Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Deshmukh

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 Speedy keep. The subject a long time legislator passes WP:NPOL(non-admin closure) Venkat TL (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Deshmukh

[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)

"Keep" -Anil Deshmukh has been a public office holder for more than twenty-five years as member of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly or as minister in Maharashtra state government. He is currently under police investigation but that does not make him a non-notable person.Jonathansammy (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[He is not notable he isn't actively in politics so we cannot let his page be active and one more reason is that no one views this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:1C:691D:E04C:26BF:1101:501F (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On average 2,214 people are reading this article per day, far more than many other articles.[1] Jonathansammy (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this page has been listed on the November 9 page for AfD because this page was not yet listed at AfD snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 22:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing I see and can read is enough to meet WP:N. We do not delete pages based on how frequently they're read, and not being active in politics is irrelevant (and by the looks of it that argument's patently false). Also, there's no point opening an AfD unless you're legitimately looking to delete the page. Defensive AfDs aren't a thing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the ping) @Jéské Couriano:, to clear up what is a very confusing AfD: this AfD itself was not created originally by Jonathan. The page was tagged with an AfD, but the AfD tagger did not create an actual AfD page or listing on AfD. It seems that Jonathan created the AfD page by expressing support to keep the page, but Jonathan is not nom. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 01:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I can't make heads or tails of this nomination, but the article has loads of sources and the only argument that has been advanced for deletion has no grounding in policy. Mlb96 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep no valid basis for nomination, and the subject is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Mccapra (talk) 03:46, 10 November 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.