Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sala Udin

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sala Udin

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors per WP:POLITICIAN. It also bears mention that while this article looks extensively sourced on the surface, if you examine the footnotes carefully it's actually relying extremely heavily on primary and unreliable sources — the "references" section would be more than halved, basically thirded if that's a thing, if I actually trimmed it down to reliable sources — and there's stuff in here ("Legal problems") that's extremely problematic in a BLP without much better sourcing than it's got. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but this version needs to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yup, a lot references, but little to no coverage in them. Fails WP:GNG fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Bejnar (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one-sided and overly promotional language of the article is what comes from having articles on too local of politicians to have generated wide-spread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an endorsement of the present state of the article, of course, but I'm not a fan of the WP:TNT approach, especially not with an article of this size – you've got to figure there's at least a little bit in there worth saving. Just looking at the references currently in the article, this and this together are about enough to satisfy WP:GNG; and given he's been in politics over a decade there are going to be more pieces like those (searching within both those sites for his name turns up plenty of the sort of sources I'm talking about). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in relable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2014 (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.