Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Syamaprasad Jana Jagaran Manch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Bobet 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure about this one. The article appears to be about an Indian political party, not a person. Although there are quite a few Google hits, after excluding Wiki mirrors I can only find two news articles (dated December 5, 2004) that refer to the organization. Although I'm conscious of WP:CSB, it does not yet appear to be verifiably important. Medtopic 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination and weak keep on the basis of good additions by Soman. Medtopic 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It appears that a large number of editors were advised of this AfD from Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics; please remember that this is not a vote. I would request that those editors recommending "keep" make sure that the article conforms to Wikipedia policy. Verifiability is not optional. Per WP:RS, is there any information about the organization other than the December 2004 PTI press releases? Medtopic 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) last edited 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - You are wrong there. A large number of editors were informed (not advised) about this AfD through WT:INWNB and also through WP:DSI. Please have a look again at this section. Do you think it is asking anyone to vote for keep? Each person here has come to keep decision by himself. As for WP:V, it is my opinion that PTI is a credible source. The reference has been inserted. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anyone was advised how to vote, but rather that they were advised that the AfD existed. In fact, I was clear to use the word "recommend" and not "vote". Regardless, is there any information about this organization not dated December 2004 or not from PTI? Medtopic 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this from a much later date which also confirms that such an organisation existed and does get mentioned. I searched for more but couldn't find much. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anyone was advised how to vote, but rather that they were advised that the AfD existed. In fact, I was clear to use the word "recommend" and not "vote". Regardless, is there any information about this organization not dated December 2004 or not from PTI? Medtopic 18:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Please note that there is NO doubt as to whether this entity exits [1]. Hence the Verifiability is not at all a question. PTI in India is like Reuters. Hence it is an authenticated source. The only question over here is Notability and if a breakaway fraction of a political party is notable, then this Jagran is notable. Also we have to keep in mind that Local Newspapers (in Bengali / Hindi etc) are not searchable in Google. Another problem is the minor spelling variation (Jagran / Jagaran) that may limit the utility of Google as far as these reports are concernedDoctor Bruno 03:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiable in its existance and verifiably important are two different things. Do you have anything else not dated December 2004, or not from PTI, that would suggest the organization is verifiably important? Medtopic 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this (as already pointed) is from a later date and from another source and that settles the verifiability issue. Please note that Indian articles have two problems.
- Verifiable in its existance and verifiably important are two different things. Do you have anything else not dated December 2004, or not from PTI, that would suggest the organization is verifiably important? Medtopic 03:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - You are wrong there. A large number of editors were informed (not advised) about this AfD through WT:INWNB and also through WP:DSI. Please have a look again at this section. Do you think it is asking anyone to vote for keep? Each person here has come to keep decision by himself. As for WP:V, it is my opinion that PTI is a credible source. The reference has been inserted. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the press coverage is by the Local Media in Languages like Hindi, Tamil, Malayalam and Bengali
- Such media reports do not have an online edition
- If if there is an online edition, most of the reports are not in Unicode, but use their own fonts and not searchable
- Even many of the English papers are behind a subscription and hence not retrievable
- Any how both PTI as well as Outlook are very reputed sources and the fact that the organisation has been reported in these means that there should be no doubt regarding Verifiability, which I suppose is an objective phenomenon. (If it is verifiable by me, it should be verifiable by you.)
- The notability, however is a subjective phenomenon and hence is for the Community to decide by ConsensusDoctor Bruno 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) attempts to address the aspect of subjectivity by setting certain guidelines for what constitutes "notable". Among these: "Notability can be asserted for organizatons through... [a] significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject." Thus far we have two links ([2][3]) that are both dated December 5, 2004 and are apparently from the same press release, and a third ([4]) dated March 8th. Certainly our standards differ on whether or not this is a "significant amount of media coverage". The assertion that information exists but we don't have access to it is problematic when building Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't grant special exemptions to articles that may have a systemic bias, nor does it prevent you from citing publications that are written in other languages. Medtopic 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no uniform system of translitteration of Indian language names into English, and therefor one has to be a bit flexible when seaching. Googling "Tapan Sikdar" Manch OR Mancha gave some new links, which some have be included in the article. Other mentions in media are [5], [6] and [7]. I think the notablity issue is solved now. The group is mentioned in a variety of major Indian English newspapers over a span of two years. --Soman 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Soman! These are nice additions. Medtopic 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no uniform system of translitteration of Indian language names into English, and therefor one has to be a bit flexible when seaching. Googling "Tapan Sikdar" Manch OR Mancha gave some new links, which some have be included in the article. Other mentions in media are [5], [6] and [7]. I think the notablity issue is solved now. The group is mentioned in a variety of major Indian English newspapers over a span of two years. --Soman 07:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) attempts to address the aspect of subjectivity by setting certain guidelines for what constitutes "notable". Among these: "Notability can be asserted for organizatons through... [a] significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject." Thus far we have two links ([2][3]) that are both dated December 5, 2004 and are apparently from the same press release, and a third ([4]) dated March 8th. Certainly our standards differ on whether or not this is a "significant amount of media coverage". The assertion that information exists but we don't have access to it is problematic when building Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:Verifiability doesn't grant special exemptions to articles that may have a systemic bias, nor does it prevent you from citing publications that are written in other languages. Medtopic 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is a political party as per http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec052004/i12.asp Hence follow the guidelines you follow for political partiesDoctor Bruno 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since it is a political organisation, formed by dissentsDoctor Bruno 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)*Strong Keep as it has been shown that the organisation is covered by[reply]
- The Hindu
- Telegraph
- Outlook
- Deccan Herald
and that solves both the verifiability and notability issueDoctor Bruno 10:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This says that it is not a political party. I am not sure about this now. I will try and find out more about this party and then decide which way to vote. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 08:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This party seems to have been founded as a publicity stunt. I cannot find any sources asserting its importance. List of political parties in India does not mention this party and that list is quite a long one. As the article was created in 2004, it may have been a product of Wikipedia:Recentism. I may change my mind if anyone comes up with a source asserting notability. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 08:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Change to weak keep - per Gurubrahma and Dwaipayanc - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does anyone actually question whether this organization exists? Secondly as per notability, this is a political organization led by a former union minister. As per the organization being 'apolitical', that is probably just an act on behalf of Sikdar to maintain an open door towards returning to the BJP. --Soman 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain for now it doesn't seem to be political party, but some kind of intra-BJP association. See if it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Babub→Talk 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Soman. All the news items , btw, seem to be a release from Press Trust of India. --Gurubrahma 00:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Soman. This is an existing political entity led by a notable political personality, though rarely in the news.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2006 (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.