Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagadish Debbarma

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. ✗plicit 12:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadish Debbarma

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject of this article does not satisfy political notability or general notability. He does not satisfy political notability because he is a party official rather than a state legislator or other state or union official. (The subject has been defeated for the state legislature multiple times.)

The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, which make reference-checking difficult, but reference-checking is not necessary. An article should speak for itself to establish general notability without the need for the editors or readers to view the references. The text of the article does not speak for itself because it does not summarize significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and is not about what third parties have said about the subject. An article about a mid-level or run-of-the-mill person that has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources is an article about a non-notable person.

The originator has created articles in both article space and draft space, so that this article cannot be moved into draft space. Creating two copies of an article, in article space and draft space, is often a device to game the system. Proposed deletion of the article was removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. I was the one who moved the article into draftspace first. There is no sigcov and the subject fails GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 02:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable politician. Doesn't qualify WP:GNG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not satisfy even WP:BASIC. Should we consider WP:SALT? VV 19:24, 26 April 2021 (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.