Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyajeet Tambe (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JBW (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Satyajeet Tambe
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-elected politician, does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Not so many changes from previous afd. Also fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Nothing has changed from the previous AfD to make this subject notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete:Fails NPOL Pillechan  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  09:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. President of a political party's youth wing is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sourcing consists primarily of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with not nearly enough coverage about him to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep First delete in 2016 was five years ago, the second delete nomination from earlier this year was from indef blocked sockpuppet. Correct there is no presumed notability under NPOL, but are editors certain this is a WP:BASIC failure: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"?  There's extensive non-trivial coverage of the subject in Marathi and Hindi since 2019 and he appears to be frequently interviewed.


 * Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Interviewed" isn't a notability criterion. The notability test is not passed on sources in which he's the speaker of content about other things, it's passed on sources in which he's the subject of content written or spoken by other people. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no claim that being interviewed is a criteria for notability, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider the *frequency* of interviews as contributing towards an assessment of notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2021 (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.