Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devang Dave (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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Devang Dave
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a person not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia inclusion standard. The notability claim here is that he's a social media manager for a political party, but that isn't an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists -- it's a role where inclusion would depend on getting him over WP:GNG on the depth and quality of his sourcing. But the footnotes here aren't notability-building coverage about him: they're all just glancing namechecks of his existence within coverage of other things, which is not the kind of "coverage" it takes to get a person in the door. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Like explained by nom, any non-elected non-office-holders political people need to qualify WP:GNG and this one is not. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Did an edit removing unsupported claims and hyperbole. Still reeks of PROMO, most sources appear churnalism, regurgitated press statements, fails GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.