BJP Mahila Morcha ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

New information. WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination did not explicitly stated this is the Women's wing (I believe Mahila Morcha (Hindi) can translate as Women's Front) of the Bharatiya Janata Party, one of the two major parties of India (population 900 million). When presented like that it is difficult to see how notability is almost certain to be inherent, especially as seemed to have been formed in 1980 with a hierarchial structure with 75% of 406 districts having local branches c. 1998. (oclc=654547053 pg 99-100) The organisation has had significant exposure recently, per [1]. I have not seen the article in question but the closer has been urged not to draftify it for me on their talk page so undeletion is controversial. I find unbelief this was not retained for improvement or in all events a redirect, the fact it is not seems to worryingly indicate a flawed AfD. Closer has given me the go ahead to go to DRV, that should not be implied that they agree with my case and they may well disagree with it, but please note closer seems busy with important commitments in RL which we need to respect. Subject use-case is very similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mahila Congress which is the women's wing for the other major party (I think) which is how I came to realise this was deleted. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment: temp-undelete requested, albeit I have some trepidation with what will appear. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 20:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Done. That's a... heckuva history for what amounts to three sentences of prose. — Cryptic 21:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for temp-undelete. 10 years of history and isn't even worthy of a cleanup tag for a month or two per WP:BEFORE criteria c.3 before landing route one at AfD! I can work with it though, its got good boilerplate templating, and its not cloudbusting my superforecasting. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 07:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Due to events I am recusing from this discussion and may or may not longer participate in any future AfD discussion. I have to be minded of the risk of discretionary sanctions if I continue. I may also choose not assist in attempts to improve the article. It is unclear to me if others would wish to take this up, but a REFUND or RELIST on my account is no longer necessary. I apolgoise to the closer and participants for raising this DRV. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 00:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Relist - The closer did not make an error in closing as Delete after one week, but with a request to re-open, relisting seems like the course of wisdom, rather than either just endorsing or overturning. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist to allow for more input. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 20:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I had participated in the AfD. The closer has done a good job of closing the AfD to reflect the clear consensus of the participants. The concern was lack of sources that prove independent notability. Even the new link that has been presented above is a news link covering the controversial statement of an office bearer. Politicians are known to make such comments on daily basis and some of them find coverage in news. This article above is entirely based on the org's Press release doesn't even talk about the Org, quite far from passing WP:ORGCRIT. I see no reason to not endorse the close. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 20:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Notability is judged based on the coverage of an org, not the population of a country. The party BJP is notable, but the same notability is not automatically WP:INHERITED by its numerous sub orgs. As per the criteria of DRV, I note that there was no procedural errors in the closure of the AfD, the closer judged consensus correctly and there is no significant new information that has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 07:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and Relist- this was a sparsely attended AfD so, even though I can't find fault with the closer, I also have no issue with it being listed for another week. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. A discussion this sparsely attended should have either been relisted or closed as WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but amend result to soft delete WP:REFUND applies, to which any editor can request undeletion. If there wasn't a lot of participation, I see no basis for relisting. Just let it be undeleted and wait for someone to invariably re-nominate it for AfD. Let's skip the bureaucracy. Doug Mehus T· C 00:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist as it could benefit for some more discussion. The closing decision to delete was not wrong as there were no keep votes. However, for the women's wing of a major political party in India, a bit of discussion would be helpful.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 01:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist per RoySmith. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist and I'd argue it probably should have been relisted the first time around. Hobit ( talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist per above arguments - I know it's lazy, but I agree with RoySmith and Robert McClenon and have nothing more to add, but want to add to the consensus. SportingFlyer T· C 11:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but as redirection. The topic is the "women's wing" of the Bharatiya Janata Party. This is important, but first it is the internal structure of the Bharatiya Janata Party. It needs coverage in its own section of Bharatiya Janata Party before there is justification of spinning it out. It appears to have little recognition, if any, outside of the context of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Add content to Bharatiya Janata Party#Organisation and structure.

Overturn the deletion, due to the obvious redirect target, and the failure of WP:BEFORE #C, #4. Allow merging from the history. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) reply