Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjab Assembly Committee on Local Bodies


 * 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 merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly.  Sandstein  08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Punjab Assembly Committee on Local Bodies

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

Although state assemblies are notable, I don’t believe that individual committees of state assemblies are. Does not pass WP:BRANCH. Mccapra (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Punjab. Mccapra (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I created it. The State Assembly committees are notable and serve an important function that need to be discussed somewhere along with the membership. These pages also help to look up the other members of the committee and the party they belong to. They are linked from the Biographies of the MLAs if the reader is interested to know the specific function of the particular committee. This page can be considered as content forks of Assembly page Punjab Legislative Assembly and 15th_Punjab_Assembly, 16th Punjab Assembly for better organization and historical purpose. At worst they all will need to be merged to the parent page, where they will be less organized and will be harder to navigate in comparison to keeping the committee in their own fork pages. Venkat TL (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete All assemblies have committees. Without sources showing how this particular one stands out or has otherwise been involved in significant matters, this one looks just like all the others (looking at other pages in the category, a group nom would probably have done better service here) and is a case of WP:NOTCATALOG and of failing WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, an editor has expressed concern Special:Diff/1093448438/1093456027 that the above !vote may not be in good faith. I believe this !vote is to spite me (creator of this page), as some kind of retaliation for my keep votes in recent bunch of Indian Singers Afd nominated by RandomCanadian.--Venkat TL (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly, which only has a name check mention in a table. This will improve the merge target article. North America1000 22:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Unclear if the committee is independently notable to warrant a stand alone article. Regardless, the content can be covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The page was AfDed within 3 hrs of creation and has since been considerably expanded. Since this is a valid WP:CFORK of Punjab Legislative Assembly it can possibly be merged there. But how will the previous year chairpersons and members be accommodated there? There are multiple committees over multiple years and all are linked from the article Punjab Legislative Assembly. For the sake of better organization of the Punjab Legislative Assembly page I still suggest that these CFORKs be allowed to stay on separate pages. Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think listing the committee members has any encyclopedic utility, tbh. The committee members change every year, each legislator can be part of multiple committees, and the legislature has multiple such committees. And we are only talking about one state legislature, there are 29 other state/UT legislatures in India with similar structure. These committees are dynamic and bureaucratic in nature, so it's borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE to list all those. Therefore, it can be discussed in brief as a section in the main article without the member listings. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Committees are the entities through with the Assemblies in India function. They are extremely vital. I believe both the committee functions and its membership has an encyclopedic value for the reader checking the Politician Bio or the Assembly page. Certain committee assignments are more valued due to bigger clout and power. Almost all the laws go through the committees. They are formed annually. To give you the analogy, What cabinets are for the Executive, the same Committees are for the legislature and Benches are for Judiciary. Venkat TL (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ab207. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Does not need to be an standalone article Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly per Northamerica1000, and Ab207. The committee itself is not notable, and notability is not inherited. Also, size of content/article has nothing to do with notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have run into a similar problem in the context of a different subnational legislature, the Illinois General Assembly: committees and their memberships/chairmanships are significant for many reasons, but the committees as such don't get a lot of dedicated coverage in independent reliable sources. So what I have been doing so far is to have, in the article for each legislative session, a list of members that includes each member's committee roles. (Random example: 93rd Illinois General Assembly). So that could be one way to structure this valuable information without running into any WP:N problems. (Another possible alternative would be, in the article for a particular legislative session, to have a "Committees" section that would hold this information, separate from the list of members.) I've also noticed that in some cases, information on a particular legislator's committee roles has also been included in that legislator's own article. I have no idea which approach is best for the Punjab Legislative Assembly, but since this is a problem I've also been thinking about, I wanted to share the approach I've been taking. -- Visviva (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Followup: I see that for example 16th Punjab Assembly indeed has a Committees section. Although it currently only has a Chairman column, a column for the members of each committee could easily be added. That seems like it might be a good solution here: the general information in the article lede could be merged into the main Punjab Legislative Assembly article, and membership information for each session could be presented in the respective session article. -- Visviva (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Visviva thanks for sharing and elaborating your valuable experience. Glad to see a deep thought on how to better resolve this Afd. I may be wrong, but I believe the US legislators are elected for 2 yr tenure in which they are selected into committee assignments of 2 yr tenure. I know the fact that in India the legislators are elected for 5 yr tenure in which they have committee assignments every year, they may or may not remain in the same committee. So adding them into the table list of legislators like you did for 93rd Illinois General Assembly will not be practical, it will be a mess. Hence the committee assignments should have their own table for ease of reading and better organisation of data. Yes a legislators committee assignments need to be listed on his bio as it is relevant encyclopedic information. Who all were his co-members is also encyclopedic and we are assessing where to best put that information.
 * About your followup comment, putting the functions of the committee on one page and then discussing the membership on multiple session pages is forcing the reader to make multiple clicks and it is likely that they may miss some information. It is precisely because of all these reasons, that I believe the individual committees should be allowed to have their own page, regardless of the fact that the Assembly page and the Assembly session page has some bits of information about the committees that is relevant to those pages. I see several merge votes above who may have not given a thought at how the article would appear when they are merged.
 * I am looking at it this way, we have election articles that give the information about constituency results in that election, yet we have different standalone constituency pages to provide the election results spread over multiple years. In the same way the Assembly sessions page, sure can have the information about the committees of that session, but we should have standalone pages that have 4 important info (1) functions (2) history (3) membership current and historical (4) Major work done by the committee. In my opinion this information is best served to the reader on a separate standalone article rather than merging some bits of it here and some bits there. WP:CFORK Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on the helpful explanation above, and in particular given that legislators change committee assignments within a session, I can see how this would be a preferred solution. Notability is about whether to have a stand-alone page on a topic, and a good case has been made as to why it is helpful to our encyclopedic purpose to have a stand-alone page in this case, rather than organizing this important information in some other way. -- Visviva (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Fails WP:BRANCH and WP:SIGCOV so keep is not an option under policy. Likewise, the lack of significant coverage means that WP:CFORK doesn't;'t apply in this context. The above argument by Visviva is an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, which is listed in the arguments to avoid at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Punjab Legislative Assembly. Fails WP:BRANCH and WP:SIGCOV so keep is not an option under policy. Likewise, the lack of significant coverage means that WP:CFORK doesn't;'t apply in this context. The above argument by Visviva is an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, which is listed in the arguments to avoid at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 06:30, 22 June 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.