Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premtosh Nath

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. Very clear consensus in favour of article deletion at this time with no dissenting opinions. Given this and that the discussion has ran its full 7-day course, I am going to go ahead and close this in favour of deletion. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premtosh Nath

[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)

Does not pass WP:NPOL; did stand for election in Sabroom in 2008 but was not successful. He has not received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator's reasoning. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly fails both NPOL and GNG JW 1961 Talk 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but nothing here even tries to suggest that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and by some margin. The creator is a new editor (so says their user page) and probably needs a bit of guidance and latitude, so I could live with draftifying if there are proper sources available that just haven't been added (although I doubt it). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls well short of both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Devoke water 10:20, 28 February 2021 (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.