Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivesh Kumar


 * 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Shivesh Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As per Wikipedia guidelines - Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Also, the subject has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage to meet the notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:D487:A600:CAC:35F7:BB98:5CDA (talk) 23:42, February 10, 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from edit summary from when they AfD tagged the article.  Article had been PROD-ded thrice by IP for notability, and was overruled by two different experienced editors (Pinging  and  to chime in).  As for my own view, subject is clearly and verifiably notable per WP:NPOL as an elected Indian state legislator.  The references are in dire need of improvement and the article possibly needs to be stubified, but there is no justification for deleting the article entirely. ‎ --Finngall talk  04:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  04:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk  04:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to hear from you and other experienced editors as to why they are ignoring the last sentence of the guidelines mentioned here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges that says that just getting elected does NOT guarantee notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to hear from you as to why you are ignoring the first guideline, whereby members of state legislatures (in this case Bihar Legislative Assembly) of federal states (in this case India) are presumed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. You seem to be hung up on the word "local" which in this case would apply to cities and governmental subdivisions below the state level, not at the state level as is the case here.  --Finngall talk  17:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see the complete last sentence of the guideline for Politicians and judges that contains a sub-clause "OR AN UNELECTED CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE, DOES NOT GUARANTEE NOTABILITY" which is an addendum to first guideline. This sub-clause does not contain the word "local". So irrespective of which level of election it is, winning or losing does NOT guarantee notability unless there is SIGNIFICANT coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm, he was elected in 2010? He was defeated for reelection in 2015, but that in no way negates the previous victory.  --Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk  18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it does not negate the previous victory but it does not guarantee notability either, unless there is significant coverage. You keep ignoring the fact that "DOES NOT GUARANTEE" is an addendum to the winning/losing clause. No one has shown a SIGNIFICANT coverage so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Major surgery carried out. Passes NPOL, elected member of a state legislature. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?
 * Could you be so kind as to listen to what you're being told? State legislators are inherently notable under WP:NPOL #1 — which means that so long as it's possible to verify that they actually held the claimed role and aren't an outright hoax, their article must be allowed to exist regardless of whether it's written and sourced up to scratch yet or not. They are not "local" officeholders under NPOL #2; they are state officeholders under NPOL #1, and are thus held to a different standard than the one you're trying to shoehorn him into. And no, the fact that he was defeated when he ran for reeelection in 2015 does not negate the fact that he held an inherently notable office for five years before that, either. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * By the way I'm an attorney by profession and majority of my opponents have lost their cases against me is because they are unable to distinguish and interpret the difference one word can make in a clause of a contract or statute. For example in this notability guideline - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians it uses the word "CABINET" (please note it says cabinet level are generally regarded as notable) which changes the notability interpretation here because only around 5% of elected legislators in India actually hold a cabinet position. The subject in this case also did not hold any cabinet office and did not receive any SIGNIFICANT coverage.
 * The base notability tests for politicians are spelled out at WP:NPOL, not at WP:POLOUTCOMES — the latter is only a summary of established practice in certain special circumstances where interpretation of NPOL tends to be disputed (like some cabinet ministers and city councillors), and is not the sum total of all our inclusion standards for all political offices. The rule is not, and never has been, that people are only notable if they held a cabinet position. Cabinet ministers are notable, yes, which is specifically pointed out in POLOUTCOMES because there are some countries (e.g. the United States) where the cabinet are outside the legislature (and thus some people have erroneously brought US cabinet members to AFD on the grounds that they weren't elected legislators) — but in countries, such as India, Canada and the United Kingdom, where cabinet members are in the legislature, serving in the legislature makes a person notable regardless of whether they were cabinet ministers or just ordinary legislators. If somebody passes NPOL, then they pass NPOL regardless of whether their particular situation is listed in POLOUTCOMES or not, and NPOL does not restrict political notability exclusively to the cabinet. So citing POLOUTCOMES does not make you the guy who gets to drop the mic — NPOL drops the mic on POLOUTCOMES, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep seems like a bad-faith nomination. He was the MLA from Bihar. passes NPOL.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep NPOL is one of the few guidelines which I would say we should hold to as long as we can at all verrify. People in legislatures of states that are part of federal Republics are clearly notable (US, Brazil, Mexico, Germany, India etc) so this qithout question passes it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD at least three articles on the subject that would prove that the person has received SIGNIFICANT coverage, which is a requirement for being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines?


 * Delete - If we are following the Wikipedia guideline then it should be a no-brainer. Guideline clearly says that "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability". It also states that the subject should have received SIGNIFICANT coverage to meet the notability guideline. In this case SIGNIFICANT coverage is missing. The candidates party supporters can fill this discussion with a large number of "Keep" count but we need to follow the guidelines set in Wikipedia. Please see this link on notability guideline (last sentence in Politicians and Judeges category) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges It is very unfortunate that some of the experienced Wikipedia editors are ignoring the guidelines set by Wikipedia. Those who are saying it passes NPOL are clearly not reading the guidelines in DETAIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He is a state politician, not a local one. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are reading NPOL correctly. You're the one who isn't. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And to answer the IP's question, there are news sources about the subject, including this article in the Hindustan Times. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You provided just one article about the subject being beaten up in a train, this certainly cannot be called SIGNIFICANT coverage. Please note that we have to set aside our bias/emotions that he is an Indian and needs to be in Wikipedia. We have to think purely in terms of meeting the Wikipedia guideline which is whether the subject has received SIGNIFICANT coverage to be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.54.82 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "bias/emotions that he is an Indian and needs to be in Wikipedia" going on. Most of the commenters here aren't even Indian. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support keeping of an an article about a state (or equivalent) legislator in the USA, Russia, Brazil, Germany or any other country where people in sub-national bodies have legislative powers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NPOL as having been elected at the state level, and can an admin please close this soon before the ip comes back to the horse? Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Legislative Assembly of Bihar is a state level role that passes NPOL #1, not a "local" role. Yes, the article needs some improvement, but state legislators are not deletable on "local political officeholder" grounds — it's a state legislature, not a "local" legislature. And frankly, considering that participating in this discussion is the IP's first Wikipedia participation ever, I strongly suspect a WP:BADFAITH attempt to erase someone the IP has personal beef with for some reason that's none of Wikipedia's concern. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the IP addresses used by the anon are all US-based, which is at least one small indication that this isn't a personal thing. I see this as a serious misinterpretation of guidelines mixed with a highly problematic dose of WP:IDHT, but I'm not detecting bad faith here.  Hoping that this can get WP:SNOW closed soon, though.  --<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b> <sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk  18:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Bihar has 100+ million inhabitants. If Bihar's population would be counted separately from the rest of India, Bihar alone would be the 15th most populous country in the world. Just sayin'. --Soman (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: We consider MLAs are notable so easily passes WP:NPOL Padavalam🌂   ►  16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Elected member of legislative assembly, hence is notable by virtue Kichu🐘 <i style="color:blue">Discuss</i> 12:02, 16 February 2021 (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.