Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoop Jaiswal

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. Sandstein 07:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Jaiswal (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)

WP:BLP of a person with no strong claim of notability and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The only real notability claim here is that he held an administrative role with the state election agency during one election -- but this is not a role that guarantees a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and the amount of sourcing shown here is not enough to deem him as passing WP:GNG for it. As always, everybody who exists is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article -- it takes more than just "Topic is a person who had a job", and more substantive sourcing to support it than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a member of an election commission is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are multiple reliable and independent sources that make this one pass GNG. See The Hindu and TOI. Besides, the person is very important and did notable service in India. Dial911 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of those two is a mere employment announcement blurb, not substantive coverage for the purposes of helping to get him over GNG, and while the other one is more detailed it takes more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is almost impossible for a person of that rank in Indian police go unnoticed. Here are some more references The Hindu, Deecan Chronicle, TOI. Besides, brief Mention of this officer can be found in several sources like this and this. That should be enough to keep it here, I believe. Dial911 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief mentions" are not notability assisters. We're after verification of notability, not just verification of existence, so coverage has to be substantive, not just a "brief mention" of his existence, before it counts as a data point toward getting a person over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just addressed my last line in your comment. Look above, The Hindu and Deccan Chronicle coverage is fairly substantial. Dial911 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The Hindu is a less than 100-word blurb about him, which is not substantive coverage for the purposes of counting toward GNG, and both of the others are just brief mentions of his existence in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you focus on quantity and not quality? There is no maximum-minimum word count criteria for passing GNG. 100 words published in The Hindu tell the significance of the person. Besides, there is another in-depth source already given. Dial911 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem with a 100-word blurb is the quality test. GNG requires substantial coverage, which blurbs are not. The number of sources that are theoretically available is not as important than the depth of them — 100 blurbs would still count for less toward GNG than two or three genuinely substantive articles would. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom for failing WP:GNG. No claim to notability under any other specific criteria. Ifnord (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2018 (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.