Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jharkhand People's Party


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jharkhand People's Party
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced for over two and a half years; seems to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, 534 direct Ghits and one news story they are mentioned in the last month lead me to suspect sources exist; it simply may be a matter of no one coming forward to clean up the article. Maybe Wikiproject India can help? Redfarmer (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Frontline writes "Barring the All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU) and the Jharkhand People's Party (JPP), all the other major Jharkhand groups", thus indicating that JPP is one of the 'major Jharkhand groups'. News mentions in major publications at, , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A prominent political party in the Indian state of Jharkhand, which has a population of 30 million. Extensive coverage even in mainstream English press (Note: English is not the state language; newspapers like Dainik Jagran will likely have much greater coverage). Article needs to be expanded and referenced; but the notability of the subject is not doubtful. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wish that when people say that a subject "seems to fail" a notability guideline that they would say what research that statement is based on. In this case one of the most obvious pieces of research that only takes a few seconds to do shows that this subject does not seem to fail notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2009 (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.