Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurm Sekhon (2nd nomination)

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurm Sekhon

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

Local politician; fails WP:POLITICIAN and isn't a mayor. About ~1900 google hits on his name but not much in the way of establishing notability. Sources in his article only mention the subject in passing. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dunno, there's some indication of involvement in nationwide politics, which might in turn indicate notability. Australian politics aren't exactly my area of expertise, though, so I'm not sure how to parse that. The sources, though, are inadequate - as the nominator points out. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Local politician with insufficient independent sources to establish much more than trivial in-office details. Orderinchaos 00:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sekhon is according to the article a councillor in a suburban LGA, and a reasonably important party official with the Greens. Neither of these is usually taken to indicate notability in the absence of some notable scandal or other unusually notable event. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete There's I think general consensus that city council members of large cities are very likely to be notable; for cities under a million, the consensus is uncertain. But he's just a council member in a small suburban area, and there's no rational way this can be considered notable in the absence of strong non-local sourcing, which is not present here. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 5 January 2012 (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.