Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Gupta

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. sufficient consensus despite limited particpation DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Gupta

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

A city councilor literally with nothing substantiating independent notability and substance, the town's population is still only 49,000-something, so not only would it still be close for notability as the town mayor's own article, but certainly not for each of the listed city councilpeople; the PROD was contested with the sole basis of "I was not aware of the PROD [deletion]". SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable member of a city council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors only get an automatic presumption of notability because city councillor in major internationally famous global cities, which Dublin, California is not. In any city outside of that narrow range, a city councillor gets an article only if you can write a really substantive and really well-sourced article which demonstrates that he's significantly more notable than the norm. That is, if a city councillor in Dublin, CA was getting covered in The New York Times on a regular basis, then there'd be a valid WP:GNG claim — but if all you can show is a few pieces of the WP:ROUTINE local media coverage that a city councillor would be expected to get, then that's nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2016 (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.