Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Pratap Singh

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. MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Pratap Singh (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 individual doesn't appear to have been elected to, or held, any political office Uhooep (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As always, candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot provide properly sourced evidence that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. But the sourcing here does not demonstrate that at all — one of the sources is a family genealogy, and the other one is a newspaper article which may as well also be a family genealogy as it mentions several relatives of his but fails to include his name anywhere at all. So WP:GNG has not been met here either — and because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact that he has notable ancestors doesn't get him into Wikipedia in and of itself. And for added bonus, the article has been edited in the past by User:Anil.pratap24 — while WP:COI isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself, it really doesn't help the article's case if it's riding alongside other reasons for deletion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete failed candidates are not notable for that alone except in some very exceptional cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (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.