Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Siddiqui

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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Siddiqui

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unelected politician; previously returned to draftspace on more than one occasion and subsequently rejected at review. Advice was then left by the reviewer not to move again to main but to seek advice. Moved to mainspace again without improvement. Brief 'Google' search does not reveal any additional information. Eagleash (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source problem, you can delete it. মঞ্জুর আলম খান(talk) 10:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Eagleash I dont see any problem. Multiple news sites (basically all major Indian newspapers/TV channels/news websites,etc) covered him extensively. How is not notable enough. How is he not getting elected any indication of how notable he is? He is well known across the country and all major news channels have covered him. Not a strong argument. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Rasalghul1711: The problem is that three experienced reviewers (other than myself) have considered the subject to be lacking in notability. Two returned the item to draftspace and the third rejected the item at review as being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Despite this and advice given, the creator moved the item to mainspace again. This has come to be known as 'move-warring', is disruptive to the encyclopedia and cannot continue. The convention is to propose the item for deletion so the wider community can decide. WP:NPOL clearly states unelected politicians cannot be considered notable. Any other aspects are up for discussion. BTW, I did not get your 'ping' as it was incorrectly formatted and pings have to be added in one edit including the message and signature or they will not work. Adding later will fail. Eagleash (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject fails WP:NPOL for not having been elected, but he seems to pass WP:GNG. The article is sourced to multiple national Indian news sites, which call him influential, and a Google search of his name shows more national coverage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. His coverage is almost exclusively centered around an election with none a month before it or after the election. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there definitely is some substance here, and there are a good 4-5 in-depth citations in the article which I believe help the subject pass WP:GNG. That being said the arguments brought up by Tayi Arajakate do have some merit too, as I have been unable to find anything of note about Siddiqui after March 2021, and I would not be opposed to the article being re-nominated or drafted in a few months. Overall I do lean towards keeping, especially given quantity and quality of the references. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.