Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Future India 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 delete. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The Future India Party

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable party, obtained 0.00% in state vote, see Articles for deletion/Subi. Soman (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the subject have more than enough citations and sources to prove its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.227.94 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. They have worked hard to try to become significant, I'll give them that, but it hasn't happened yet. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - i vote to keep because the subject has enough significance in our state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.219.206.71 (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. With 0% votes and nothing else that makes them notable, I don't see them meet WP:N.  Yinta n  11:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a significant political party. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia needs just one independent source to be eligible for inclusion, wikipedia does not judge any party on the basis of their vote bank or necessarily require to win a public office for inclusion, there are parties with no vote bank, if the current article content creates conflict i would request for editing and cleanup of unnecessary contents from this article, that would be fair. Social Informer (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, appears to have a WP:COI issue here, and the IPs  and  has zero edits unrelated to the Subi/FIP/WYO articles. As the nominator, I now regret to having included all three articles in a single nomination. --Soman (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2016 (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.