- 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Uma Kumaran ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable Haminoon ( talk) 01:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 01:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Kumaran is clearly a notable person in the Sri Lankan community in the UK. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a reference for that? Because the only reference I've seen (
this one) suggests otherwise.
Haminoon (
talk)
11:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The ILG are clearly her opponents. Their blog is not a terribly independent source. But she has appeared in the Tamil Guardian and the Columbo Telegraph. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The fact that she could become the first Tamil MP in the UK seems quite significant. The policy does not suggest that candidates should be excluded from the encyclopedia because they are candidates.
Rathfelder (
talk)
09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- I gathered the ILG opposed her. The problem is we don't have evidence of the reverse. I don't see how the articles referenced from the Tamil Guardian and the Colombo Telegraph can be considered "significant coverage" - one is announcing her candidacy and appears to be a re-published press release; the other says nothing but she turned up to an event along with some other people. Being the first Tamil MP in the UK would be significant, but we don't even have a reliable reference to say she is likely to win. I doubt she is the first Tamil to stand for the UK parliament. As for your last sentence; its true but beside the point. Haminoon ( talk) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- The ILG are clearly her opponents. Their blog is not a terribly independent source. But she has appeared in the Tamil Guardian and the Columbo Telegraph. "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". The fact that she could become the first Tamil MP in the UK seems quite significant. The policy does not suggest that candidates should be excluded from the encyclopedia because they are candidates.
Rathfelder (
talk)
09:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I've discussed this and related cases with Rathfelder before: see User_talk:Rathfelder#Notability_of_Labour_Party_candidates for details. Kumaran's main claim to fame is as an election candidate, but merely being a candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the citations given in the article are to local newspapers describing that candidacy or related activities. Other citations feature only passing mentions of Kumaran and do not satisfy general notability criteria. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 05:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 05:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Harrow East (UK Parliament constituency) if consensus determines she does not meet GNG. 24.151.10.165 ( talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 11:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 11:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Numerous references where this person is the subject of the article, suggesting she meets WP:GNG.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Coverage presented in the article is very week. We either have local media reporting trivia - like she was campaining against independence of Scotland - dozens thousands of people campaigned, and this does not make them notable. Or we have Daily Mail reporting that her photo was shown on a TV show - this is WP:ONEEVENT.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:02, 23 February 2015 (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.