Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. K. Amin

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 keep. czar 21:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. K. Amin[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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Entirely unreferenced article. Even the external links are generic government and institution websites with no clear connection to the subject. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources other than mirror sites and one article that is suspiciously similar to Wikipedia’s entry from Karnataka.com which doesn’t cite where it got its info (probably Wikipedia). It is possible foreign language references exist which I would not be capable of finding. 4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This link from Election Commission of India indicates that he was an elected member of the legislative assembly having won from Udupi in the 1967 Mysore Legislative Assembly election. Passes WP:NPOL therefore but needs to undergo a clean up. Jupitus Smart 02:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – members of state-level legislative bodies are inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the keep votes are stretching WP:NPOL beyond the broader policy frame at Wikipedia:Notability (people). While it appears NPOL may be met, the article still has to meet WP:BASIC which requires in depth coverage. The one source we have is not in depth. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special Cases gives clear guidance for when articles are "Failing basic criteria (WP:BASIC) but meeting additional criteria (ie. WP:NPOL)". Those guidelines are to merge this article into another article, not keep it. At this point that seems to be where we are currently at based on the one source we currently have.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NPOL; overwhelming consensus is that elected parliamentary representatives are inherently notable (I might be willing to quibble on this point where the status of "elected" is contestable eg Indonesia Orde Baru). In future, and please accept this as comment made in good faith, if a key element of the BEFORE process is lacking (viz a capacity to carry out a search in appropriate local language) perhaps first raise a question at the relevant project where the capacity can be found before bringing to AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NPOL. SNGs are particularly relevant when the sources are difficult to find via a web search, ie, when the sources are likely to exist in a foreign language or might be offline, as in this case. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Goldsztajn and Ab207.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, meets WP:NPOL, Alex-h (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2021 (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.