- 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn Davewild (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vishvjit singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Seems much like a resume Marlith T/C 05:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So fix it. A cursory Google search on his name as spelled in the article's first sentence (there appear to be alternatives such as Vishvajit, Vishwajit, etc.) gives you The New York Times [1] verifying that he's a former member of a national legislature and notable per
WP:OUTCOMESWP:BIO. More [2][3], etc. cab (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. cab (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A former MP is notable per WP:BIO. The article is already marked for cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- although WP:BIO states that someone with this sort of position does not necessarily have notability, and though I consider WP:OUTCOMES too circular of an argument, the Times article seems to put the nail in the coffin of this AFD, even though he was not the subject of it, per se.Epthorn (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:BIO's "Politicians" section: Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.The Rajya Sabha is the upper house of the Parliament of India. cab (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Never mind, I see that the concept of "automatic notability" has somehow disappeared since I last looked, and that section has been modified to say "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included", which means absolutely nothing at all. But IMO, the idea that we should be deleting even a verifiable barebones substub about anyone's congressman/MP because their country doesn't have newspaper archives from the 1980s online represents deletionism and systemic bias run amok. cab (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I take the phrase to mean that the criteria can be taken as prima facie but not conclusive grounds for notability: rather than guaranteeing notability, they put the burden of proof on the editor who claims non-notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion, clearly notable with sources being added and meets WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite keep - but I see the AfD has prompted some clean-up work already, so the article is likely to be salvaged without my ha'pence-worth. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (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.