Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Winter Session of Indian Parliament

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. Kurykh (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Winter Session of Indian Parliament

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

There is nothing special in the Winter Session of 2016 to warrant a separate page. The content itself is too general and has nothing encyclopaedic in it. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how a season in a parliament is noteworthy. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 15:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The extensive media coverage of the parliamentary sessions demonstrates notability. There were two notable things about the sessions - the fierce debate about the currency demonetization, and the rancor between the different parties that erupted during the sessions. The former could go in the demonetization article, but where would the latter go? While I wouldn't do this kind of article myself, and there are no similar articles that I can find for other Parliament sessions, the info is good, and after some grammar cleanup it reads better. The amount of detail here just wouldn't work being placed into the other parliament articles. Timtempleton (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete or at the very least new title. The Hindustantimes article on this topic indicates that there was only a "brief spate" during the parliamentary session and the real uproar later spilled outside the time frame of the parliamentary session. So I would argue that if an article were created it would have to have a different title reflecting the uproar happened later. For example, a title of "2016 Indian monetization controversy".Knox490 (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthy of inclusion; legislatures worldwide have rancorous debates (indeed, arguably that's what they're for) and I don't see anything particularly conveying notability on this session. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Notnews. Not notable in any way. just another session of a national legislature. Dloh cierekim 16:21, 1 May 2017 (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.