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.
Deprodded without improvement, simply the statement, "The above said person has been selected as Member of District Planning Committee which is a bery (sic) well status to be known in India." Even taking that into account, doesn't meet either
WP:GNG or
WP:NPOL.
Onel5969TT me22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete fails both
WP:GNG and
WP:NPOL, This
Indian National Congress politician has never won an election. In 2018 state Assembly he was the runner up
[1], He was covered in 2013 for the drama and tantrum he threw for getting the election nomination.
[2] He still lost though. Nothing notable done by the subject yet. So I dont see any reason for keeping this. --DBigXrayᗙ23:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Being a one-sentence stub is not a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. The decision here should be based on the notability or lack thereof, not the length of the article.
Phil Bridger (
talk)
11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)reply
And you are left with no reason at all. The subject is probably not notable, but your comments here amount to little more than trolling, rather than any proper contribution to this discussion. Would you have approached an article about a defeated candidate for a seat in the Connecticut House of Representatives in the same way?
Phil Bridger (
talk)
21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Phil Bridger, woah let's leave
Connecticut out of this. I am not here to troll. I will apologize again for a bit of an acerbic tone I have wrongly conducted myself here with. However, I generally find it frustrating when we have articles such as this that need several days to go through the whole deletion process, and then the debates here actually end up having more edits than the article itself does.
I simply wanted to type something up quick but not repeat comments that had not already been said, so is why I wrote It's a one sentence stub. as part of my justification for SNOW. I didn't mean to agitate you when I wrote that nor when I crossed it out after ceding that point to you. As you stated, being a stub really isn't a reason to delete, but the current !vote still has stood unanimous against this article. Thus reveals the point of
WP:SNOW. I can't add any new insight here besides that citation. You are free to call
WP:SNOW an illigemente assertion in this matter, but I will not yield such any time soon. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖06:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - The question is not whether the subject meets
political notability. They don't, and that isn't the question. The question is whether they meet
general notability, and they do not. Therefore:
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.