Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner)


 * 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. This is a very difficult discussion to close, which is no doubt attested to by it being left almost a week since its reviewing date. However, after looking at all of the arguments in this debate I believe there is a consensus - just - to delete at this time. A number of commenters have pointed to sources that they have argued are press coverage sufficient to establish notability, but there is marginally more consensus here that these are not sufficiently to establish notability nor reliable in many cases. My decision to close this on a slender consensus is also tempered by a number of arguments, including one keep, that point to the potential that she may rise to national prominence in the future. My close is not tempered by suggestions that her working for a supermarket make her less notable. Ultimately, my deletion decision is under the banner of a WP:TOOSOON, and if she does receive additional coverage from here or clearly meets the inclusion criteria at a later time, the creation of an article about her should not be prejudiced. I hope this explains my decision, although I appreciate on contentious debates that it is impossible to please everyone. I am, however, happy that I am acting on a consensus to delete at this time. KaisaL (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person is not notable. This is a mere campaigner out of thousands. The subject works in a supermarket; they have never been elected to office. Zigzig20s (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This person is one of many involved in the Brex debate. Nothing suggests she is notable enough to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The press coverage alone testifies to her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to have a look at this press coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Appears to be notorious at the moment with a lot of press, per Ipigott, I think there is adequate indicia of notability... the supermarket bit may actually be what makes her notable...   Montanabw (talk)  05:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to have a look at this press coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think editors are confusing Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner) with Harsimrat Kaur Badal. The latter has lots of press, the former (who is the subject of this AfD) doesn't have significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has indicated that they think she is the other Kaur as far as I can see and there is a hat note in the article to prevent just that confusion. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about coverage while searching for sources. The subject doesn't seem to have enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Telegraph is interviewing here as a leading spokesperson in the Brexit campaign HERE and that is not the only extant piece counting towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I could not find a single source which says she is the "leading spokesperson" in the Brexit campaign. The Telegraph source you mentioned seems to be one in a series of interviews, , of non-notable people. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * * Comment I agree with Lemongirl942 on this point; in fact, I was leaning toward 'keep' when I immediately found that interview on my own, but then I couldn't find any other significant coverage, so I went with 'delete'. LAroboGuy (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - It doesn't matter that she is not an elected politician, she easily meets the GNG. We need more articles about Asian women who work in supermarkets in my view! In fact, if the nominator had bothered to read the sources they would have found that she has a high level job analysing data for her employers using her master's degree in mathematics. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As BLPIE and also the claim that the subject is a "prominent campaigner for Brexit" is not true. She seems to have been interviewed in the context of Brexit alongside others, but nothing proves she is any more important than the others.
 * Telegraph interview Seems OK until I look at the bottom and find "Readers who want to be interviewed by Charlie Brooks can email him at charliepebrooks@gmail.com". This is one in a series of similar interviews like, ,.
 * express.co.uk Quoted along side others.
 * PanjabTimes Not a reliable source, seems to be self published weekly newspaper
 * BBC Trivial mention, not even a sentence
 * Asian Voice Trivial mention, not even a sentence
 * Press and journal Trivial mention.
 * I'm sorry, but for someone claiming to be a "leading campaigner" there needs to exist better reliable secondary sources. Right now it doesn't even pass GNG. To be honest, the claim of significance that she is a "leading campaigner of Brexit" is not credible. I would be happy if someone can clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The article said "prominent" not "leading" which is a slightly lower level but I have removed that in order that the discussion doesn't get bogged down over her exact level of prominence. The claim is that she meets the GNG which does not depend on status, only coverage.
 * To reply to your points:
 * So what if readers can suggest themselves or others as subjects? The Telegraph don't have to agree and it is in depth in a national newspaper.
 * Agree on that one.
 * Foreign language sources indicate breadth of coverage of the subject. Not sure what you mean by "self published". Aren't all newspapers self published? Who else publishes them if not themselves?
 * The BBC source is an announcement, not a journalistic article. The point is they chose her to be on a panel to represent the Brexit campaign in one of the largest televised debates during the campaign.
 * Again it is the context that you are missing. She was one of a few women appointed to a group run by a government minister. The source merely confirms this.
