Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Raza Ansari


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Irfan Raza Ansari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Politician who has not held office. Fails WP:NPOL Whpq (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  04:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  04:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. especially in light of copyright violations. AmorinoLA (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. A businessman and a proposed election candidate for political election, no political activity yet, and definitely not eligible for an encyclopaedia article. Totally fails WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Article author has a history of promotional creation of articles on people named Ansari. Article nominated for speedy deletion by two independent editors, declined speedy saying "has sources" but obviously without heeding the issues behind A7 and G12 nom. —  kashmīrī  TALK  14:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I said "the article has sources, can you find a suitable redirect first before deleting?" As a general rule of thumb I will not unilaterally delete anything without consensus that cites national broadsheet news coverage such as the Times of India. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 I copyedited the brief prose so the copyvios were no longer an issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So we will need to add a new guideline to A7 that prohibits nominating anything that has ever been mentioned in the Times of India. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Fails WP:NPOL anf WP:GNG and the copyright violations certainly don't help its case. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and NPOL. A7 should not have been declined, for there is no indication of importance. —teb728 t c 05:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — to already have a Wikipedia article today, he would have to already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway. But this article isn't even trying to demonstrate any evidence of that — as written, it's literally just "Irfan Raza Ansari is a candidate, the end". No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already get an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But there are news sources name-checking him. Before we hit the delete button, are we all absolutely sure we've done WP:BEFORE on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as nominator, I did look for sources.   I found nothing of significance. I agree that declining the A7 was appropriate, but there is nothing else out there to support inclusion as an article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources namechecking him is not the notability test. Every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some of that kind of sourcing — so if that were enough to get a candidate over GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would mean absolutely nothing anymore. The notability test for a candidate is either (a) evidence that he was already notable for other reasons, or (b) evidence that he's getting so much more coverage than most other candidates get that he's got a credible claim to his candidacy being special. But no, ten Google news hits isn't enough to do that, especially since even those ten aren't all verifiably about the same person — at least four of them aren't in a political context at all, for starters, and nothing present in them adequately clarifies that they're actually about the same person as the political-candidate coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I never thought I would need to mention WP:GOOGLEHITS to a seasoned editor like you. Yes, before AfD'ing we've even followed the article creator, having already fought about some of their other promotional creations. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:15, 18 February 2019 (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.