- 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. — Spaceman Spiff 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- Subi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. This is an unambigious attempt of self-promotion. There are a few legit media articles in which the person is quoted on the fishermen issue, but this is not enough to assert notability. In the 2016 election, he finished in 15th place in the Nagercoil constituency, obtaining 146 votes (0.08% of the votes in the constituency, see http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2016/10-Detailed%20Resultstamil.pdf ). The 4 candidates fielded by his party obtained a combined vote of 1359 (0.00% of the votes in the state, 0.14% in the seats they contested, see http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2016/05-Performance%20of%20Poltical%20Partiestamil.pdf Soman ( talk) 21:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, all is vanity. Guy ( Help!) 23:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. One hundred and fourty-six votes does not a notable politician make. Yintan 11:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep notable enough as per wiki guidelines, independent sources and news articles reflects notability. Notability does not depend on vote percentage, vote percentage changes from election to election due to various factors. Seems like negative propaganda created by direct opponents of the subject, which is influencing others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.184.189 ( talk) 12:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep - i vote to keep because the subject has enough significance in our state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.219.206.71 ( talk) 13:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a notable politician. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 15:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article for giving soundbite to the media in coverage of other things; he gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. But there's no evidence to suggest that's the case here; this article relies extremely heavily on primary sources and press releases rather than reliable media coverage about him. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a person is entitled to an article just because he exists — a political figure does not pass WP:NPOL until he wins election to a notable office, and does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for being a candidate for office. And the sourcing here does not help get him over GNG anyway, because it's all either primary sources that fail to be reliable or independent, or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles which fail to be about him in a substantive way. This is not what it takes to get someone like this into Wikipedia. Bearcat ( talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Wikipedia needs just one independent source to be eligible for inclusion, wikipedia does not judge any person on the basis of their vote bank or necessarily require a person to win a public office for inclusion, there are politicians with 0 vote bank, if the current article content creates conflict i would request for editing and cleanup of unnecessary contents from this article, that would be fair. Social Informer ( talk) 03:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not require just one independent source to be eligible for inclusion — we require multiple independent sources, not just one. And yes, we do require a person to win election to public office if "politician" is the notability claim — the only way a person can lose the election and still get an article anyway is if they already cleared a different notability criterion for some other reason (such as having already previously held another office, or already having been notable as a writer or an actor or an athlete.)
Bearcat (
talk)
04:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes just one independent source may not be enough, but fyi i must say there are so many articles on Wikipedia that simply relies on a single independent source. But thats not an issue for this article, of course this subject has multiple independent sources available. I'm not in agreement that a politician must win an election to public office or previously head an office to be eligible for notability. There are hundreds of articles on wiki about politicians who never contested in elections. Talking about other notable events like protests or movements, the subject was covered under protests.
- Further i have done a clean up in this article to adhere with wiki guidelines, please review it again.
Social Informer (
talk)
06:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- This article is based almost entirely on
primary sources, such as government documents and his "our staff" profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are not how you demonstrate a person as notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. A person gets an article by being the subject of media coverage, not by having his name present in government documents or by having a PR profile on the website of an organization he's a member or employee of. And the few references here that are actually to media coverage are not about Subi, but either glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else, or fail to even do that and just verify tangential facts — reference #21, for example, verifies that the fishermen were released, but completely fails to mention Subi's name at all, and thus completely fails to be coverage of Subi. There's literally nothing here that represents the kind of reliable source coverage that has to be shown to make a person notable per
WP:GNG.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your feedback is welcome, the contrary contents are cleaned up, almost all the primary sources and govt sources are removed except a few necessary ones, i hope now it is in good state. Social Informer ( talk) 18:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- This article is based almost entirely on
primary sources, such as government documents and his "our staff" profiles on the websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are not how you demonstrate a person as notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. A person gets an article by being the subject of media coverage, not by having his name present in government documents or by having a PR profile on the website of an organization he's a member or employee of. And the few references here that are actually to media coverage are not about Subi, but either glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something else, or fail to even do that and just verify tangential facts — reference #21, for example, verifies that the fishermen were released, but completely fails to mention Subi's name at all, and thus completely fails to be coverage of Subi. There's literally nothing here that represents the kind of reliable source coverage that has to be shown to make a person notable per
WP:GNG.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia does not require just one independent source to be eligible for inclusion — we require multiple independent sources, not just one. And yes, we do require a person to win election to public office if "politician" is the notability claim — the only way a person can lose the election and still get an article anyway is if they already cleared a different notability criterion for some other reason (such as having already previously held another office, or already having been notable as a writer or an actor or an athlete.)
Bearcat (
talk)
04:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, Social Informer ( talk · contribs) appears to have a WP:COI issue here, and the IPs 27.62.227.94 ( talk · contribs) and 103.219.206.71 ( talk · contribs) has zero edits unrelated to the Subi/FIP/WYO articles. As the nominator, I now regret to having included all three articles in a single nomination. -- Soman ( talk) 20:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.