Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishwanath Tamasker


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vishwanath Tamasker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Did not receive significant media coverage under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN Harsh (talk)  07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete , subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. I'm willing to change my opinion if his name and work appear in transliterated form in reliable sources written in non-Latin characters. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More sources have been added and other editors (obviously better informed about importance of Indian MLAs) have persuaded me to withdraw my vote. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a state MLA. The Election Commission of India reference is proof enough. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really not notable ???? Chosen by people, represented a constituency, i have started questioning my self. Thank you -- доктор   прагматик   12:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * He's an MLA, no doubt, as per the reliable sources. But,

Just being an elected local official, does not guarantee notability. My concern is that he didn't receive significant media coverage. I personally don't think there needs to be an article for every MLA of every Indian state for every term they held. Harsh (talk)  12:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Media coverage, it seems you are from India only. Tell me the definition of media coverage for those days (1957), just ten years after freedom. Millions of people chose them as their representative in constitutional bodies. Absence of print and electronic media in those days does not reduces their notability, per me. Thanks-- доктор   прагматик   16:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Exactly. It is of 1957. World wide web does not cover most of 1957 Indian media. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN - ELECTED FOR STATE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Rayabhari (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How does Absence of print and electronic media in those days as per above comment, justify his notability? And WP:POLITICIAN has 3 points, out of which only first one is met. Harsh (talk)  06:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to meet all 3 points of WP:POLITICIAN. But I partly agree with you, we have nothing but his name. How can we write an article about him? Would it be encyclopedic to turn many names in the cited PDF document (p. 4 - 10) into uninformative set of articles? I'm not sure. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A reason that in 1957 there wasn't much information available on the internet and print media, and hence any person of that times is notable, and the media and internet should be blamed for the reason it didn't cover that topic is so very lame. Harsh (talk)  07:38, 21 September 2012 (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.