Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashtrottahana Parishat


 * 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   no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Rashtrottahana Parishat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Local social service organization with no notability. Refs 1 & 2 are mere listings, Ref 3 is local.  DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure that an organisation that appears to operate across a state with a population only just short of that of the United Kingdom - and half as large again as that of California - should really be dismissed as "local". And there are a fair number of available sources, though I have not spotted any substantial ones - the article title, by the way, is wrong or at least not the standard spelling of the organisation's name - the usual spelling seems to be Rashtrotthana Parishat. Also, as with many Indian topics, not all reliable sources are likely to be in English. Having said that, though, I am not at all sure of how much notability it has independently of its parent organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. PWilkinson (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:BARE, based on ref 3. This appears to be a large NGO in a large jurisdiction.  I'd like to see additional sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2013 (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.