Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jansanskrity

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 Delete ~ trialsanderrors 01:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jansanskrity and related articles

Fails WP:ORG. Related, non-notable articles: Jansanskrity[1], A.N.Damodaran[2], Jansanskriti,mayurvihar phase3, Jsmv3, Sargotsavam[3]. Google returns very few unrelated results (0 for Jansanskrity). Delete. utcursch | talk 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • keep but merge stubs into Jansanskrity. base notability of the main is established and the program is growing, there is no need to alienate them now by deleting them. i'd put this delete under 'systematic bias', which is present in using google for non-english searches. that said, citations are needed.--Buridan 13:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is no systematic bias and there is no attempt to "alienate" the articles -- I am from India. Can you please explain how the "base notability of the main is established"? There are no citations, no sources -- the burden on evidence lies on the contributors, not the AFD nominators. There are many such organizations -- Jansanskrity fails WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to make sure "growing programs" grow more. utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
this is more of a keep all as they are made than a delete one because the rest are not made in my mind. i think it passes wp:org given its press coverage. --Buridan 13:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Press coverage? Where? What? utcursch | talk 15:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Keep and merge stubs per Buridan A google search for "Jansanskriti" is a bit better, but in an open-minded way I'm not persuaded of notability against WP:ORG. Does it measure up in the context of Category:Arts organizations? (And spotting one odd one already there, I've just nominated Durham Association for Downtown Arts as well). --Mereda 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC) The AFD I started on that local and low-profile US arts organization as a kind of controlled experiment is heading towards "Keep". So, for consistency, I'll change my vote here. --Mereda 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Comment I'm changing back to my original view - just for consistency! - since we've now merged and redirected that US organization into a "Culture" section for its parent city.--Mereda 16:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Google search for Jansanskriti gets 30 results, some of which are about a journal called "Hindutva Jansanskriti" and about another organization called "Jansanskriti Manch". utcursch | talk 09:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hindutva cannot have a 'Jansanskrity'. Because Jansanskrity means 'People's Culture' and Hindutva does not believe in either people as a starting point for any sociological discourse or in the existence of any such thing as people's culture. So thats not a valid reason for the deletion of this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.229.4 (talk • contribs)
Firstly, this is not the reason the article has been nominated for deletion. Secondly, "Hindutva Jansanskriti" exists[4]. utcursch | talk 13:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Main article fails WP:ORG and is unverifiable. Others are also clearly not notable enough to get coverage. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

searching jansanskriti(an alternative spelling of jansanskrity?)brings a few evidences to prove the existence of an organisation by that name[5]The HinduHindustan timesDeepika[6][7]Mathewjoe 11:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)mathewjoe

I'm not saying that the organization doesn't exist. It does, and probably has done some good work too. But it doesn't seem to be notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. By the way, four of the links provided by you result in "page not found"s:
utcursch | talk 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Yomanganitalk 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be unverifiable. Very little sources, none are mentioned in the article. I find the "keep" comments unconvincing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 404s can often be solved by checking the Wayback Machine. Unfortunately, I got nothing for the first link, which greatly lowered my interest in continuing to investigate. I'm somewhat torn, so I choose to abstain. Xtifr tälk 01:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if those links work, there is no sign of notability. The links provided do not establish notability. [9] is about a play, and mentions that the play was staged at the National School of Drama as part of a theatre festival by this organization. utcursch | talk 04:17, 10 November 2006 (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.