Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anuradha Gupta

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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Gupta

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. There are no roles listed here that would pass WP:NPOL as "inherently" notable ones, so getting her into Wikipedia would depend on sourcing her over WP:GNG, but the footnotes here are directories and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not GNG-worthy coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deputy state commissioner sourced to routine announcements and government websites. Mccapra (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the creator of this article, I prefer to vote to keep as I believe it is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability of Local Government Officials which says, Individuals in charge of major government departments (transportation, police, education, fire, etc.) that oversee populations of 100,000 people or more are generally considered notable. The above subject is a government official who oversees a district which has a larger population of more than 300,000 people and it can be checked on Samba district article.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 01:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That essay explicitly says that a person is not "inherently" notable on those grounds, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on media coverage. Of which this article still cites none. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 9 July 2022 (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.