Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makkal Manadu Katchi


 * 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, since there is a lack of explanation for deletion on the nominator's part as well as the subject has been properly sourced. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Makkal Manadu Katchi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable. Niaz (Talk •  Contribs)  15:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete utterly NN Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which criterion does this article meet? cab (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more references to the article now. Some of those are from credible sources like Election Commission of India, Leading News Media - The Hindu and Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Thus it satisfies the notability factor.--Mmkatchi (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of political parties in India. Verifiable, as they have a short article about them in a Chennai newspaper as well as being listed by the national elections commission.  I don't think they get any Ghits in Tamil (how do you spell the middle word, is it மக்கள் மனது கட்சி?), but I don't actually speak the language outside of "Hello" and "I love you". cab (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi cab, It has to be மக்கள் மாநாடு கட்சி in tamil. Phonetically it should have been Makkal Maanaadu Katchi. There are more references added to the article from more sources.--Mmkatchi (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) — Mmkatchi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This might meet WP:N, but I have to ask, are you connected to this party in some way, as your username implies? If so, you should probably avoid editing the article any more, as per the policy on conflicts of interests, though we welcome your efforts if you can provide more newpaper sources about the party, and let other editors do the actual writing of this article. Thanks, cab (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   cab (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keepThis article deserves to be kept as it complies with the notability factor.There are references to Election commission of India,The Hindu and the Tamilnadu Government Gazette.Therefore, keep the article.--Orathanadu (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — Orathanadu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep This entity seems quite notable in Tamilnadu and vernacular newspapers have carried number of verifiable articles on this articles other than the English daily The Hindu.Further,it is a registered political party with the Election Commission of India.--Villiwakkam (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — Villiwakkam (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment I hope that the two new participants in the debate, who have both just made their first edit to Wikipedia, would take the time out to read our policies on:
 * things you should not do if you are using multiple user accounts, and
 * our rules about recruiting new users solely for the purpose of commenting on ongoing debates.
 * If these rules do not describe your situation, please carry on editing. cab (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Two articles from the major national newspaper are sufficient for notability of a new political partyDGG (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The party has its own website and the article has enough content and sources to be considered notable. Anyway, I feel that the neutrality aspect of the article must be looked into. - Ravichandar 09:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keepThe sources mentioned in tha article are verifiable. The article seems to be neutral--Youyes (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2008 (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.