Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hirsh Singh


 * 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) 20:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hirsh Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet non-winning candidate in the primaries for a forthcoming election. As always, this is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOL -- if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate in the primaries, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of the election per se. But this fails to demonstrate that he has the necessary preexisting notability; as written, it just consists of a single sentence stating that he exists, and is referenced entirely to routine coverage of his campaign announcement with no evidence of any coverage predating that. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   00:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is so weak it does not identifiy his party. Being a winner of a major party nomination might be enough to show notability with lots of coverage, being a contender for the nomination at this stage is not enough at all to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Found lots of sources.  even coverage from India  . Passes WP:NPOL point 2, WP:POLOUTCOMES final point, and basic WP:GNG. And, he is a Republican.--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage of a person's candidacy in a primary contest is simply expected to always exist for all candidates, so it falls under WP:ROUTINE, and does not assist in building a case for inclusion per WP:GNG except in the extremely rare instance that it explodes into something on the order of the international media firestorm that swallowed Christine O'Donnell. Being able to show just five pieces of coverage of a primary candidate's campaign is not evidence that their candidacy is more notable than the norm — especially since (a) PRNewsWire is not a reliable source, but a press release distribution platform, meaning that his own campaign was the author of self-published "coverage" in the instance of link #1, and (b) IndiaWest and NewsIndia Times are not newspapers in India, but Indian-American ethnic community newspapers in the United States. So the scope of coverage being shown here is already three counts less impressive than you've presented it as being, before we've even gotten into why South Jersey Today and Shore News Network aren't strong sources either. (Hint on that last part: think about the rather large difference between "substantive coverage" and "blurb".) And what John Pack Lambert said in his comment is true as well: Singh is a Republican, but this article as written fails to say that. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment None of this rises above routine coverage expected of anyone running in an election. People who do not have the party nomination who are running for governor are not notable. The fact that passing mention of him occurs in far off press does not change that it is not above routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is reliable significant independent coverage. If this is routine for candidates for NJ Governor, maybe candidates for Governor should have some sort of intrinsic notability. But this passes GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By your method of counting virtually every candidate for political office would pass GNG. However the coverage in cases like this is short, episodic and routine at present, and just not enough to create a reliable article, plus it would lead us to creating way more articles than we could ever hope to adequately keep updated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single candidate in any election would always pass GNG if all you had to show to get them over GNG just for being a candidate was a few pieces of campaign coverage. That's not how NPOL works, however: in very nearly all cases they must either win the office or already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway. The only way to get over GNG just on campaign coverage alone is to have that coverage explode to a volume far out of proportion what could be merely and routinely expected to exist for all candidates — like what happened to Christine O'Donnell — and the volume of coverage you've offered here is not approaching what it would take to pass that hurdle. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Virtually no coverage before July 2016 - . He is polling at 0%-1% in the Republican primary - so this isn't even a case of waiting for the election for a potential winner.Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2017 (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.