Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumanti Ekka


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sumanti Ekka

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

Non-elected politician fails WP:NPOL. As per available References also fails WP:GNG.  Ts12rAc talk to me 07:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete unsuccessful political candidate who is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the nominator did any WP:BEFORE searches, they were poor. India is not my field, but I quickly found SIGCOV at https://www.thestatesman.com/india/tea-worker-turns-poll-candidate-talks-plight-1502956292.html --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither being a council member of a student organization nor being a non-winning candidate in an election pass WP:NPOL, the article is based on primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all, and one piece of coverage of her non-winning candidacy is not enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable role. Every last manjack or womanjack candidate in every election everywhere can always show at least one hit of media coverage in that context — so the test for making candidates notable as candidates isn't just "a hit of coverage can be found", it's "such an unusual volume and depth of coverage can be found that she has a credible claim to being significantly more notable than most other non-winning candidates", which isn't what that one hit shows. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If that interpretation of GNG was applied to footballers, we'd cull a huge proportion of them for only getting the routine coverage given to players in matches.
 * One item of SIGOV is not enough to meet GNG, which is why I didn't vote to keep. But this application of a GNG+ test is a form of systemic bias.   Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 26 February 2022 (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.