Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupally Satyanarayana Rao

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. MBisanz ^talk 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jupally Satyanarayana Rao[edit]

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

I had originally nominated this for BLPPROD: the tag was quite correctly removed, because there was an external link that is sufficient to make it ineligible. Nonetheless, I do not believe this person meets our notability guidelines. He is a municipal corporator (essentially a city council member), and therefore does not meet WP:NPOL; and there is absolutely no substantive coverage of him in any sources that would count towards WP:GNG. All of the coverage he has received is in the form of list entries, which is not sufficient. Therefore, delete Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, Hyderabad is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors/corporators would clear the bar under WP:NPOL #3 if they were properly sourced as such — but NPOL #3 does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on a person whose article isn't adequately sourced. That is, it's not a level of office at which a person automatically gets to have an article on here just because they exist — it's a level of office where inclusion is conditional on the volume of reliable source coverage that can actually be shown to get them over the inclusion bar. So if the coverage just isn't there, then a Wikipedia article doesn't get to be there either. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2016 (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.