Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangram Singh Patan

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. ✗plicit 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangram Singh Patan[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)

Seems to be a non-notable politician. Once I removed all the puffery and everything that had no source, turns out literally nothing was sourced, including the fact he actually holds this office (which looks to be local?). Both references simply mentioned him as an upcoming candidate for the position, and a google search turned up nothing other than directories and crowdsourced, though of course I couldn't search in Hindi. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Zila Parishad is upper tier of rural local government in India. Above it lies Member of Legislative Assembly. The membership of Zila Parishad is also an elected office and I think it fulfills WP:NPOL-Admantine123 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local officeholders do not pass WP:NPOL; the guideline is actually quite clear in this regard: Just being an elected local official [...] does not guarantee notability. Of course, this does not preclude the article from passing via WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on other local government officeholders as well, as for example Ritu Jaiswal.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because that article has sources to show the subject meets our notability requirements. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's almost empty and unreferenced. Does it even classify as "stub"? If deletion really is too strong, then at least draftify. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails in WP:NPOL Worldiswide (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a stub. Cwater1 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NPOL. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Even if membership of Zila Parishad makes this person meet WP:NPOL the article has never contained sources, so fails WP:BLP. I note that the editor User:Patan Yuva who initially created it declared a COI. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the article stands now, it qualifies for speedy delete under WP:A7. Looking at the history of the article, it strikes me as a vanity piece, and has never once been in a state where it would be acceptable for article space in spite of its age. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:BLP— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zilla Parishad representation alone is not sufficient as notability criteria. --Soman (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2023 (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.