Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


 * 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 redirect to States Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (India). Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is going to be a bundled nomination. User:Gardenkur has a method of creating runs of articles which consists of writing a single generic article about a public body in India, and then reproducing it multiple times with minor variations for each Indian state. These are almost entirely cut and paste jobs, though each one usually has a couple of refs that are specific to the state in the title. In my view these state institutions are not independently notable and each instance should be redirected to a lemma article, in this case State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (India). Bringing here to see what the consensus is. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations,  and India. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mccapra. There are few reasons for having these articles. 1. The same topic was discussed earlier on Information Commission for different states and it was decided that the article for different states on same subject needs to stay. 2. The articles are of public interest for relevant states in India. 3. Already there were few articles in this subject for other states and I added only left over states. 4. Its my efforts to get uniformity and quality in this series of articles. Hope this clarifies. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the references aren’t even about the topic. They’re about Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions in general, so they establish that the commissions in general are notable, not that each states instance of it is. These are just copied wholesale from one article to another. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mccapra. Thanks for your reply. It was earlier discussed with other editors too on the relevant of having policies of regulatory agencies. Across all states of India they are guided by same policies. Its in public interest that offices of these commissions are important. Arent these articles in the interest of general public. Kindly guide. Gardenkur (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that’s why I suggested creating a single article about each generic agency, and then just mentioning in that article which states have an agency. Writing the same article out thirty times is a great way to bump up your article creation stats but doesn’t really add any value for the reader. I mean they're such cut-and-paste jobs that when you copied the Punjab article to create the Madhya Pradesh article you didn’t even change the wording so it still says “Punjab” in the text. This is just a pointless production line of cookie-cutter articles. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mccapra. Thanks for your reply. However, few things to be considered 1. Every such organisations for different states have separate articles like Municipal Corporation,Election commission 2. Having independent articles gives information about their offices and persons holding the chair 3. In future some other person will come up on same 4. The articles will not be structured properly as Iam correcting now in many of them creating bad image for Wikipedia. Kindly share your opinion too. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Punjab. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 01:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Delete them all or redirect to a singular national-level subject. There's certainly no question that each of these are actual entities that do exist, but sources like this don't provide coverage or notability for the individual commissions and don't even mention them by name in any way, instead mentioning the national-level commission. Sources like that are being used to support content about the individual commissions, which it just doesn't support. Comments above about the importance of the subject or the importance of meeting the public interest fall under WP:USEFUL. There is a lot of information that is important and absolutely crucial to many people that still fall outside the scope of needing to have an article on Wikipedia. The articles need to show notability under WP:GNG, and these just fall short of that. - Aoidh (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - (ATD). The umbrella article already exists, in fact, as States Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (India) (which is actually about the SCDR Commissions). Ingratis (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks I should have seen that! I’m happy to redirect them all there unless the consensus is otherwise. Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2022 (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.