Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suds Jain

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suds Jain[edit]

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

There's no meaningful hopes of actual meaningful improvements especially since it's clear this is only existing as a PR listing hence WP:NOT certainly applies; the sheer fact he's not satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, but then no other sensible notability, it shows there's nothing to suggest this is a policy-based article, regardless of any attention of his job and it shows when the sources simply consist of his own bio, his other bio and a campaign link. SwisterTwister talk 02:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an extremely low level politician and his activities with the anti-global warming group are not on a level for notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being on a city planning committee nor being an unsuccessful candidate for city council constitutes an WP:NPOL pass, there's no claim of notability as an environmentalist besides the fact that he exists as one, and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (his own campaign website, his own "our staff" profile on the website of his own employer and a raw table of election results) with not even a shred of reliable source coverage shown. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to an article just because he can be nominally verified as existing — but the evidence of notability and sourceability needed for an article to become earned simply isn't being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 16 December 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.