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. RL0919 ( talk) 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib ( talk) 11:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Comprehensively passes both the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The article in its current state is a respectable stub with sufficient sources and if needed can be expanded with countless sources which exist in multiple languages and multiple form of written media. 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6. Razer( talk) 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Razer, See below.

1 and 2 are same source repeated twice. Please remove one. It is a book about Hindutva, so it is expected that it will cover all affiliates of RSS, including this one. And even then SJM does not get a chapter and the source only covers the subject in a few lines.

3 only mentions the subject in passing.

4 National Herald is not a reliable source.

5 is a passing mention of the subject.

6. is an interview of the office bearer of the subject. That is not independent coverage and cannot be used for WP:ORGCRIT

Based on this I dont think a separate article is merited. It is an outfit of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and should be covered at RSS' article. DBig Xrayᗙ 17:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

DBigXray, I can list countless more sources. It is a major organisation and although affiliated to RSS has sufficient coverage to warrant its own article. 1 , 2 , 3, 4, 5 RSS is a umbrella organisation and has countless organisation working under it. Even the current ruling party of India , BJP started as a RSS affiliate. Being a affiliate to RSS in no way affects the notability of Swadeshi Jagaran Manch. Razer( talk) 17:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Most of these, with the exception of Quint, are again WP:NOTNEWS type coverages. BJP not just started as, but still is an affiliate of RSS, although BJP is a notable affiliate, but not all affiliates are notable to have their own article. Affiliation to RSS, is the reason why SJM is getting these WP:NOTNEWS type of passing mentions, or else it would not have received even those. The link 1 in your first comment mentions that "RSS directs its affiliates" and "RSS derives its significance from its affiliates". Due to these reasons, I believe it would be better to discuss the subject in a para at Sangh_Parivar#Economics. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

DBigXray, Instead of throwing wiki policies around, you should attempt to at-least read some of them. The primary criteria of WP:ORGCRITE is

significant coverage in-

• multiple
• independent,
• reliable
• secondary sources.

Which Swadeshi Jagaran Manch seems to pass easily. Razer( talk) 18:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

For Swadeshi Jagaran Manch , the more specific criteria is WP:NONPROFIT. Which lists

• The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. - Yes
• The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. - Yes

Frankly , This is such clear case that I am tempted to mention WP:BEFORE here. Razer( talk) 18:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

These links are being mentioned as you seem to be ignoring/oblivious of them. I have read it and since you feel that I have not, leads me to think that you skipped the most relevant line of ORGCRIT, let me point it for you.

Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability. I.e. each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Then, there must be multiple of such qualifying sources. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and to exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Under ORGCRIT the more specific criteria for it will be WP:BRANCH as it is a sub organisation of RSS (and not NONPROFIT). DBig Xrayᗙ 18:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

DBigXray, SJM is at best an affiliate to RSS and certainly not a branch. Heck it even opposes RSS on certain issues and has its own independent hierarchy of management. You are clutching on straws here. Razer( talk) 12:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Razer2115, The quint link you gave above, says in the opening line "SJM is the economic arm of RSS". So it is obvious that WP:BRANCH is applicable. Rest of your comment, is off topic. DBig Xrayᗙ 13:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Easily passes WP:ORGCRIT. If anything, a comprehensive article can be written using various in-depth sources including, but not limited to, [1] [2] [3]. Dee 03 19:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Enough to pass WP:ORGCRIT and our WP:GNG. Not worthy AfD. Requires non-admin closure.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Article has significant coverage from secondary sources. Tayi Arajakate ( talk) 16:04, 26 January 2020 (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.