 * This source confirms the previous one. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * None of that shows she is notable, neither does it fulfil GNG. Whether she is notable at the local level in UK, I don't know and seriously cannot tell from the scarce information available. I'm pinging and  who are from UK and can better analyse it. I may change my vote depending on their response. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you know the existing contributors aren't from the UK? Please be careful not to break the rules about canvassing. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what their response will be, but I'm pinging them because they seem to be attending the London Wikipedia meetup. At present, the subject fails GNG easily. We need reliable secondary sources to pass GNG. And this unfortunately doesn't. The telegraph is a primary interview and doesn't elaborate on who the subject is. The local weekly newspaper does a better deal, but still doesn't seem to have a claim of significance. All it says is Harsimrat Kaur 23 years old is a mathematician backing the Vote Leave campaign for the upcoming EU referendum on June 23rd 2016. Speaking at the Cambridge University debate Harsimrat Kaur made her voice heard on issues like immigration and the economy. So the subject took part in a debate. How is that notable? The groups you are talking about, I have no idea how important they are and what role they play. It is possible that they are important in grassroots activities. But I can't verify that. Hence, I'm pinging others who can verify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I did some digging and added some cited information to the article. She appears to be a grassroots organiser in the Conservative Party who is fairly often referred to as a representative of Sikh Conservatives. Perhaps her debut on the BBC debate and the Telegraph interview are the beginnings of her move up to national prominence? MurielMary (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Indeed, in which case, I would suggest that WP:TOOSOON applies, which, whilst only an essay, is a valuable tool to ensure only subjects of long-term established notability are included in the project. Which this individual also fails. There is no indication of any long-term, or lasting notability; nor does it appear that the current coverage is particularly  in deth. Note that the Brexit coverge enabled almost anyone and everyone to be a pundit or commentator if they wished: this individual, whether mathematician or shelf-stacker, seems to have been slightly more high-profile than others at the time- but not since; thus failing WP:PERSISTENCE. Overall, suggest a classic example of WP:BLP1E. On a side note, I would like to thank User:Lemongirl942 for the ping, drawing my attention to this discussion. I would also like to take this opportunity to advise User:Philafrenzy to be more mindful when making suggestions as to WP:CANVASSING. That is a very specific matter, and one which is not illustrated by LG942's actions. Cheers. Muffled  Pocketed  13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors who have not been involved with the article and to which the AFD had not otherwise come to their attention is a classic case of canvassing if you read the policy, running the risk of distorting the consensus. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The request was neutral (could not be more so, being merely a ping) and that is the fundament. Since both myself and are 'informed, but uninvolved, editors,' policy is clearly adhered to. Muffled  Pocketed  14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging interested users has always been OK if we don't know how they will vote (and I prefer to ping in front of others, rather than leave a personal talk page message). I have hardly if ever interacted with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Joseph2302 on UK related AfDs to know how they would react to this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you both re-read the policy. It is precisely because those contacted were not involved that it could be seen as canvassing. The users contacted have not edited the article and were not mentioned in the AFD discussion. It is more appropriate, as the policy suggests, to place brief generic notices at Wiki projects relevant to the topic and similar venues. Directly contacting the uninvolved is not recommended as it may give the impression of canvassing. An observer may ask why those users and not others? And we still haven't had an explanation of why those users are somehow more able to assess the article than those who have already voted. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I know the coverage has been done previously, but my view is:
 * 1)  is a local newspaper
 * 2)  is from a British tabloid, which is questionably reliable. Not a great source since before and after elections, newspapers frequently just pick out & interview random people on the streets, so being in an interview doesn't imply notability
 * 3)  is about someone else, with her name mentioned once
 * 4)  is a primary source
 * 5)  shows they had a minor role in the Conservative Party, and is also a primary source
 * 6)  appears also to be primary source
 * 7)  again from Conservative Party, so not independent
 * 8)  press release
 * 9)  &  interesting, but notability is not inherited, and only passing mentions of her
 * 10)  interview with a good newspaper, but I'm concerned by the email address at the bottom- seems like anyone could theoretically be interviewed by them

In conclusion, it's probably too soon as she has a bit of Brexit coverage only. If she gets more coverage, then it can be recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: As an aside, I'm not sure why people from the UK are being considered "better" at judging the sources. They all seem reasonably clear to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kindly read the sources and refer to the subject accurately. She doesn't "work in a supermarket"; she isn't a "shelf-stacker" - she works in the head office of the supermarket chain in marketing. MurielMary (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the corroboration. Muffled Pocketed  22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article still at best only suggests this person is best known for their political activities, still nothing convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral.  Comments:
 * Less notable than Articles for deletion/Avi Shafran but I thought that one should have stayed.
 * (Repeating myself again but:) Note that if this person was playing cricket, see WP:NCRICKET, they would have romped it in for N, which allows inclusion for one major appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure.
 * Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. With the extra sources added, passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which extra sources are these? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I'm not seeing the notability and I agree with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's analysis. There's coverage, yes, but it's not in-depth and it's all in the context of Brexit. There's apparently nothing else to write about this person. Also, I think the canvassing issue is borderline, at best, but it's reasonable for Philafrenzy to suggest that what happened here isn't best practice. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lemongirl942 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Sources right now (in article and here) don't indicate that subject is notable. If level of sourcing increases, this can always be recreated. Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with Patar knight that this could always be recreated if the subject meets long-term and lasting notability requirements. I don't see how the subject meets those now. There is one in-depth interview with her, but even that interview focuses entirely on Brexit and her connection to campaigning for it, not the subject herself. LAroboGuy (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2016 (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.