Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uma Kumaran (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. The article's subject is found by the community to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Uma Kumaran
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability, sole claim to fame arises from candidature at the upcoming election. RaviC (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable solely for being a losing candidate under POLITICIAN if there is no other reason for claim to notability. Quis separabit?  17:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What has changed since the last discussion? Except that the election is now imminent?Rathfelder (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-direct Nothing has changed since the last discussion, which also means this article hasn't noticeably improved. My opinion remains the same, and I refer all to my comments previously. If she's elected, which is possible in this seat, then we can restore material. But until then, these sorts of articles attract partisan and non-encyclopaedic editing. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The last discussion closed "no consensus", not "keep" — so it's not a question of anything having changed, it's a question of nothing ever having been settled in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete or Speedy Redirect. Does not pass any relevant notability guideline. Pure electioneering, which is why this AfD should close promptly. Softlavender (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Softlavender and fails  POLITICIAN is only a candidate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Kumaran appears to be a notable person in the British Sri Lankan community, and will continue to be so whether or not elected. There is nothing in the article which constitutes electioneering. Quite the opposite.Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll need to find a source in order to back up that claim. --RaviC (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep seems to pass WP:GNG redirect to Harrow East (UK Parliament constituency) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Harrow East (UK Parliament constituency) - There is no evidence she is a notable person in the British Tamil community beyond being a candidate. If she is elected the article can be restored. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 01:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * articles from a variety of sources including the Daily Mail and the Tamil Guardian were removed before this discussion was restarted.Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources you used were not relevant (in the case of the trivia in the Daily Mail article), or are simply inappropriate for an encyclopaedia (such as the candidate's own LinkedIn page). Please take the time to read the criteria at WP:RS before creating any more articles. --RaviC (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article under another inclusion rule before they were named a candidate, then they must win the election, not merely run in it, to become notable enough. I'm not going to deny the possibility that she might have sufficient notability as a community activist to qualify, but what's been written or sourced here completely fails to demonstrate that in any substantive way — as written, it's a "campaign brochure" backgrounder on a person whose notability is tied entirely to her candidacy, which fails to claim or source any credible reason why she'd qualify for an article independently of the candidacy. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if she wins her seat next week. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2015 (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.