Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only backed by one possibly unreliable source; the information displayed in the table can easily be found in the other Lok Sabha articles, plus there's possibly no evidence to back the 1st through 12th Lok Sabha members. I've attempted a split request, but no success. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 02:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi . http://www.parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/comb/combexpr.htm seems a reliable source I've found to back the 1st through 13th Lok Sabha member names. Also, this list seems to have unique characteristics. There's no other list of Lok Sabha members on Wikipedia that goes before the 13th Lok Sabha assembly. While I am in agreement with the split suggestion you have proposed on the talk page, how would you propose to split this list? Why I mention this is because there's no other list of Lok Sabha members that consolidates each member as per his/her number of nominations. If I may suggest, let's for now Keep this article, while we retreat to the talk page of the article, discuss methods to split the article and save the enormous content within the article that does not find replication in any other article. What do you think? Thanks,  Lourdes  13:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the creator of the article, I created it precisely because I couldn't find a summary that showed the overview of the evolution of the Lok Sabha. I think sourcing is not a problem. --Soman (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I'm understanding Lok Sabha, these are all members of the Indian parliament, which makes this nomination confused and erroneous. There is no way that this information is not verifiable regardless of what the current state of sourcing is, and the nom appears to contradict themselves on this as well. This forum is for deletion, not "splitting" or other cleanup. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. If the issue is this list is redundant to other lists or otherwise not a reasonable grouping of them, let's focus on that because the nom's other claims are entirely without merit. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. If all of the Lok Sabha terms already had their own lists of members in place, then this list would be deletable as simply redundant to the existing lists. But per, we only have lists of the four most recent sessions — so for anybody who served prior to 1999, this is the only list we have right now. I agree that the list should be split into separate lists to complete the terms category, and this can be relisted for consideration if and when the lists for #1 through #12 are actually in place, but deleting it instead of splitting it isn't the appropriate answer yet. I strongly doubt that a national parliament's membership is somehow unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think a strong case could be made for splitting the article by parliament or group of years, but the content is verifiable. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above Sourcing is not an issue and the content is verifiable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists of members of national Legislative Branches are easily verified and notable. That being said, this list is so utterly massive that its hard to navigate and edit. I would prefer that this list be broken down into several sub-lists so that it will be easier to navigate and work with. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2017 (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.