Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arindam Sinha

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Justice Sinha's judicial roles are documented, the article lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth information about his career and contributions. The existing references primarily consist of routine announcements and official listings, which do not establish the level of notability required for a standalone article. According to Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO), a subject must have received significant coverage in multiple independent sources to merit an article. In the absence of such coverage, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability (WP:V) and notability, suggesting that it should be considered for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies thatjudges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office arepresumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice, although the Indian state high courts are larger panels) he would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, again precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the consensus is that judges at the highest state courts are notable, and if there are at least some reliable sources in the stub, then it's kept. There's four reliable sources, so it's a keeper. Bearian (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, i have created article of the sitting judge of an Indian High court and as per consensus it is notable and are not liable for deletion Aruunn (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2025 (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.