Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Singh (2nd nomination)

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 weak consensus for keep. Appears to satisfy the letter of WP:BIO. Rividian may be right that the subject may slip into obscurity, but for now it can be kept. --Selket ^Talk 05:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amit Singh

Amit Singh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article is about a non notable hopeful politician. GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, please note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Singh was apparently for an unrelated person who shares the same name. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly non notable --GBVrallyCI (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject of this article has received significant local and national press. If he does not survive the primary this article can be rethought, but currently his notability is hard to question. Shii (tock) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Shii. Just a glance at those sources shows multiple third-party coverage from Washington post and other political newspeople. That establishes notability. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 02:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. For this district, the Washington Post is a local paper, so it is not surprising that they covered his candidacy. He is a candidate in the primary, not even the party's nominee for the seat, and although his district has quite a few "local" papers and he's appeared in all of them, he does not appear to be a candidate with a national profile. There is no coverage in the New York Times, for example, which would be the case if his candidacy had attracted anything but local interest. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:POLITICIAN. Being a candidate does not confer enough notability to a subject. The sources cited though many, and reliable, does not constitute "significant coverage" as its merely reporting of the candidate campaign during the election cycle. We can recreate this article if Singh is elected. KTC (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak delete - Per KTC. asenine ^{say what?} 06:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Bear in mind, the article for this man's primary opponent was deleted. It had the same qualifications such as links from local newspapers and local coverage, but it was deleted as per policy. --GBVrallyCI (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the primary opponent's article most recently (speedily) deleted sourced only one of its statements--the obvious one that he is running in the primary. The rest of the statements, including many plainly opinionated ones like "His dedication and service to the community has had an immense impact on families" had no sources, and was copied verbatim from his campaign website. In contrast, every statement in this article is reliably sourced, and it contains no fawning statements. This is irrelevant to whether the topics belong in Wikipedia, but this article and the article deleted (both the version recently speedied, as well the one deleted in discussion two years ago) are vastly different. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until the primary is over. I don't think losing a primary is enough notability to justify an article... it's just that this guy hasn't actually lost yet. nevertheless, the article is written so we might as well keep it on the chance he wins the primary. If he loses then we can delete. --Rividian (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Plus, the fact is that he's most likely to be searched for right now. We should consider that we're trying to inform people -- this is one of the most important times to have an article like this. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:IAR, and then WP:POLITICIAN. It's undeniable that he has received substantial press coverage, making him notable. But additionally we're not writing this encyclopedia just to write; we're trying to perform a service to people. Politics is a place where this service is highly important. We should be contributing to the political process. ImperfectlyInformed | {talk - contribs} 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• CommentWe must remember other articles in this situation which have been deleted. His primary opponent who has received significant press coverage, if not more, had his article deleted on the grounds of not winning the primary. Double standard? --GBVrallyCI (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The primary in this case has not yet occurred, so the Mark Ellmore article was not in the same situation as when it was originally deleted. Regardless, that article was significantly different: it read like a fawning vanity piece copied from the campaign website, and was completely unsourced. As topics, currently both persons either warrant or do not warrant articles, unless there are other reasons like one is considered some perennial also-ran who has no chance of winning or one is more notable because he founded an organization not related to the election. —Centrx→talk • 03:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Deleteunless elected. Stifle (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia isn't paper. This guy is also known, not only in the district that he is running in, but also in various internet communities. This is why he raised 17 thousand dollars online in one day just a few days ago. Does that sound like somebody who nobody knows about? --StormCommander (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It may be worth revisitting the issue if he fails to be elected and has no other notability, but he's currently still in the race and the amount of media coverage seems to justify keeping the article at this time. 71.61.66.195 (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep until Primary, Delete if he loses 98.194.110.160 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until Primary, Delete if he loses The IP above has the right idea. For now, he's a viable candidate and has some notability. If he loses, he will just have been a news item and we can delete it. By the way, this is not the second nomination of this article's deletion. The first deletion was of a completely different subject. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 08:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources thus meeting the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• note Ron Paul supporters may flood this article with keeps. See [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBVrallyCI (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was the one who posted this. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Encouraging people to get involved with the discussion is fine. With more people discussing this we will have more things shown to help us make a decission. Also, while we are talking about supporters, is the following statement true? - You are a supporter of Mark Ellmore. You proposed to have Ellmore's opponent's article deleted. Why not just work to get Ellmore's article back instead of bring the other candidate off of Wikipedia too? --StormCommander (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep American Conservative, Washington Post, NPR, and a broad range of other media have covered his campaign. This is considered one of the most exciting races this year! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.182.45 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep In addition, Reason Magazine Online has had an article and India Abroad has had a print article about him. His YouTube videos also have an agragate amount of views approaching 10 thousand. This race is interesting because the two primary contenders represent two different wings of the Republican party and this battle is a microchosm of the larger struggle occuring whithin the party. It would be harmful to the flow of information and the democratic process to remove this article from this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.79.81 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2008 (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.