Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurm Sekhon

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 No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gurm Sekhon

Gurm Sekhon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable per WP:BIO - a local councillor who has no other claim to fame or notability. Was uploaded in toto by a new user in June 2007 who has made no other edits to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the fact that a new user uploaded this in full should not influence this AfD. Making a decision on that would be making a bad faith assumption. Joshdboz (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The decision would not be made on that basis - it's not a deletion criterion - but having all the information available to make a decision never hurts. If the article had been significantly edited by others since I would also have noted this. Orderinchaos 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed disclosure is good, just wanted to make sure it didn't lead to knee-jerk deletion support. Joshdboz (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A mere member of a municipal council, this is not generally enough to guarantee notability. The cited sources, which look impressive, do not assert notability. Of the 12 sources, 5 only show electoral results. Anther two are published by his party and are therefore not independent of the subject. Other than arguably this article, none of the Age articles or the Leader article have Mr. Sekhon as the subject of the article; he is merely commenting on his parties prospects or only tangentially mentioned and this is not sufficient to assert notability. Even the linked article is more about Green policies than Mr. Sekhom. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Created by a WP:SPA. —Moondyne 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, if he really is the longest-serving Green politician in Victoria, that's notable to my mind. Problem is that there's no sources attesting to that that I can find. Lankiveil (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete if he's that notable as a green candidate then I'm sure his name is all through the article on the Greens party in Victoria... cited references are about other events / his party not him, and he does not meet any of the "inherently notable" elements at WP:BIO.Garrie 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment BTW, the Greens website does not show that he is the longest serving elected rep - only that he was the first Green candidate elected to represent an electorate in "proportional representation" elections (vs senate-style candidates).Garrie 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to have been the subject of coverage from reliable sources independent of him (two of said sources being cited in the article). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This still does not address notability concerns - he is a local council representative and an organiser for a minor party, and WP:BIO clearly requires state or federal representation (else I and no doubt others would be eligible for an article). Orderinchaos 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I believe you're misreading WP:BIO. It doesn't require statewide or national representation to be considered notable, it requires such representation to be considered inherently notable (i.e. automatically notable). Any subject can still be found notable by reason of the WP:N criterion of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. That's what applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but it has to have a very strong claim on another ground, which it doesn't. A lot of things happen or exist which are reliably sourcable (even extensively) in popular media but don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. For the record, I appear in 11 reliable sourcs, 4 of which have me as a subject, but nothing about me is notable and that will probably continue to be the case for some time. Orderinchaos 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

With all respect I only see one article significantly about Sekhon which is independent of the Greens. The Leader reference is sadly misrepresented as saying that he is professionally a project coordinator, when in fact all the article says is that (as a councillor) he is coordinating one project.Garrie 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep Being the national and state convenor and the state election director of a significant and increasingly successful political party probably makes him notable in his own right. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how a purely administrative role makes anyone notable. Orderinchaos 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I can see how this might be a borderline case for notability, but playing a long but minor role in government does not entail much notability. If he goes on to do more in government, then this article can be recreated. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (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.