Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pudumadam-sdpi(branch)

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. Nakon 01:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pudumadam-sdpi(branch)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are not articles about the Social Democratic Party of India at the state level. There surely doesn't need to be an article about the party's branch at the village level. Article was PRODed with this same rationale, but the author removed the PROD, so we're here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as noted in WP:NONPROFIT, "Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice", but there's no evidence of national notability here. The SDPI are a huge party in India, but it's unlikely that a village branch in a rural district of Tamil Nadu is going to be doing anything nationally notable. No significant coverage online from WP:RS in English. I haven't searched for them in the online Tamil media. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and this branch of Social Democratic Party of India is clearly no notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am an ultra-inclusionist with respect to political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, believing they should be automatically included per IAR without regard to size or ideology as essential fare for any encyclopedia pretending at universality. This, however, seems to be an ordinary local branch of a national organization. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.