Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aruna Shankar

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. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Shankar

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

Mayor of a city with less than a half million population is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless the subject meets GNG. Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the person so Can't see any significance, Saqib (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I make no claims on notability, but there are no sources here for this WP:BLP article. SportingFlyer talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The size of the city is not the problem here — in countries such as Canada or the United States, cities this size most certainly would be expected to have Wikipedia articles about their mayors. The problem, rather, is the lack of any reliable sources to support the article's content. I'm willing to reconsider this if some proper reliable source coverage is added before this discussion closes, but even a mayor of New York City wouldn't get to have an article if he somehow held the role without getting any media coverage for holding the role. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several citations to verify the facts and made the article easier to read. I believe it should now satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. Lonehexagon (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lonehexagon:--I have a real fear that although you've a good ability to dig up sources, the manner in which you insert them in the concerned article is resemblant to promo-spamming.Please amend accordingly.Best,~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: I don't understand what you mean. I find information, put it in the article, and reference the source with a citation. Lonehexagon (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the issue is. I'm not convinced this person is notable, but if someone without a COI attempts to find sources to make the information WP:V, they should be commended, not censured. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-All the sources by Lonehexagon (which has strong resemblances to conducting a Google search and then throwing every G-hit into the article...... ) are routine trivial mentions about the subject, which mainly derives from the chair she holds.~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:01, 6 May 2018 (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.