Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit K. Dasgupta

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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit K. Dasgupta[edit]

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

Not notable, either by WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Author of one minor book, editor of two others. No major academic or political position. FHEA is a routine qualification, not an honour. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article more. He is also the first gay person of colour to contest the Uk elections for a major party and the first Bengali from India to contest the elections (I have provided 3 references for this). He is also the author of 2 books and editor of 4. I have added his Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society as well which I missed but was listed on his staff page. I hope the page is not deleted. Draken122 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Draken122 — Draken122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I also found the following publications on the page but not sure how to list them on wiki: http://publications.lboro.ac.uk/publications/all/collated/llrd3.html Draken122 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable political position by virtue of being first person from Calcutta to contest UK pariamentary elections on a major party ticket. Covered by every single major Indian newspapers: http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/kolkata-boy-to-contest-uk-parliamentary-elections-for-labour-party/story-lADT3e7QwYN5IJK3B63g5N.html and http://www.asianage.com/age-on-sunday/040617/red-flag-in-a-deep-blue-sea.html Burtonesque (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)— Burtonesque (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Being the first candidate of a particular ethnic background to contest an election is not a valid notability claim for Wikipedia's purposes, and neither is being the first gay person of colour — membership in any underrepresented minority group is not, in and of itself, a free notability boost over other non-winning candidates in the same election — and being the first candidate in his district's history ever to move his party from also-ran status to second place is not a notability claim either (especially in an election where the Maybot vs Corbynmania dynamic plainly had far more effect on the final results than anything else.) In both cases, either he wins the election or he's got nothing that passes WP:NPOL — and the referencing here is far too strongly dependent on primary sources, while the sources that actually do count as reliable ones are not demonstrating a strong case for deeming his candidacy to be more notable than the norm, because every parliamentary candidate could always show that much campaign coverage. So his notability would have to depend entirely on passing WP:AUTHOR for his books, but that part of the equation is parked entirely on the primary sources and none of the reliable ones — however, writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because primary sources nominally verify the existence of their books either, but rather their notability is still dependent on the existence of reliable source coverage about their writing. I'd be willing to reconsider this if somebody can rewrite it to place the weight of content and sourcing onto his writing instead of his political activity, but the political activities themselves can't be the basis for inclusion as none of them constitute adequate notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:Prof nor WP:Politician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2017 (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.