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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

District Planning Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. Article is based on primary self-published sources by the government with run-of-the-mill routine material; lacks secondary (WP:PST) or independent sources (WP:ORGIND). Governments have many local bodies under it, but Wikipedia is not a database for every such orgs. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - two reasons. First, it seems to me that a function described in the constitution of a nation state is very likely to be notable as it is likely to be closely examined by independent journalistic sources. Second, a brief survey of GScholar shows that there are many journal papers and books discussing the way this works in India. To the extent that it would be too much effort to discuss them all here. Conclusion: it's a function of the state, we have access to the output journalists and academics who keep track of such things, hence it is notable because it is noted. JMWt (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @JMWtDo you have any policies that support your position or can you provide the sources? Nagol0929 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: There seems to be content forking. I can see one more article District planning in India. District planning is done by DPC.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A merge might be appropriate, but it seems to me that the content in the two articles doesn’t overlap that much. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Topic is clearly notable. Furthermore, I second JMWt’s arguments.

Previously, the nom had attempted to PROD this article, an action inconsistent with policy that PROD "is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".

I objected at the time for these reasons, and left a message explaining why at nom’s talk. While the message was probably a bit too brief to be clear, well, see the history for their user talk. Nor did nom ping me when they AfDed.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2023 (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.