Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renu Agrawal


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Renu Agrawal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject is the mayor of a small city, which means that they don't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. The provided source is nowhere near enough for WP:GNG, and searching online I found a bunch of articles about other people named Renu Agrawal but nothing significant about the subject. signed,Rosguill talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Only one source that is hard to find. Agrawal is not a politician from a major city, and a search for the name shows several unrelated individuals with the same name. signed,thrashbandicoot01 talk 01:15, 29 May 2019 (EST)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 02:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure I'd classify a city of 365,253 as small. Is there any policy/criteria for this determination? According to the article, Korba is the third largest in the state of Chhattisgarh.Thsmi002 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , the most relevant guideline is WP:NPOLITICIAN, which says that only state- and national- level politicians are considered automatically notable (alongside local politicians that have significant coverage and thus meet GNG). Additionally, there's WP:POLOUTCOMES, which states that City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London.. So, while Korba is not a village (although in my personal view any city smaller than 1 million could easily be considered small), it's not exactly Mumbai. signed,Rosguill talk 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's an obvious difference between being mayor of such a large city and being one of the city councillors or municipal officers. Can you point to any case where an article about the mayor of a city of this size in a Western anglophone country has been deleted? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , going through the list of deletion nominations for politicians for the last month, the only mayor fo a similarly sized city that I found was this example from a slightly smaller (pop ~140k) city in Kansas, which was deleted. There is also much stronger evidence that mayors of cities one order of magnitude smaller are routinely deleted. signed,Rosguill talk 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a mayor of a city of less than half the population of Korba, not just a slightly smaller city. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Same order of magnitude, which is the closest I could find for articles about mayors up for deletion the past month. At any rate, the relevant guideline is rather clear that only state- and nation- level politicians are a priori presumed to be notable. POLOUTCOMES is a weaker standard which further establishes that municipal leaders of the most well-known cities in the world are generally kept. For everyone else (i.e. this subject)–whether mayors, councillors, or otherwise–the standards of notability are GNG and NBIO. signed,Rosguill talk 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why a logarithmic scale should be preferred to an absolute scale in this case. The question simply seems to be whether we should use the same standard for the mayor of a city inhabited mainly by brown non-anglophone people as we use for the mayor of a city inhabited mainly by white anglophone people. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have no intention to hold this article to a different standard due to the nationality of the subject and object to having my position described as such. I disagree with Thsmi002's assessment of the Lincoln, Nebraska article's implications on what is generally considered notable, and therefore fail to see any double standard here. signed,Rosguill talk 21:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be along the lines of what I was thinking. For example, the redlinks in List of mayors of Lincoln, Nebraska suggests that being the mayor of Lincoln, a city of 258,379 makes the subject wikinotable. It's difficult for me to search sources in this case because I do not speak any Indian languages. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't think I agree with your assessment of that list. Barely over a fifth of the listed politicians have an article, and of those that do, several held significantly more notable positions than mayor of Lincoln, including Senators and Nebraska governors. If we ignore such examples, we're down to 3 out of 40 mayors that have an article, hardly evidence that mayors of the city are instantly notable. signed,Rosguill talk 21:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody who can read the necessary language to find the correct type of sourcing can do significantly better than this. It is true that in a North American or European context, a mayor of a city this size would often be kept — but the key word there is "often", which is not the same thing as "always", because even in North American and European cities mayoral notability still hinges on the quality of the sourcing that the article either already shows or can be improved to show. For example, even cities this size do not always have directly elected executive mayors at all — some have purely ceremonial mayors who are selected through an annual "everybody on council gets a turn" rotation among the city councillors, and that type of mayor would not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because they existed as a mayor of a city in the 300K range. The notability test for mayors does not extend "no sourcing required" freebies just because of the city's population — the notability test for a mayor, regardless of what country the city is in and regardless of how big the city is or isn't, always hinges on the quality of the sources you can show to support the article, and not just on the size of the city per se. So if somebody's willing to locate better sources to properly support Renu Agrawal's notability, then I'd be happy to reconsider this — but the references here right now are both very short blurbs that mention her name in the process of not being about her, and even one of those two is from a WordPress blog rather than a reliable source media outlet. It's not a question of whether the voters are white or brown, either: even a North American mayor of a city this size would still not be handed an automatic notability pass on this depth of sourcing alone, if nothing better could actually be found. Mayoral notability depends on the quality of the sourcing, not the population of the city or the skin colour of the voters. