Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chowdhry Girdhari Lal

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 procedural delete. G5. Created by a sock. Further reading: this SPI. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhry Girdhari Lal[edit]

[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)

Falis WP:NPOLICITAN. Sheldybett (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Sheldybett: the second reference indicates that the subject served as an elected member of the Lok Sabha and occupied various positions in the government of Uttar Pradesh, either of which would appear sufficient to satisfy the first point of WP:NPOL? AllyD (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as mentioned by AllyD above, the subject passes WP:NPOL. Pratyush (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must add to my previous comment that it's very difficult to assume good faith here, because the nominator claims to have an interest in New Zealand politics. How, then, does that editor not realise that a member of the national parliament of a country with 266 times the population of New Zealand is notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN? I hope it's not racism that leads to that conclusion, but I'm finding it hard to think of any other reason. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: As previously discussed at ANI and (repeatedly) at the nominator's talk page, there seem to be some language challenges that shape this nominator's editing. You might find the ANI discussion informative. See also [1]. That doesn't rule out your explanation, but it does suggest an alternative explanation, however unflattering. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cabinet minister at the state level, long-serving member of a state legislature, member of a national parliament, any one of which would be a clear pass of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep senior government politician passes WP:NPOL, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the absence of any expansion on the failed rationale following my query to the nominator above, then the subject's verified career fits the WP:NPOL presumed notability criterion. (Is an early WP:SNOW close appropriate?) AllyD (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement — but the subject is explicitly verified by the existing sources as having held a role that confers an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #1. For people who held office 35 years ago, the potential references won't Google well and will have to be extracted from archival sources like newspaper microfilms or books — but we do not have a rule that our sources have to be directly web-accessible, and we are allowed to cite print-only sourcing. We ultimately judge notability based on the existence of suitable sourcing to improve it with rather than the current quality of the article — so if a person verifiably passes our subject-specific inclusion criteria for politicians, which he does, then we do not delete the article just for not already being in better shape than it is. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (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.