Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014

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. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014

List of National Democratic Alliance candidates in the Indian general election, 2014 (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)

The page is merely a listing of election candidates, thus failing WP:IINFO and should be deleted like other pages like AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates. Wikipedia is not a place to promote candidates in the run up to elections. Min2winit (Min2winit)

• Comment I fixed up the improper nom, no opinion. ansh666 19:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The candidate lists of this type have in fact been traditionally allowed on Wikipedia A few examples are : Dutch Labour Party candidates in the 2009 European Parliament election, Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election,Candidates in the New Zealand general election 2005 by party. Just listing of the names is no promotion . The nominator has not given any other reason other than that such list of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was deleted. The grounds of deletion of that list were different and not applicable to this list. AAP is a new party and is recognised by the Election Commission of India as state party for city state Delhi only. Whereas National Democratic Alliance is major political formation for 2014 election and is led by Bharatiya Janata Party a national party with long history and is the strong contender to take power from the present ruling alliance.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I want to tell nominator that this is a neutral list not promoting any candidate or party. National Democratic Alliance is major political force in India where Aam Aadmi Party is only Delhi's state Party.Prateek Malviya^Talk 04:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep As the Article created by me, I have followed all the Wikipedia Rules and it is kept in a neutral point of view without promoting any party or alliance. It is simply an encyclopedic information about NDA a major Political force in India which is contesting in all the 543 Parliament seats for General Election 2014. It is a related document with Indian general election, 2014 and National Democratic Alliance (India). If you see this list as a promotion, even the article pages of Politcal parties like INC,BJP,AAP all can be said as promotion in someone's view. We Wikipedia follow a neutral point of view in all the articles without promoting any organization or political parties. Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator's argument is completely invalid. NDA is a major force in Indian politics which is expected to win this election. On the other hand, AAP is a new political party which only has very less presence all over the country except Delhi. I don't see even a single way in which this list promoted the BJP or its alliance. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as it is a neutral list, no harm in keeping wikipedia. And also, once election gets over, the list will be updated with results. So it is highly encyclopedic info. Nahasau (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Conclusion Hence majority of WIkipedians oppose nominators argument. Lets remove the Deletion tag from the page. Thank you all.. Warm Regards Sanatan2014 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment That's not how it works. A handful of people voting Keep does not automatically end the discussion. And if a week from now, the majority of people have voted Keep, the page may still be deleted if the votes for Delete are considered more persuasive as per Wikipedia policy. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

209 is correct. A discussion stays active for seven days unless there's absolute unanimity that it should be closed early for policy-based reasons. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per the reasons in the AfD discussion for AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates. As Bearcat said in the debate "I can't support treating this one differently from the practice that currently exists as standard procedure for many other elections." WP:Politician and the essay WP:POLOUTCOMES treat all parties, regardless of chance of success equally. It does not matter if one party wins every election every year, the leadership of small parties are considered notable. As the closing admin stated, "we have no clear policy statement to cover this sort of article." Personally, I think that election-related discussions should occur within pages specific to the electoral jurisdiction (and year), such as Quebec general election, 2014, Charlevoix–Côte-de-Beaupré or Massachusetts's 4th congressional district special election, 1801. Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe this is a reasonable treatment for this clearly encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (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.