Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamil Nadu Peasants and Workers Party


 * 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu Peasants and Workers Party

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The party fails notability. A simple search  does not throw up any meaningful results other than the Wikipedia article and its mirrors. Shovon (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, says "Peasants and Workers Party, who had won a sizeable number of seats" (could possibly be another party) . Mentioned at, , , , , , , , , , . --Soman (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the outlook link which talked about 1952 state election. But, are both the parties same? Shovon (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * isn't very clear on this. --Soman (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A google search with site:eci.gov.in clearly shows TNPWP as registered unrecognized party. They contested a single seat in general elections in 1999 and none in 2004. Pretty non-notable. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, what should be taken into account in Tamil party politics is the tradition for smaller parties to contest on DMK or AIADMK symbols. --Soman (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For example says that the party contested the 2006 election on the Samajwadi Party symbol.  gives some indication that candidates of the party could contest on AIADMK symbol in 2001.  states that the party had supported AIADMK for 22 years, indicating that the party has a history. The article also states that AIADMK hadn't allocated any seat to TNPWP in 2006, the wording indicates that such allotments had been done in the past. The rally photographed at  doesn't seem very small. --Soman (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, ghits in Tamil,, , , . --Soman (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the coverage found by Soman. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep after Soman's valuable work. -- gp pande  «talk»  14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Soman, I don't think that the Peasants and Workers Party referred to in the citations given above are all about the same party. e.g. If its for TNPWP, then why this link refers to a different party? Shovon (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, all the links above (except the Observer article mentioning the 1952 election, which is a bit unclear) relate to the TNPWP. The Peasants and Workers Party of India is a separate party, limited to Maharashtra. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, whom do you want to establish as notable? Pon Kumar or the party? According to links like these, probably Pon Kumar is more notable! Shovon (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The rediff link in question doesn't explicitly name TNPWP, but indicates that the party could have contested elections on AIADMK symbol. I posted the link in response to a comment on the electoral performance of the TNPWP at eci.gov.in. --Soman (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My whole point is this: if a regional political party does not contest election with its own symbol, is it notable enough to have an article in WP? --GDibyendu (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My answer is yes. The 'region' in this case has a population that is 66 million. Tamil Nadu has a party system that is rather unique, where the Indian national parties do not play the leading role. There are two main blocs of Tamil parties (centered around DMK and AIADMK), and there is a large number of smaller parties (like TNPWP) which play a significant role in creation of alliances. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep it is cited, and apparently a real party. Remember not everything has to be online. If it is a peasant and workers party (and this seems to be truly so), it is not going to be on the internet. Which constituent would come online to read pmaphlets and manifestoes? btw- when deletion comes up, are the voted simply tallied for absolute merit? Or is relative merit taken up by the deletor? Lihaas (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. The closing administrator takes into account the strength of the arguments presented, rather than just counting votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Samajwadi Party has their own website, but they do not mention alliance with TNPWP anywhere. So, the so called alliance very well may be like defection, which does not help in establishing notability of TNPWP. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not following this argument, please elaborate. The point of bringing up electoral alliances with AIADMK and SP is that the notability of TNPWP cannot be measured by ECI figures alone. --Soman (talk) 09:34, 17 October 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.