Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Indian reserved seats

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Indian reserved seats[edit]

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

Non-notable "thing"— I don't even know how to categorize this. Not notable. KDS4444 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why this has been nominated for an AfD. It's an under-construction list of members of parliament nominated from the Anglo-Indian community. These seats are essentially equivalent to a constituency of India's lower house. --RaviC (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't all of this going in the article on the Lok Sabha? It seems it belongs there if it belongs anywhere. An article under the title "Anglo-Indian reserved seats" sounds like it could be a bus— the title gives no context, and the concept, to the extent that it is real, belongs within some other article which WILL have a suitable context. Even a redirect from here seems wrong— the article's content could perhaps be merged into the one on the Lok Sabha, but this namespace needs to be deleted as nonsensical. KDS4444 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of members - it's far too long to be in the Lok Sabha article. If you think the name is misleading, it could be renamed to List of Nominated Anglo-Indians in the Lok Sabha. --RaviC (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is an obviously notable topic without question. As noted above this is equivalent to a constituency of the Lok Sabha. The nominator has failed to advance any actual argument for deletion. Perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhiloda (Vidhan Sabha constituency). AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per AusLondonder and Jupitus Smart. --Elton-Rodrigues 19:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elton-Rodrigues (talk • contribs)
Keep per above, but I agree that a more descriptive title is in order.PohranicniStraze (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as per above; the page title should reference Lok Sabha somehow. It's a bizarre parliament constituency, but it verifiably is one, and all the other constituencies have pages. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot word it better than User:AusLondonder. Pratyush (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existence=notability! KDS4444 (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe merging into Reserved political positions in India#Anglo-Indian_seats would be better. It looks like the standalone doesn't go into much more depth except to list out the people who've held these seats. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Straze is right on, maybe shifting the title to indicate its connection to the Lok Sabha. Otherwise, I am fine with this, parliamentary constituencies are notable. South Nashua (talk) 19:52, 9 July 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.