Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Sinha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ♠PMC(talk) 07:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person was not elected as a parliamentarian or a legislator. Even, 23 sources make it WP:REFBOMB. Some about its candidacy, some are self published etc. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL or other criteria. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian Thanks for your comment. The sources present here are
  1. First 10 are about president of BJP's state unit. (1, 3, 10 self published; 2, 4, 5 about sworning as BJP state unit president; 6, 7, 8, 9 interview and others). These made the article WP:REFBOMB.
  2. The sources present here in political career are typical election type coverage of subcontinental newspaper.
  3. The first source of controversy are not encyclopedic according to me. A person's relatives can support any party why he/she will face criticism for this? And the last sources about his controversies about his comment which are not enough for our notability guideline. I hope you will change your stand!S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2020 (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.