Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RSS pracharaks in Prominent public positions

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RSS pracharaks in Prominent public positions (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)

Unreferenced list; to adhere to BLP policy would have to substantiate the inclusion of every person listed. This would be hard to do in view of the broad definition "person dedicated to spreading the RSS ideology" - unless we include all office-holders who are BJP members. Many of the articles for the persons listed do not mention the RSS. : Noyster (talk), 17:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, see in their wikipedia pages, they ARE R.S.S members(many are just Swayamsevaks,not pracharaks. Hence page name is changed.). Only 5 C.Ms are there from B.J.P who are not from R.S.S. Teja srinivas (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "There are no sources" is almost always, at best, an incomplete deletion rationale. Presumably the association of notable people with a notable organization can be verified, if we are talking about something objective like "membership" at least. Looking at Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, there are four separate categories for people associated with this group, such as one for "members" (obvious enough) and one for "karmayogis" (??). So if there is a problem with this content, the list is the least of it. "Prominent public position" is obviously a POV term, and I don't have a clue what "pracharak" or "swayamsevak" mean (neither does the parent organization article or the corresponding categories), so one possible solution would be to simply rename this to List of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members‎, complementary to Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members (if that category should even exist), and I'd expect Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh pracharaks‎ and Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh sanghchalaks to be nominated for merging to the members category as well. Even if these other terms are substantively meaningful in some way, the best way to address that still might be as subsections or annotations within a master list of all members. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just became aware of this page and the AfD. The spread of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) within the Indian society interests me greatly, and the categories cited above as well as their population with entries were mostly done by me. In all the cases that I did the categorisation, the corresponding pages mention the individual's association with the RSS along with reliable sources. So, there is no problem with sourcing. The present editor seems to have culled this data to create a list page. Off hand, I think it is valuable. But it may be hard to maintain it in the long run. It is worth a try. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pracharaks are full time officials who devote their entire lives to the RSS. They don't even have families or take jobs. Sanghchalaks are also officials (directors), but they work for the RSS part-time. So, these are senior functionaries, not merely members. But, I suppose that is moot now, because the editor has changed it to "Swayamsevaks" who include all members. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The content is not neutral. The part which does make some sense is already included in RSS article. The people mentioned in the list are apparently chosen based on article-creator's liking and the term "prominent" means this list is an abstract interpretation of creator's thinking. Renaming to List of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members is not viable since RSS has thousands or maybe millions of members across India. Harsh (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would limit any such list of members to only those who have or merit articles. Standard practice. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current list mostly includes recent cabinet and central ministers of the BJP government who were RSS members during their early days. If the list is to be kept then List of BJP politicians with RSS background makes more sense. Harsh (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or expand and retitle it to include every article in Category:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh members, unless there's a particular reason to focus on politicians. The qualifier "with [organization] background" is meaninglessly vague in any event. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fail to understand what is "non-neutral" about this page? And, why does it make more sense to list politicians than public officials? Also, why do you think they were RSS members in their "early days"? Did any of them declare that they ceased to be RSS members? Kautilya3 (talk)
          • The problem is the qualifier "prominent", which is inherently subjective. "Public positions" is also too vague. But I think those are fixable issues, as I said above. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "Prominent public positions" is not/can't be a well defined criteria for inclusion as it depends heavily on POV of editors. Instead more well defined articles can be created such as RSS pracharak CM or MLA or MP etc. But given that RSS is a large organization, Categories (i.e. category space) are best way to deal with this, instead of making lists.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:01, 22 December 2014 (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.