Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijoo Krishnan (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 keep. Consensus seems to be in favor of keeping this article. (non-admin closure) Interstellarity (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Vijoo Krishnan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A politician who never elected in state or general election. Other claims are Joint Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha and central committee member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). This is also not enough for his notability. The article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  06:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NPOL, and the footnotes are virtually all a reference bombed mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that are not about him. All of those references count for nothing, and the few sources that are actually about Vijoo Krishnan in any trivial way are not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by themselves if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep : How does this article fail WP:NPOL? There is significant press coverage about him in different Indian languages including English (Which is very evident from the long list of references provided in the article itself). Also refer Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, Leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success. This guy is a central committee member of Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the protest he orchestrated was a national phenomenon.  It is also not clear how this article violates WP:GNG. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Agree that there are a lot of primary sources given in the citation list, but there are reliable secondary sources as well. I support questioning/removing the content with primary source citations; nevertheless, the article should not be deleted.   - ~ Hrishi ~ (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there's a big difference between media coverage about a person (which assists notability) and media coverage which mentions the person in the process of being about something else (which does not), and nowhere near enough of the sources here fall on the correct side of that line. Secondly, "central committee member" is not the same thing as "leader": the only person who gets to claim "leader" status for the purposes of NPOL is the person who would actually be Prime Minister if the party won an election, and even that person would still have to show better sources than this before they actually qualified for an article. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: the subject seems to be pass WP:GNG comfortably, well above the threshold for WP:BASIC. For instances there are articles covered in mainstream media with the subject in the article as the primary subject.  These are hardly trivial, he also seems to be quoted quite frequently in news articles from what I can see. WP:NPOL is a secondary category for determining notability.  Tayi Arajakate  Talk 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Quoted in news articles" has nothing to do with establishing a person's notability. A source only goes toward establishing his notability if it is talking about him in the third person, and not if he is doing the speaking about any topic himself in his own words. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are both of those. He seems to be frequently covered and quoted as a figure of authority related to farmer's issues, the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED and mentions details about him which contributes towards WP:SIGCOV; that qualifies him through WP:BASIC. Besides that, he also has enough coverage exclusively in the 3rd person to make him notable. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 00:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed all these sources and none of them are passing WP:SIGCOV. These sources are of passing mention or WP:ROUTINE coverage of different statement from the newspapers and thus aren't good sources for establishing notability.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How are sources where the primary subject of articles is the person in question, passing mentions? WP:ROUTINE is about notability of events and not of persons. WP:BASIC doesn't even necessarily require the topic of articles to be about the subject, just that there should be non-trivial coverage which the subject certainly has here. If you were to say that the article itself is problematic and needs a cleanup, I'd agree but that doesn't mean the subject is not notable. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep : a) The subject has substantial media coverage. B) There are certain discourses which are marginalized from mainstream media. Farmers issue, Agricultural workers issue, lower caste issues are some of them. Therefore, it's not surprising why in India there isn't much visibility of Peasant leaders. In this kind of a discourse, being a farmer right activist, a specialist writer on Agrarian issues and the office bearer of one of the largest peasant organization in India, what makes the subject relevant is that, he himself is a key person for mainstreaming the farmers or peasant discourse in India. The substantial media coverages for mainstream national media proves that point . Also, a person who has led or mobilized rallies of more than 1 lakh farmers in National Capital, and in other parts of states clearly fit to define the term "leader". The farmer events organized by the subject, that are mentioned in the article were "national phenomenons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashique2020 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 May 2020 (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.