Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rinshad Reera


 * 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. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet, and sock-puppetry has derailed the conversation. No prejudice against renomination by an editor in good standing. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Rinshad Reera

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page doesn't meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lillyshang (talk • contribs) 11:45, October 11, 2022 (UTC)   (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC))


 * Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now.   is the original creator of the article--it's not clear to me from their editing history or the article history why they would call for the article's deletion at this time.  --Finngall talk  17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kerala.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Article Rinshad Reera doesn't meeting the basic Wikipedia notability criteria. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamadutta (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article on wikipedia should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant,to be recorded. This Rinshad Reera article doesn't meet this basic notability criteria of wikipedia, so it should be go through a search for, reliable sources and if it's find lacking the article should consider for deletion. Jeenwaljeen (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- Administrators should check this article's notability. (WP:GNG)Ilhamkerala (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- The creator's intention is secondary, prime focus should be whether the article meets the guidelines of Wikipedia. I think the article have enough reason for deletion. It lacks notability guidelines ( WP:GNG ) of Wikipedia.Kaishak (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)  — Kaishak (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the light of the comments made here by socks and single purpose accounts it would seem to be best for this discussion to be closed as "no consensus", with any further discussion to be nominated by an untainted editor. I haven't had a chance to look into sourcing because of all the shenanigans, but might do so if we can have this discussion among good-faith editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.