Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swatanter 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Swatanter Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not quite sure if being a justice on the Supreme Court of India confers notability (he was appointed late last year). Raymie Humbert (t • c) 18:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are around 30 judges at SCI at any given time and they retire at 65. Unlike the US Supreme court where they hang around for a long long time (and there is only 9 of them). So let me try and find GNG for him. If i can't i will vote for deletion.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Position pretty clearly demonstrates notabhility, as do dozens of news articles within the last month alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Bombay High Court posting was already enough for WP:POLITICIAN; Supreme Court is a clear and obvious pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gnews reveals enough coverage on him and the cases he oversaw.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:Politician as he has held a judgeship at national and sub-national level. Even if online sources aren't available (they are), a High Court (and Supreme Court) judge in India would be amply covered by legal journals, so it's a matter of time to collect material for a lengthy article. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This must take the biscuit as one of the most ridiculous deletion nominations that I've seen. Is the encyclopedia that accepts an article on any footballer who has turned out for a match or two in League 2 or any band that has released two albums supposed to reject an article on a supreme court judge in a country with a sixth of the world's population? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2010 (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.