Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahujan Azad Party

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. Already deleted by Nyttend as A7. No credible claim of significance. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan Azad Party

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

All the sources except for the controversy related source state nearly the same matter. Does not even the basic primary criteria for an organisation currently WP:ORGCRITE. Maybe in the future this party may deserve it's own Wikipedia page but just now this is more like news related to just one event WP:NOTNEWS. Not notable enough WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NN. DiplomatTesterMan 14:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete party is less than a month old, no notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is not a valid reason for speey deletion, although of course it is for an AfD deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete...again. Why are we being redirected to this AfD discussion from the article? The article was already deleted and it was re-created today. Discussion here should be minimally entertained since the brand new user, SiddhantSarang, without a review or understanding of the rules defied the deletion, did not register an objection here previously, and re-created the article anyway. The article should be deleted at once. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GnarlyLikeWhoa: Because it was not previously deleted per an AfD. Previous deletion per A7 does not count. Please, once again, familiarize yourself with WP:CSD#G4. Furthermore, as it sits, it does assert significance. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GnarlyLikeWhoa is canvassing for delete votes in violation of WP:CANVASS.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to unmuddy the waters/muddier the waters-- delete although asserts significance, is not yet notable. too soon.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2018 (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.