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.
JBW (
talk) 14:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-elected politician, does not satisfy
WP:NPOL. Not so many changes from previous
afd. Also fails
WP:GNG.
GermanKity (
talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. President of a political party's youth wing is not an
WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sourcing consists primarily of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with not nearly enough coverage about him to claim that he passes
WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep First delete in 2016 was five years ago, the second delete nomination from earlier this year was from indef blocked sockpuppet. Correct there is no presumed notability under NPOL, but are editors certain this is a
WP:BASIC failure: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"? There's extensive non-trivial coverage of the subject in Marathi and Hindi since 2019 and he appears to be frequently interviewed.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
"Interviewed" isn't a notability criterion. The notability test is not passed on sources in which he's the speaker of content about other things, it's passed on sources in which he's the subject of content written or spoken by other people.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)reply
There's no claim that being interviewed is a criteria for notability, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider the *frequency* of interviews as contributing towards an assessment of notability. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 20:31, 18 August 2021 (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.
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.
JBW (
talk) 14:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-elected politician, does not satisfy
WP:NPOL. Not so many changes from previous
afd. Also fails
WP:GNG.
GermanKity (
talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. President of a political party's youth wing is not an
WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sourcing consists primarily of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with not nearly enough coverage about him to claim that he passes
WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep First delete in 2016 was five years ago, the second delete nomination from earlier this year was from indef blocked sockpuppet. Correct there is no presumed notability under NPOL, but are editors certain this is a
WP:BASIC failure: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"? There's extensive non-trivial coverage of the subject in Marathi and Hindi since 2019 and he appears to be frequently interviewed.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
"Interviewed" isn't a notability criterion. The notability test is not passed on sources in which he's the speaker of content about other things, it's passed on sources in which he's the subject of content written or spoken by other people.
Bearcat (
talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)reply
There's no claim that being interviewed is a criteria for notability, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider the *frequency* of interviews as contributing towards an assessment of notability. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk) 20:31, 18 August 2021 (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.