Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Ahir


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Rajkumar Ahir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deprodded without improvement, simply the statement, "The above said person has been selected as Member of District Planning Committee which is a bery (sic) well status to be known in India." Even taking that into account, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL pretty clearly. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, This Indian National Congress politician has never won an election. In 2018 state Assembly he was the runner up, He was covered in 2013 for the drama and tantrum he threw for getting the election nomination. He still lost though. Nothing notable done by the subject yet. So I dont see any reason for keeping this. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. It's a one sentence stub. Not a real reason, per. Let's close this per WP:SNOW. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  23:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Being a one-sentence stub is not a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. The decision here should be based on the notability or lack thereof, not the length of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that. I am saying this should have been WP:PROD. &#8213; Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖  15:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - It was prodded, and the prod was contested, hence we are here. Onel 5969  TT me 21:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , oh that's fun... My apologies to then. I have removed the stub comment from my !vote, but the rest still stands. &#8213; Matthew J. Long  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  21:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And you are left with no reason at all. The subject is probably not notable, but your comments here amount to little more than trolling, rather than any proper contribution to this discussion. Would you have approached an article about a defeated candidate for a seat in the Connecticut House of Representatives in the same way? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , woah let's leave Connecticut out of this. I am not here to troll. I will apologize again for a bit of an acerbic tone I have wrongly conducted myself here with. However, I generally find it frustrating when we have articles such as this that need several days to go through the whole deletion process, and then the debates here actually end up having more edits than the article itself does.
 * I simply wanted to type something up quick but not repeat comments that had not already been said, so is why I wrote It's a one sentence stub. as part of my justification for SNOW. I didn't mean to agitate you when I wrote that nor when I crossed it out after ceding that point to you. As you stated, being a stub really isn't a reason to delete, but the current !vote still has stood unanimous against this article. Thus reveals the point of WP:SNOW. I can't add any new insight here besides that citation. You are free to call WP:SNOW an illigemente assertion in this matter, but I will not yield such any time soon. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  06:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NPOL. Unelected nominees have a much higher bar in terms of the required coverage, and this nominee does not meet that bar. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The question is not whether the subject meets political notability. They don't, and that isn't the question.  The question is whether they meet general notability, and they do not.  Therefore:
 * Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.