Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satya electoral trust

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satya electoral trust (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)

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it is a donor to electoral parties in India, this wouldn't be a problem but there are loads of these see - [1] and why this one in particular is notable isn't established in my mind, although there are refs saying "Satya electoral trust" gave money x to party y on google. Szzuk (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we need significant media (not obligatory legal declarations, which would be OR) on it - being the biggest electoral trust in India would, I feel, be significant enough: if it can be proved. Also, it not having any internet presence seems either unlikely, odd or shifty (not that that's the article's fault). How do/would they function on such a scale while having no presence at all? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Elections in India, not independently notable, but there could be a section on electoral trusts in general there if someone wants to write it. Szzuk (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Something like this would certainly qualify for an article if it could be reliably sourced over WP:GNG, but it's not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists — and the only sources here are the political parties' own obligatory financial reports, which are directly affiliated primary sources, not notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 23 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.