republicans, Teen Age Republicans, Young Democrats of America and Indian Youth Congress. And there is no need to cite OTHERSTUFF in response to this comment; I've read that essay. Dee  03  21:35, 8 February 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.