Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prasanth Nair (2nd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Nair

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

No independent notability from Operation Sulaimani.Social media likes are not equivalent to passing WP:NOTABILITY. Winged Blades^Godric 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

[reply]

An analysis cum discussion about the sources

A detailed analysis of sources--

Ref 1--Gov. site stating that he is an IAS cadre.Hardly garners any notability for the subject
Ref 2--A non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
Ref 3--Discusses Operation Sulaimani mainly;not the subject.

Ref 4--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.

Ref 5 and 12--Same reference.Lone WP:RS describing the subject.
Ref 6--An interview.They hardly vouch for notability.Sre WP:INTERVIEW.
Ref 7--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.

Ref 8--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.

Ref 9--Discusses Operation Sulaimani.The name of the subject is smentioned only once!

Ref 10 and 11--That an IAS officer chooses to act in a film is surprising in a country like India and the two articles barely reflect that.Also, the film is yet to release!
Ref 13--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.

Ref 14--An youtube video!
Ref 15--Well, I did not manage to play the video.Winged Blades^Godric

Thanks for that analysis, it's much more thorough than is typically found in these discussions. Still, I give the articles about his social media popularity some weight; there are plenty of YouTube personalities who are notable only because of their online presence. The current list of refs is not exhaustive and there are more about him than are currently included in the article. For example -

Those are taken from the previous AFD. It would be a shame if this article is deleted, I really enjoyed reading it and learned something. Also, I'll reiterate that I think if he were not a local official - if he were say, an environmental activist, it would make his work less remarkable and more predictable, but also less likely to be excluded from wikipedia Bangabandhu (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Already deleted at AfD twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nomination except the emerging consensus that local level officials don't deserve their own page. I admit that I am not familiar enough with Indian media to know the credibility of the sources cited, but they seem independent, reliable, and not self-published. His initiative at providing food for work seems like it has generated a lot of attention. So that might constitute WP:ONEEVENT? That is unfair. This article should be kept and some of the self puffery and promoting language should be toned down. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bangabandhu:-See the analysis of references as above.Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bangabandhu: If "Nothing has changed since the previous nomination except the emerging consensus that local level officials don't deserve their own page" then surely that makes it even more definite that this page should be deleted? Incidentally, I don't think there is any such emerging consensus; there has always been such a consensus. He's just a mid-level administrative official. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop referring to emerging consensus, I was echoing language I'd read on another discussion. I'd misunderstood the conclusion from the earlier AFD's and thought that they concluded keep, not delete and no consensus. Still, I think that Keep is the right decision here. Apart from the reasons I mentioned above, I've encountered many marginal entries about South Asia far more deserving of deletion than this one. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local officials not automatically meriting their own pages is not an "emerging" consensus; it's a longstanding consensus that has existed for years. There is currently a bit of a skirmish at the low end of the inclusion bar over where the cutoff between notable local officials and non-notable ones should be located — but the basic concept that most local officials aren't notable for our purposes is a longstanding consensus, not an emerging new change to prior consensus. All there actually is right now is a bit of a debate (mostly fomented by you, in fact) about which side of the line a few specific cities happen to fall on, but the basic consensus has always been that most local officials are not automatically presumed notable. The consensus hasn't changed in years — there's some review under way of what does or doesn't actually satisfy the standard, mainly because there are much more concerted cleanup projects under way now than there were in 2007, but the standard itself isn't much different than it was a decade ago. What's changed recently isn't the standards themselves, but the amount of attention we're paying to cleaning up or getting rid of stuff that was never actually complying with them in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sourcing here is strong enough to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article is compelling enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a proper GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2017 (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.