Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Luhar


 * 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. Per SNOW--a snow which blankets the sock contributions in this AfD discussion. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Raj Luhar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vanity page created by blocked sockpuppet of professional spammer, with substantial edits a day later by the subject of the article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Referenced by a local city free-sheet, a brief mention as an email recipient in a House hearing minutes, and an even briefer mention in a WP:RS newspaper article. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete. Not a notable person. I did not find any reliable reference which shows his notability. Delete this article.Jussychoulex (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per norms. Meets WP:BASIC.117.194.210.101 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per norms. Meets WP:POLITICIANS because is a notable person holding a Federal Presidential Appointment as a Commissioned Officer and state-wide political operative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.167.79 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - the subject of the article's edits prevent speedy deletion, at least under G4, and the article isn't unambiguously promotional, or devoid of claims to notability, but I'm not seeing how it actually meets any guidelines, be it WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG or any such thing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is only the one reference that talks about him, and it's in a locally-based newsletter. I don't see where this person held a "Federal Presidential Appointment as a Commissioned Officer", nor does holding a lower campaign staff position make one notable. The gpo.gov reference does prove that he was CC'd on a few emails. Not enough to make one notable, however. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subject has received passing mention twice in non-primary reliable sources. That being said the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore is not notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are "Independent of the subject". --JayJaykar (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2013 (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.