Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Sreedharan


 * 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 no consensus. KaisaL (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

N. Sreedharan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources which are presented in the article is insufficient to pass the article WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I created this page as I believe this qualifies under WP:NPOL. He was one of the pioneers of CPI(M) in the state of Kerala. He was the chief of the the party in two districts. N. S. Memorial Institute of Medical Sciences, one of the major hospitals in southern Kerala, was built in his remembrance. Aravind V R (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Former CPI(M) Secretariat Member is notable position...?failed to meet WP:GNG,WP:NPOL-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  15:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Lefcentreright  Talk  (plz ping) 21:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Can you please describe what WP:BEFORE was done for this nomination? I find him mentioned in K. Ramachandran Nair's Trade Union History of Kerala. He was a member of the CPM state secretariat (highest body of CPM at state level). Memorial article about him 30 years after his death. Has a hospital named after him... How is this failing GNG? Furthermore, current content is not a determinant for the validity of deletion; notability of the *subject* is the crucial criteria.  AfD is not cleanup. --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment : what precisely per the nom? Content is not a criteron for deletion, notability of subject is (see WP:NNC). AfD is not clean up.--Goldsztajn (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, per . Notably, this individual died well before WWW and his name (often given just as 'N.S.') is difficult to google. But prominent individual whose memory is celebrated in Kerala, see more examples such as https://www.mathrubhumi.com/kollam/news/ochira-1.4538615 --Soman (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * and she can be prominent, famous etc. But, she was not creative professional. So, these are not enough for passing her WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - Current content is not a determinant for deletion; AfD is not cleanup. Refuting the case that GNG is not met with the examples provided requires more than WP:ASSERTION. Please also respond to my question outlining what BEFORE processes were undertaken. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Though the article of Deshabhimani can be a good point but we should not take it in this case. Because, it is called as the mouthpiece of CPI (M) (Sreedharan's party). And as per our notability criteria we should not keep article of a person for naming after a hospital, school etc.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deshabhimani is the third- or fourth-largest newspaper in Kerala. It is not a revelation that newspapers are connected to political parties; Mathrubhumi (2nd largest Malayali paper) is aligned with JD(S). The point regarding the memoralisation is that he is regarded as notable by a significant, widely read newspaper in Kerala; the paper is not memoralising every CPM cadre in general 30 years after their death. The point about the naming of the hospital is not that it indicates notability per se, but rather overall this fact contributes to notability.  There are a set of conditions which taken together allow us to determine notability.  An essential intent of GNG is to ensure that commercial, promotional and advertorial materials do not litter Wikipedia; it is not to exclude notable people who lack digital signatures. In the case of historical figures who predate the internet and who lived in primarily non-English speaking environments it is simply commonsense that establishing notability can be done through a variety of factors.  There is still no description of what BEFORE was done for this nomination. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a look on this link where CPM directly claimed that it is their newspaper. My commonsense says that we should not use this newspaper for passing WP:GNG in this article. As per our notbility criteria becoming famous, prominent etc are not enough for passing WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.  please provide some sources so that we can understand that the person passes our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no debate on the character of Deshabhimani, but like many sources with explicit ideological connections, they can still can be utilised in appropriate ways. This is community consensus. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest it to be deleted as per nom mainly concerned about failing to pass WP:GNG. Have I cleared your doubt regarding this? Abishe (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is only the repetition of assertion. It does not really indicate you have engaged with the issues raised.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In short words media like Deshabhimani should not be used for passing WP:GNG in this case. Even, the article clearly did not pass our notability criteria.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. --BonkHindrance (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. It appears that there are enough sources of significance currently cited in the article to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment if the claims made in the article can be verified from reliable sources then it is definitely a keep. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There are some media reports on the subject but this really doesn't make him notable as per Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. GargAvinash (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:31, 4 March 2020 (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.