Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumar Shanu (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. Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Kumar Shanu[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Kumar Shanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable lawyer. Most of the references are primary references or blogs. The only notable news reference is the solitary case of RTI of CBSE marksheets, that too covers the case not the subject, hence should be categorised as a passing reference. ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Kumar is a one of the most consistent RTI Activists in India. He is a notable name among the young lawyers based in Delhi. In my opinion, more references can be added by editing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.11.109 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think the only notable news reference is the case of CBSE answer-sheets under RTI. Kindly consider going through the following references.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.3.199 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2017
References
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/students-highlight-rti-discrepancies-in-hc/article7736598.ece
- ^ http://www.lawctopus.com/career-talk-with-kumar-shanu-student-of-amity-law-school-noida-on-establishing-a-legal-aid-cell-internship-with-arvind-kejriwal/
- ^ http://www.moneylife.in/article/four-law-students-take-delhi-high-court-to-court-over-exorbitant-rti-fees-win/45779.html
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/high-court-amends-its-rti-rules/article8293740.ece
- ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/Commission-acts-on-law-students%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98intriguing%E2%80%99-plea/article14005610.ece
- Delete - known locally, but just not notable. Specifically, there is a total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Specifically, he fails my standards for lawyers; attorneys are supposed to do the public good. This guys is just a run of the mill activist lawyer. He's also still early in his career for a decent evaluation. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Improve the page - Deleting is not a solution. His works have been consistently covered by leading newspapers including The Hindu , the most reliable and prestigious news agency of India. This 23 year old guy had successfully fought a legal battle against the government board wherein Rights of 5 Million examinees, who take the exams conducted by board every year, were at stake. Calling him a 'run of the mill activist lawyer' is not justified. Considering the poor state of affairs of Judiciary and executive in India things like this are almost impossible. He had also got the Right to Information Rules framed by the the mighty Chief Justice amended for the sake of people falling below poverty line. The editors should have atleast basic knowledge about things in India before terming this guy not notable. More references need to be added by editing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahul Kumar Si (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as clear advertised campaigning. SwisterTwister talk 03:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The arguments for keeping are arguments for advocacy. But WP does not do that. There's no other reason to keep. The lawsuit is ONEEVENT, and he is not otherwise notable DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.