Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narinderpal Singh Hundal


 * 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. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Narinderpal Singh Hundal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable WP:NPOL Deunanknute (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -A politician needs not to be an elected candidate to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. They may be notable for having "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources" -per WP:NPOL #3 and WP:GNG. Here is the coverage I am able to find of them, -,, , , , , . However, almost all sources are related or centric to their role as a candidate for Mayor election, -making the case WP:BLP1E. If that's so, they are not eligible for inclusion. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  23:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment- I thought WP:POL was a little unclear on what type, or amount of, coverage counts as notability. Anyone running for a town of a few hundred in the rural US is bound to get "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources". It's routine coverage, a lot like a couple of paragraphs about the local kids baseball team. They don't get an article. If this candidate gets an abnormally large amount of coverage, then, yes, he should have an article.  Here is an essay I found that explains how I came to this conclusion.  Please note: as far as I know this essay is not an "Official" Wikipedia guideline.  Deunanknute (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This is purely a campaign document for a failed candidate for local office. I have updated the article slightly, to reflect the fact that the election (November 2014) is over and that he drew only 16%. I didn't bother to remove all the puffery and promotion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -Subject fails WP:NPOL not being an elected candidate. Whatever sources are out there are not having substantial coverage, -even if some person claims them to meet WP:BASIC standard, -it appears to be falling under WP:BLP1E criteria. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  06:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2015 (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.