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Mayors are not automatically notable, and I don't see the sourcing to get her over the line. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. in the past, we have accepted that mayors of US cities with moren 60,000 population are usually notable, and over 100,000 always. (Some afs have said 60,000 always, and I have usually held out for 100,000--I'm a little restrictive on local topics). But this city is three times that size.  I generally am very skeptical towards  claims that we should keep on the grounds of purported cultural bias even if  there's a failure to meet the usual criteria. But this is a case where the usual criteria are met, so opposition to this seems to be one of the instances where we are in fact showing cultural-based bias.  With respect to sourcing, low sourcing in unfamiliar geographic areas with less internet media is the source of most often source of actual cultural bias.   DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's really a well-established consensus I would vote to keep, but this is the first I'm hearing of it and it seems like a low bar. I'd be interested in seeing any example AfDs or essays, as I'm wondering how many subjects that meet this standard actually end up with articles that clearly pass GNG signed,Rosguill talk 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We definitely do not have any consensus that mayors are always guaranteed articles the moment the city has cleared 100K in population — 100K or not, a mayor's notability always still hinges on the depth and volume and range and quality of the sourcing that can be shown to support an article. Mayors of 100K+ cities can still fail to receive the necessary depth of coverage, and are not handed a free exemption from having to have quality sources just because the city's population has surpassed an arbitrary number. It's true that our mayoral notability standards used to be based on an arbitrary population cutoff — but that was deprecated a long time ago, because it left us with far, far too many bad "Person is the mayor of city, the end" stubs about mayors who were unsourceable and unexpandable. The actual standard that a mayor has to clear in 2019 hinges on the number of quality sources that the article can use, not on the number of people that the mayor happens to govern. Bearcat (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than go off on these rants with italicisation that makes your edits resemble spam emails, why not give us some evidence of this change of consensus? The best way, as I said above, would be to point out where an article about the elected mayor of a city of anything approaching this size in a Western anglophone country has ever come anywhere near a deletion decision. Another way would be to compare this elected mayor of a city with more than half the population of Vermont with the 150 members of that state's general assembly and the 30 members of its senate who get automatic notability passes. Notability guidelines are supposed to be interpreted with a bit of common sense, which says that an elected mayor of Korba, verified by sources, is far more notable than a single representative in Vermont. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We just recently deleted a mayor of Liverpool, on the grounds that because of the way the office of mayor works there (ceremonial, and without any real executive power) he wasn't sourceable to much more than cursory verification that he exists. We've deleted many, many articles about mayors of cities above 100K in size in the United States, because they didn't have the depth or range of coverage required to actually pass NPOL #2 on the sources. And on and so forth: AFD discussions about mayors very routinely establish that the notability test for a mayor is his or her depth and range and volume of sourceability, not an arbitrary population number that lets mayors stick around on inadequate sourcing just because the city happens to surpass a certain size. NPOL #2 even explicitly says that the notability test for local politicians, such as mayors, is "who have received significant press coverage". But the sources we have here are not "significant press coverage" at all. Both of them are short blurbs; one is a very short blurb in a real newspaper, which just quotes her as saying "It is our first duty to protect plants and to plant maximum number of saplings and conserve them", and the other is a very short blurb in an unreliable WordPress blog, which nominally verifies her election victory while not being about her. The notability test for mayors, again, is "significant press coverage" — namely a depth, range and/or volume of sourcing that enables us to write a genuinely substantive and useful article that covers the mayor in some depth. It is not "a mayor is always guaranteed an article the moment any source at all can be found to verify that she exists, even if it's just a short blurb on a blog that just verifies her vote total on election day". So rather than criticizing other editors just because you don't like their writing style, how about you actually make an effort to find some of the better, more detailed, more substantive sources that would actually make a difference? Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume that the mayor of Liverpool who was deleted held that post before 2012, when that was an unelected ceremonial position, so not comparable to the directly elected mayor of Korba. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or draftify Renu Agwal could possibly meet notability standards, but the article in its current state doesn't prove that. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Move to draft space Subject may be notable however the stub and the lack of easily searchable english language sources make this difficult.  Lubbad85   (☎) 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There are a couple articles that mention the subject in the Rajasthan Patrika. However, as Lubbad85 writes above, "the lack of easily searchable english language sources" makes it difficult to find reliable coverage of the subject. As I wrote in WP:Articles for deletion/Denis Law (politician) "an article about a mayor of a city of regional prominence would need adequate sources (in total) that provides a framework to create an article to sufficiently describe the subject and/or their agenda/actions as mayor. Those sources may be purely local, but national sources help." --Enos733 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2019 (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.