Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maniram Rajora

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maniram Rajora

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While there is a dearth of online sourcing, he was the equivalent of mayor in a city of over 100,000. If this was in the U.S., that would normally be more than enough. The fact that there was a major celebration in rememberance of his death over 40 years later would indicate some lasting notability. The lack of sources might be due to him being mayor in the pre-internet era.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archival referencing tools can do much better than this. A population of 100K is still not an instant notability freebie that overrides a dearth of actual sources — even in the US, a mayor who was this poorly sourced would still be deleted if nobody could actually show any new sources that could be added to fulfill the WP:NEXIST criterion. Even for pre-internet people who don't Google well, the notability test still does not just presume that maybe better sources exist: we are allowed to cite offline print sources, but the existence of offline sourcing still has to be shown and not just speculated about. Of the three footnotes here, however, one is a Facebook post, one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about something else entirely, and the only one that's about him to any non-trivial degree is a mere blurb, and that's not enough. If people could show better sources, then I'd be happy to reconsider this — but that's a matter of showing them, not just guessing at the possibility. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Two new sources have been added since I first commented here — but one of them is just a very brief glancing namecheck of his existence in the context of having had a park named after him, not a source about him, and the other is a mere photograph. So neither of them is making an ounce of difference. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With few online sources, no journal articles or book mentions, the expectation is that there needs to be off line sources cited in the article to meet our community's standard for sourcing articles. Until that work is done, this article should be deleted. --Enos733 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masum Reza^📞 21:58, 29 June 2019 (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.