Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Kumar Kalotee

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, objections are not policy-based--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Kumar Kalotee

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

Created by an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Also, clearly WP:PROMO, with phrases like "Bobby Kumar Kalotee hails from Punjab, India. He was born in penury and lived in slums. He was not deterred by ugly state of his early life. He rather saw the obstacles he faced as a chance to make a difference to his own life and that of others.". Joseph2302 (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The paid editing is irrelevant and not a reason to delete an article, but apart from that there's just nothing here but a failed candidate for office from a non-notable party. Coverage is routine "person X is running for political office Y", nothing more. Tarc (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to notability is "first random X to do Y". If he's the first person South Asian to win office in the U.S., that'd be something. But he clearly isn't even that close on that one. But he wouldn't be, he's a failed candidate from a VERY minor third party and there's nothing to hang an article on here. The coverage cited in the article is very cursory, noting the odd "first" he claims (which is really not a big deal) with nothing else to build an article around, clearly not notable enough by Wikipedia standards for an article. --Jayron 32 02:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Notice to all editors here! Joseph2302 the AFD nominator is taking this issue personal. He has nominated this same article for speedy deletion on the grounds of "undisclosed paid editing". He has really made me cry for the past 24 hours. I don't know why he's attacking all the pages I created so far. He nominated all of them for speedy deletion and then for AFD. There must be vested interest in his mind. I've already alerted Admins about this issue via the appropriate means. Thanks Hilumeoka2000 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody cares about your vendettas. Argue the merits of the articles themselves. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As highlighted on WP:ANI, my nominations were in good faith, and the user has been blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Running mate of failed candidate of totally unknown party. Deep-six this, BMK (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability for a failed politician (not even the primary candidate, but a running-mate) from an obscure party has not been established. Scr★pIron^IV 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of the Hilumeoka2000 paid-editing fiasco, but doesn't look like it would pass any reasonable standard of notability anyway. I don't think we need to bring in any expert political statisticians to notice that 0.13% of the vote really isn't very good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.

This is the stated purpose of Wikipedia as per the president of Wikia Inc. How can we put artificial limits on this? Doesn't exposing people to less well known political parties and informing them as to its existence uphold this very purpose. There are solid newsworthy sources cited in the article. Let the people reading Wikipedia decide whether it's worth investigating further, not a few commentators with unknown agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC) — Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kenpolitical (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinct difference between "knowledge", "information", and "data". It would be virtually impossible for any website to contain all the information and data that exists in the world, which is why it has to be boiled down to what is actually useful or notable, and that is, I believe, what Jimbo meant by "knowledge". Knowing who was the candidate from the Anti-Dishrag League in the previous Presidential election is not knowledge, it's hardly even "trivia" (which is little known knowledge), it's just another piece of almost useless data. If, on the other hand, the Anti-Dishrag League rises from the ashes like a phoenix and manages to elect a city council member in Boise, Idaho, then it might well become a notable piece of information - but until then, it ain't. BMK (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kenpolitical, our purpose here is not to collate "all human knowledge" — rather, some strands of human knowledge belong here and others do not, which is why we have content standards to filter which stuff falls into which category. A biography of the actual governor of New York absolutely belongs here — but a biography of every individual candidate who ever ran in an election, but lost, does not. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A non-winning candidate for office does not qualify for a Wikipedia article on the basis of the candidacy itself — if they didn't win the election and thereby hold a notable office, then the only other path to a Wikipedia article is to demonstrate and source that they qualify for some other reason (e.g. holding a different notable office, or having preexisting notability in a different field of endeavour.) But no credible claim of "notable for some other reason" has been demonstrated here — this is essentially a promotional brochure for a failed candidate who has no other reason why he would warrant our attention. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment.Once again your personal attacks belie your true intent to block this page based upon your personal agenda rather than the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Let's examine those guidelines for inclusion as your baseless attacks fail to actually mention them. For politicians:

"such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." Mr. Kumar's article includes 12 separate independent reliable sources. Therefore, he clearly meets the notability criterion notwithstanding your opinion otherwise. These guidelines exist to prevent the arbitrary exclusionist actions that you are attempting here. Kenpolitical (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Kenpolitical (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) — Kenpolitical (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The sources appear to be press releases, routine, local coverage; people who run for elected office are covered as a routine part of the news cycle, it does not guarantee them a Wikipedia article. The only reason a candidate who took 0.1% of the votes in a state election is this "first asian..." stuff. If that's all there is, then WP:BLP1E prevents an article on those grounds. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment.http://indiaempire.com/v1/2009/May/coverstory.asp since when is New Delhi India local coverage "Kenpolitical (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

WP:BLP1E, coverage only in the context of him being the first Indian nominee. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN not elected only ran.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2015 (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.