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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Gaurav Sharma (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

As per discussion here fails WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't meet WP:GNG NZFC ^(talk) 19:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete, doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, is a very long way off from meeting GNG. Schwede 66 03:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete, not notable outside of temporary attention for political candidacy and does not otherwise meet GNG. Kiwichris ( talk) 05:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete defeated candidates for political office are not notable for such. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete – I wouldn't say Sharma is a very long way off from meeting GNG but doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN is definitely true. He has received reasonable coverage, with there being a press release and two articles from the two major media outlets in NZ covering his campaign ( this article from Hamilton News as part of The New Zealand Herald and this article from stuff.co.nz), but that is the classic routine election coverage nowadays in NZ for any unsuccessful candidate that had a chance of 10%< of getting elected. In conclusion I agree with Kiwichris: not notable outside of temporary attention for political candidacy and does not otherwise meet GNG and it is just too soon. J 947 ^{( c · m)} 04:53, 14 December 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.