Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Kumar Tongchangya


 * 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. On a pure nose count, this might be a "no consensus". However, the argument that sources about this individual are extremely thin at best went unrefuted. The arguments, not refuted, of this being a BLP with insufficient source material for an actual biography tip this into "delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Kali Kumar Tongchangya

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India,  and Mizoram. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I originally tagged this paged as lacking notability. I still think that's the correct view. It does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He serves as Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council. WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability.". Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia. (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk !  06:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it means that NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * NSUBPOL is a supplement to NPOL; there are parts of it which are very clearly within consensus (eg the presumed notability attached to members of subnational legislatures of unambiguous federal states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Germany etc) and where there is less certainty (ie the issue has not been tested). Thus, NSUBPOL is meant to be a reference tool, but also one under development. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk !  16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies WP:NPOL, member of a subnational parliament. See dicussion at Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia for explanation and previous consensus on status of the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which establishes a low bar for politicians. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @BoyTheKingCanDance@M.Ashraf333@UtherSRG - can I ask you to read the discussion at Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, with specific reference to the points which elaborate why the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) can be considered subnational parliaments. Given this, can you please indicate how you interpret the sourcing differently which has been used to demonstrate the ADCs are subnational parliaments and thus accord presumed notability available via NPOL. Many thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. ADCs have "less power than states but more than local governments", so they're in a gray area as far as NPOL is concerned, but I'm leaning against notability. The main issue is that state governments have a lot of authority over ADCs: governors (acting on the advice of their ministers) can dissolve councils, annul or suspend acts, and simply deny assent to duly passed bills. Importantly, that power to deny assent isn't just hypothetical: according to this article, there are numerous bills that have been awaiting assent for over a decade, creating the impression "that these autonomous bodies are treated as extensions of the government". There are also "structural arrangements provided in the constitution itself which makes ADCs dependent on the state government", and the councils have only a "paucity of resources" and "solely depend on the state government for grants". And, of course, the ADCs can only legislate within a handful of particular areas. That article concludes by mentioning "the overriding role played by the state governments on many matters", and I think that shows that ADCs are closer to local governments than to subnational legislatures. More generally, making all members of ADCs inherently notable would open up the floodgates to hundreds of people who don't even arguably meet the GNG, and I think WP:WHYN explains why that's a poor idea. Tongchangya thus doesn't meet NPOL, and since he doesn't appear to meet the GNG either, he's not notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is also an open discussion about member of autonomous council. See Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination). I request all editors that they don't do any vote until they read about Autonomous administrative division. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify – The supplementary guideline states that politicians in ADCs may have presumed notability, not that they have presumed notability, so general notability should still be established. This article has two sources, one of which is one sentence.  In other words, the source is a journalistic stub.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk !  13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to respond to 's !vote. There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power.  I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment I tend to lean more towards 's comments about the notability of ADCs than . I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per 's analysis. makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (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.