- 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 merge to Rakhi Sawant. Soman: A merge does not mean that categories have to be moved over. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rashtriya Aam Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No proof of "significant coverage", expect 1 news item that Rakhi Sawant founded it. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge The party is less than a month old, let's remember WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. The Times of India is a RS, and though one of the sources provided is a deadink, the others are solid. As an alternative, perhaps if the party goes nowhere, then it could be merged into the article about Rakhi Sawant. But I say let it roll for a few months and see what happens. Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough of reliable sources linked, and if you don't consider The Times of India as a reliable source, well then the New York Times ain't one either. EthicallyYours! 03:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. TOI is an RS, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Also, notability is not WP:INHERITED; articles in newspapers talk about Rakhi Sawant primarily. Until and unless the party fulfills WP:GNG's "significant coverage" clause, an article should not exist. Parties less than 1 month have had significant coverage. e.g. Aam Aadmi Party. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what gets the media coverage is important. If its not the party but just Sawant's connection with it, the content is better suited only for Sawant's article. (My speculation: Frankly, i would be really surprised if the party on a bit of a longer run has truily anything to do with politics rather than just publicity. That's based on Sawant's credentials so far. She has been vocal about social issues much more than other beauty queens of other parties. But she joining hands with other established parties is very well a likely possibility than she standing strong on her own with her green chillies.) As to the categories issue, redirects can be categorised. See how Yash Birla is under Category:Indian socialites when it actually redirects to Birla family.
- Redirect to Rakhi Sawant per above statement. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: As this is the election time in India several such articles may have been created. For now I suggest redirect to a section of Rakhi Sawant article. Later if the party gains notability and has sufficient sources then a new article may be created. WorLD8115 (TalK) 04:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect I don't see any sign that there is coverage of this party is independent from her, consolidated coverage seems preferable. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:17, 30 April 2014 (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.