Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shail Kaushal


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Shail Kaushal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A contested prod. A local board member who fails WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. Most sources are election results, facebook or council articles. Mattlore (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per nom. Strongly suspect a COI as creator has no other edits apart from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As per DerbyCounty. The only thing I could find that may help towards WP:GNG is, but I don't believe it's enough to satisfy the criteria. Also, I'm not an expert, but how confident are we regarding the license of File:Shail official pic.jpg? -- Shudde  talk 08:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Leave the article alone 9 sources used are articles by media including third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.20.217 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)  — 122.62.20.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep only 3 are Facebook links, election results can only be verified from a genuine source i.e. Council Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.224.193.149 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)  — 49.224.193.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I have updated the article, added more independent links e.g. from NZ Herald. But do remember that official results as previous user mentioned can only be verified from the Auckland Council links they are thus included, moreover Facebook links were used when other users on Wikipedia indicated they wanted more evidence on the member's personal information, thus only 4/25 links relates to Shail Kaushal's public Facebook, which I was able to locate. Rest are articles by the media, not press releases - check article authors. Please keep, and let me know if more edits are needed. Cheers -- Bondj


 * Also the page meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. As it currently stands based on the references used, not in terms of how many in Google search. 6/29 Kaushal has been referred to or interviewed in The NZ Herald, the most reputable paper in NZ. 2/29 times he has been referred to or interviewed by Radio New Zealand, the most reputable radio station in NZ. 4/29 times he has been referred to or interviewed by Fairfax media (Stuff/Central Leader) which is an Central Auckland regional paper, not just once as Shudde  notes. 5/29 times he has been referred or interviewed by Ethnic Media such as Indian Weekender, the largest Indian paper in NZ. 6/29 times he has been referred to in official Govt documentation, including Central Government which Kaushal has no role over (e.g. Youth Parliament Official Hansard or Office of Ethnic Affairs). Only 4/29 times I have used Kaushal's Facebook for personal (but public) information. 1 source has utilised from City Vision (his political party), and 1 source utilised from his University. -- Bondj
 * He does NOT meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. He is a local official and "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of citations fail WP:SIGCOV, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 00:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * DerbyCountyinNZ He has significant coverage on NZ Herald, Radio New Zealand, Fairfax media, Indian Weekender, Indian NZherald, NZ Central Government, Auckland Council amongst the various others. They are written by independent and credible authors appearing in credible and highly regarded mediums. Not only on his local government - candidature or election, but also on leading the multilateral delegation from NZ, Aus, South Korea to Taipei, being amongst 10 Aucklanders to be trained as future leaders by NZ Government departments, and Youth MP.

You are saying you want sources independent of the subject, the subject here is Shail Kaushal. Any article excluding him would be irrelevant for citation, be realistic, and can be anything on the internet. These article are not solely based on him for example Herald article on City Vision where Shail Kaushal was singled out by Phil Goff - the article was focussed on City Vision's campaign launch? Aggravated Robbery in Mt Roskill where his interview/comments were included - the article was about aggravated robbery? Clamping issue where he was interviewed, as was Phil Goff, and AA people in the Herald - the focus was the clamping issue? 2 articles on RNZ focus on diversity - Shail Kaushal was interviewed amongst others - the focus was diversity?

Anything else to suggest otherwise could be political bias mate. Happy to give you more examples Bondj (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I prodded the article a week ago and since then, it's been expanded quite a bit, so I've gone through every single reference that could constitute a reliable source and provides significant coverage. Important in this assessment is where to place the Indian Weekender, but looking at their website, you certainly don't get the impression that it would pass the reliable source threshold (in fact, you get the impression that it misses that by a landmile). That leaves me with two sources only: this Central Leader, and maybe this New Zealand Herald article where he gets extensively quoted. That's not quite enough to meet general notability. I suggest this article is a case of too soon, and the subject is likely to get there eventually. But he's not quite there yet. So we should delete for now, and if the general notability situation changes, the article can easily be restored by an admin.  Schwede 66  04:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Schwede you are missing Radio New Zealand Articles, and other 5 NZ Herald articles, review them and you'll see my point. Indian weekender is the biggest Indian paper in NZ, they were the first to break number of stories such as the Aggravated Robbery in Mt Roskill, and number of others. They do sponsor a lot of awards, events and celebrity visits - shows the likes of Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan to NZ who are like the Tom Cruises of Bollywood. Simply to dismiss them would based on the look would be bit Eurocentric.

Also check the rest of Stuff articles please, Stuff is owned by Fairfax media, and Central Leader is also owned by them.

He is directly quoted in at least 4 of the cited NZ Herald Articles, twice in Radio New Zealand, very minimum of twice in Central Leader - Stuff (Fairfax), the rest in Ethnic Auckland Media.

Bondj (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that being quoted in an article doesn't count as significant coverage by itself. I found a number of articles where he is quoted, or mentioned in passing, but this just counts as routine coverage rather than "significant" coverage. Our general notability guidelines say "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So being quoted in a number of articles is not in itself enough. We need the coverage to be significant and detailed. I only found one source that could maybe meet this threshold, and that's not enough to meet our general notability guidelines. --  Shudde  talk 11:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete After a thorough review of the sources available from my own searches, this is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject of this article (who I suspect CREATED the article) does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the coverage found does not meet the requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Please note that requirement cannot be cherry-picked. Sources (plural) should be both reliable and independent, and contain coverage that is significant - all at the same time. I'd also like to ask the article creator to not post an extended reply to every single comment here.

[User:Shudde| Shudde ]] Do as you will, I have given enough justification to back my evidence. Kaushal has been subject of number of articles you have chosen to ignore. I.e. Indian Weekender, which is known published Auckland paper online and print.

Exemplo347 you are just a conspiracy theorist making wild assumptions, my user name suits you more. Being productive won't harm you. Bondj (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well,, you uploaded a photo from a Facebook account and said it's your own work. That's pretty straightforward. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm not an expert on New Zealand politics, but from what I can tell the subject's position appears to be equivalent to what I would know as a borough council rather than the actual citywide government — but even in the rare class of cities that are large enough to NPOL their main city councillors (which I'll grant that Auckland is), the borough councillors still don't get an automatic inclusion freebie (even London can only NPOL the members of the main London Assembly, and not every borough councillor in Hackney or Barking or Croydon.) The coverage here is not substantive enough, however, to pass WP:GNG in lieu — Bondj really needs to learn about the difference between significant coverage that's substantively about the subject vs. coverage which just namechecks the subject's existence in the process of being about something or someone else. The coverage here is mostly of the latter type, but what we need to deem Kaushal notable enough for an article is far more of the former than has been shown here: it takes more than just one piece of substantive coverage to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not yet enough, per nom and Bearcat, though deletion is with no prejudice against recreating the article if and when Kaushal gains national office or rises further in the Auckland city structure. I also have suspicions of possible COI by the article's main editor (and a tantrum-like blanking of the page due to "bullying" won't win you friends!) Grutness...wha?  23:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a general guideline politicians are only notable at a minimum national level. Some politicians who have also been councilors for the Auckland Council are also considered notable, due to the large population (1/3 of New Zealand's population) the jurisdiction covers. Other city/district councilors and Auckland local board members generally are not, in this case the BLP doesn't meet the necessary criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Slight amendment to that - New Zealand city/regional/district mayors are usually considered notable too. Not that that makes any difference in this case. Grutness...wha?  00:42, 22 March 2017 (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.