Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannat Jahan-ul-haq (naina)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jannat Jahan-ul-haq (naina)

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

Not notable. A google news search only yields three results JDDJS (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Chandigarh is large and internationally prominent enough that a member of its municipal council could qualify for a well-written and well-sourced article, this article is neither of those things. At the same time, nominator should be aware that for most publications Google News only aggregates news hits from within the past couple of weeks, so it's really only a useful test for the verifiability of a brand new claim, such as a person who purportedly won an election that just took place last night — it is not an infallible gauge of the basic notability or non-notability of a topic whose claim of notability is several years old, as many valid sources may exist outside the range of dates that will turn up in a GN search. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can create a good version that cites real sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:37, 28 May 2014 (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.