- 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. — Spaceman Spiff 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Harjeet Singh (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Came third in the election he was contesting - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx ( talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable because of the election itself. But this doesn't show or source any evidence of preexisting notability at all. Secondly, it was created by User:Harpreet singhb, so there's a probable conflict of interest here. And thirdly, reinforcing the potential COI is the fact that this adopts the tone of a campaign brochure, rather than an encyclopedia article — but per WP:NOTADVERT, even a politician who did pass NPOL or GNG still wouldn't get to have that kind of article — it would have to be written neutrally, not like promotional campaign literature. That's three reasons why this has to go. Bearcat ( talk) 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Everything but his candidacy is unsourced. No inline citations. Article looks like promo. The creator has the same name as the article, which indicates WP:COI. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 14:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep According to policies vote tally is not a criteria for judging whether an article should be kept or delete . But the XfD procedure is about quoting notability policies, giving logical reasoning and also WP:IAR. I agree with nominee that the person have not won an election, however but WP:POLITICIAN criteria 2 mentions that if a person have received significant amount of media coverage then the article should be kept. The person's article have received significant coverages by reputed Indian news media like Indian Express, Financial express. Indian Express is also considered as reliable source historically as well as on Wikiproject:India. The article passes criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN, so there is no reason to delete. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Notability because media coverage" is not automatically extended to everybody who's ever had a couple of pieces of media coverage — there are a lot of contexts where media coverage is simply and routinely expected to exist regardless of notability or lack thereof, such as being a candidate in an election. To be considered notable on campaign coverage alone, a person would have to be shown as having garnered a lot more coverage than the norm. (For example, failed US Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell became so famous, and got so much coverage, for her various campaign stumbles that we were actually able to write an article that's longer, and cites more references, than some people who have won election to the US Senate.) "Campaign coverage exists" isn't enough to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for the fact of being a candidate, because campaign coverage always exists: what it would take to get him included is evidence that his campaign coverage was exploding far out of scope to all the other candidates in the same election. Bearcat ( talk) 22:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Update - I have copied bare URLs on the footnotes section and inline referenced it on the lead for inline citation verification purpose. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and appears to be a promotional stunt.- Umair Aj ( talk) 08:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. — Spaceman Spiff 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Harjeet Singh (politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Came third in the election he was contesting - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx ( talk) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason besides his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be considered notable because of the election itself. But this doesn't show or source any evidence of preexisting notability at all. Secondly, it was created by User:Harpreet singhb, so there's a probable conflict of interest here. And thirdly, reinforcing the potential COI is the fact that this adopts the tone of a campaign brochure, rather than an encyclopedia article — but per WP:NOTADVERT, even a politician who did pass NPOL or GNG still wouldn't get to have that kind of article — it would have to be written neutrally, not like promotional campaign literature. That's three reasons why this has to go. Bearcat ( talk) 22:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Everything but his candidacy is unsourced. No inline citations. Article looks like promo. The creator has the same name as the article, which indicates WP:COI. ArcticDragonfly ( talk) 14:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep According to policies vote tally is not a criteria for judging whether an article should be kept or delete . But the XfD procedure is about quoting notability policies, giving logical reasoning and also WP:IAR. I agree with nominee that the person have not won an election, however but WP:POLITICIAN criteria 2 mentions that if a person have received significant amount of media coverage then the article should be kept. The person's article have received significant coverages by reputed Indian news media like Indian Express, Financial express. Indian Express is also considered as reliable source historically as well as on Wikiproject:India. The article passes criteria 2 of WP:POLITICIAN, so there is no reason to delete. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 14:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Notability because media coverage" is not automatically extended to everybody who's ever had a couple of pieces of media coverage — there are a lot of contexts where media coverage is simply and routinely expected to exist regardless of notability or lack thereof, such as being a candidate in an election. To be considered notable on campaign coverage alone, a person would have to be shown as having garnered a lot more coverage than the norm. (For example, failed US Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell became so famous, and got so much coverage, for her various campaign stumbles that we were actually able to write an article that's longer, and cites more references, than some people who have won election to the US Senate.) "Campaign coverage exists" isn't enough to get a candidate into Wikipedia just for the fact of being a candidate, because campaign coverage always exists: what it would take to get him included is evidence that his campaign coverage was exploding far out of scope to all the other candidates in the same election. Bearcat ( talk) 22:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Update - I have copied bare URLs on the footnotes section and inline referenced it on the lead for inline citation verification purpose. Anoptimistix Let's Talk 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and appears to be a promotional stunt.- Umair Aj ( talk) 08:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- 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.