Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanhaiya Kumar


 * 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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Kanhaiya Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Just became popular due to some controversy and article is created by his supporters. KC Velaga ☚╣✉╠☛  16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the news, so, notable. And "created by his supporters" - so? As long as the article is neutral, it's irrelevant who created it.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He has become popular due to a controversy he has created, so he is all over the news. It doesn't make him notable. KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  02:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's check WP:NOTABILITY - ah, from the intro alone: "over a period of time." Well, let's await other opinions. And let's see how notable he is over a year. NB: I'm neither pro nor contra.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is no point wasting time with an AfD. If the nom bothers to state how it fails the AfD criteria, then we might do. Otherwise, throw it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best perhaps as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability despite the listed details and such. There's currently nothing else to confidently convince keeping. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister, there are 55 references in the article, many of which give very detailed coverage to this individual. Now that does not rule out a merge (I believe a merger is inappropriate, for different reasons; see below) but how can you say that there is no evidence for notability? Those sources deserve a look, at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – The subject actually clearly passes WP:BASIC quite comfortably. For starters, just read some of the news articles present in the article; significant coverage in major news and media sources, including BBC, The Economic Times, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and many others. The nomination asserts non-notability, but provides no guideline or policy based rationale to back up the assertion. See also: WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America1000 05:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I accept that the person has so much coverage in the national and international but media, but that's because of a controversy he has created. He has been charged criminally claiming that Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi students conducted a program hailing Afzal Guru (a terrorist who have bombed Indian Parliament in 2001. See:2001 Indian Parliament attack) as a martyr and national hero under his supervision. He is the student union leader. So the some of the students revolted against the arrest and this became a big issue throughout he country and so the coverage was more. So there is nothing important or notable about him. KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge with 2016 JNU sedition controversy. Case of WP:RECENTISM. All coverage only related to the JNU incident. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge Indeed, as all the notability is related to a single recent incident and consequent media converage specific to this incident, it is more than enough to note this person's role in the controversy related article, 2016 JNU sedition controversy. In my view, the existing article illustrates how a notable man suddenly emerged out of a single political controversy, naturally got supported by his existing supporters and by opportunistic political rhetoric; then became a notable orator with a political speech and how he carries on to wage notable strikes and makes controversial statements... -- zixtor 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixtor (talk • contribs)


 * Keep This article has been nominated for AFD before citing single event criteria. But now he has been covered for multiple events. He is meeting various opposition leaders and is being covered in contexts other than JNU controversy. He clearly meets GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment He meets the basic GNG because of having many sources to his name and news coverage, but as a person he is not notable. As you have mentioned meeting various opposition leaders and coverage in other contexts are also due to the controversy he has been involved in. KC Velaga  ☚╣✉╠☛  00:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment the Nominator may please understand the difference between 'notability as per Wikipedia standards' and 'disapproval by the mainstream'. The subsequent comments from the Nominator border on POV.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge with 2016 JNU sedition controversy. The person independently has no notability. The incident does. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While I agree that Kumar's notability is centered around the JNU arrest incident, he has been covered extensively in the media and the article describes a few incidents (attacks on Kumar) and controversies (statements on rape) that cannot be covered in the 2016 JNU sedition controversy article. Like him or not, it appears his notability is here to stay. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – per and others. Cheers!   02:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The few incidences of attack on him or threats of death are related to JNU thing and they can at best be written in few lines there itself. If other incidences of (a) Kashmiri women's rapes and (b) threatening of a female student are the only points outside the JNU incident that you claim to still make him notable then please note that per WP:CRIMINAL we won't have a standalone article about a person who has made allegations of wrong doings by army and hence a case has been filed on him that is undecided or of a person who allegedly urinated in public and abused and threated a fellow student where the university has taken actions. He fails WP:CRIMINAL here and his only coverage is due to the JNU incident. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Umar Khalid and Shehla Rashid Shora seem to be birds of same flock who no notability outside JNU thing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DD, I agree that his notability arises from the JNU incident. But, it now seems to extend beyond the incident itself. A quick search shows that he is being labeled an intellectual terrorist and being invited to give talks. The philosophical underpinnings of notability are that readers will be searching for information on the person well beyond the incident that made them notable and, I think, that is almost certainly the case here. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep As correctly points out, this articles subject more than meets WP:Basic. I understand, too,  saying this articles subject may have created the controversy that made him notable. However, not only have I failed to find any WP policies/guidelines saying this would make someone non-notable, I've found the exact opposite showing that an articles subjects actions are, indeed, what makes them notable in the first place. (e.g. Edward Snowden). As to if this article should be merged, I'd need more guidance from others more familier Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs such as  and . Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per Dharmadhyaksha. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This person has been in the Indian National News for some time with issues that are very relevant.--Vinayaraj (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2016 JNU sedition controversy. Not notable outside that JANU subject. Capitals00 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this article as it definitely meets the level of independent significant reliable coverage required by WP:GNG. The article has over 50 sources and the vast majority of them are reliable. . Omni Flames   let's talk about it  22:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - As far as I can make out, the rationale for the AfD is that the notability is from one-event. But the nom misses the point that this event has turned Kumar into a national level student leader, who is receiving talk invitations from all over the country and abroad . He has "captured the imagination of the nation," according to The Times of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Essentially per NorthAmerica. The sources provided by them (many of which are already in the article) demonstrate that the subject comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Although the genesis of the coverage might have been the JNU incident, there is clearly coverage that is not directly relevant to the JNU incident; see, , , and . This coverage relates to his position as a significant individual in student politics, and thus a merge is inappropriate. Additionally, I found a few sources giving him non-trivial coverage well before the JNU incident; see , , . These would be insufficient for an article by themselves, but combined with the sources provided here, show that WP:BLP1E is completely inapplicable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 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.