Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Kumar Anjan

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 keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Kumar Anjan

[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)

Doesn't qualify for WP:NPOL. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - viewing google results, I'd say he passes WP:GNG, with plenty of coverage in national and state-level media. --Soman (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please mention with reference to support your claim. Most search result shows only comments mentioned by him which does not make a politician notable. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as User:Soman. Nom needs to spell out in more detail what s/he thinks the problem is. Ingratis (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, fails WP:NPOL. Never held any public office.. -Hatchens (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - WP:NPOL does indeed say that elected national politicians can be presumed to be notable, but it doesn't say that those who aren't elected, automatically aren't notable. This man's notability rests not only on his participation in elections but on his position as national secretary of a national political party, to which the tickbox of elected / not elected doesn't apply. So "fails WP:NPOL" is a slightly irrelevant statement: what matters is whether he meets the GNG, which nom has not touched on, and I'm inclined to think that he does.Ingratis (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party officials are not automatically notable, exception is the leader of any national party (in case of CPI, its National General Secretary, not just any National Secretary). -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically unnotable either... Ingratis (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ingratis, nice point. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha alone makes him pass WP:GNG, apart from his regular participation in farmers movements throughout last 2 decades ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Kisan Sabha is the farmers wing of the Communist Party of India itself. Similar deletion of leader of party subsidiary has taken place recently. (example :see) -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the subject that you quote failed WP:GNG. the current subject passes WP:GNG, even his having contracted COVID has been covered by multiple sources.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paases WP:GNG very easily using a simple google search. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "significant media coverage on the subject", all the Google search result are just his comments and media bites. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A number of the references in the article are just WP:BOMBARDMENT. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability should not be judged on the reference in the article at present, but rather the potential references available. --Soman (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any significant reliable potential reference focused on the subject myself. I think those potential references should be added in this discussion to recognise the notability of the subject. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is zero indication that any of the sources are significant in-depth coverage of the person himself rather than being comments from him about other things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article in Times of India on Anjan contracting COVID, more coverage in media on Anjan contracting COVID, article mentioning controversies involving Anjan, article on Sunny Leone's rebuttal to Anjan's comments on her condom campaign [1], Article in Mumbai Mirror with biographic details on Anjan, 15+ pages of biography on Anjan in this book, from p. 133 onwards ("Public Life of Atul Kumar Anjan : Known for his frank and forthright views and opinions , while the world often applauds , at times his own people get hurt and turn against him , though to appreciate him later . He belongs to an illustrious family..."), appears in google books already in 1970s as student leader ("Shri Atul Kumar Anjan, Vicepresident, U.P. State, AISF said that friendship between India and the Soviet Union proved to be a real..."), article discussion Anjan's role in leadership struggles in the party. etc, etc. I think we can easily say that there is coverage about Anjan in third party sources, not just a lot of articles were Anjan is commenting on "other things". --Soman (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes GNG with significant coverage in several published, independent sources. The coverage in The Janata Enigma and Times of India satisfies the requirement. WP:NPOL, contrary to what has been suggested, is not relevant as explained by Ingratis. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Useful to have analysis of the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG, significant press coverage. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2020 (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.