Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Yadav

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Yadav

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

A large number of links have been added to papers reporting the candidates in the elections, however nothing obvious stands out that satisfies the notability guidelines for candidates for political office. Fæ (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fae can you let me know why you want to delete this page ?? Why not delete other politician pages .any specific reason.122.176.168.25 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to NPOL. An article about a politician running for office, needs to show they are notable in an encyclopaedic sense beyond their candidacy. Once a politician holds office, then they will satisfy the notability guidelines. This is not a judgement about the person, it is a question of encyclopaedia policies keeping a long term view. If the article is improved, it may be easier to see why Yadav is notable against the guidelines. --Fæ (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You all are genius editors , please help me to improve this article and let me know what all information you need . Else if you decided to delete this article then let me know I delete it myself .Rubyyadav (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:NPOL says: "...Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Well, I see six good refs that discuss her in detail, which means she easily passes GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in response to the nominator's rationale, I find it confusing and somewhat misleading. The guideline basically says that if the subject is elected, etc, then they deserve an article, and if not, GNG is fine. so, I do not understand why anything "obvious" needs to "stand out". The "large number of links" simply needs to contain a sufficient number of good refs -- in this case, six, I think. And those are not to satisfy "notability guidelines for candidates for political office". They are to satisfy GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if the article satisfies GNG in the absence of being elected to a political post and is not a problem against WP:BLP1E, then the article should be kept. Which of the sources do you feel best demonstrate this, I had thought that Yadav was most notable for running in this election? --Fæ (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to discuss her in detail, which is what GNG looks for, and there are probably more out there by now:

When you say "...I had thought that Yadav was most notable for running in this election?...", you seem to imply that it is important that she is notable for something else. Does it make a difference whether or not she is "most notable for running in this election"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it makes a difference. If a person is reported by the press for being a candidate then Subjects notable only for one event applies and there should be caution about interpreting whether newspaper coverage of the election is sufficient to create an encyclopaedia entry that is supposed to be encyclopaedic rather than news, and be of educational value for the next 100 years. The list of sources above seem more suitable to justify an article about the election, not necessarily BLP articles for everyone who is campaigning, some of whom may have had no national profile beforehand. Please keep in mind that newspapers are actively lobbied to create news at election time. --Fæ (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are saying is the election is the event. She is known mainly for running in that event. The sources are really about her campaign. Hmmmm, those are pretty good points. Okay, I'm leaning toward 'delete' now. Let's hear what a few others say. Unless I see something compelling for a 'keep', I think 'delete' is where I stand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - The article already has been speedy deleted (CSD#A7) two times. Article created by a WP:SPA User:Rubyyadav, doesn't satisfy Wikipedia notability guideline. I remember, AfDing similar articles. The subject is notable only for being a candidate for some political party in ongoing Indian general election, 2014, therefore, it falls under WP:ONEEVENT criteria and the subject does not qualify for inclusion. If the subject wins the election, or attracts media coverage for some other stuffs rather than being an electoral candidate, it'd be suitable for inclusion thereafter. For now, delete this non-notable article. Creator User:Rubyyadav is suggested to carry on his election campaign some other places as such, Facebook, Twitter, etc., Wikipedia is not Facebook. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no apparent need to protect the article, this would seem an over-reaction. --Fæ (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If some non-notable subject, is repeatedly being created, then, it is better to salt the page to save the community time, further on. It should not considered over-reaction, because this is why, WP:SALT do exists. It is the fourth time, I'm seeing deletion of the article on this subject. Two times in mainspace, one in userspace, fourth here, we are discussing about the same subject. Once, this subject qualifies for inclusion, we can simply ask an admin to remove the "protection from creation". For now, it seems reasonable to me, to protect this page from creation. If it was earlier, we had not been wasting our time, here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 06:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, though had our policies been explained more clearly for Yadav or her team we may not have ended up here either. Now that the new contributors understand more about the COI and NPOL guidelines, it would be nice to assume good faith from here on. This is not vandalism, neither does this appear a deliberate attempt to knowingly avoid policies. In contrast, Yadav's "official" photographs are a welcome and valid addition on Wikimedia Commons for our mission to preserve human knowledge. --Fæ (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly creating a non-notable article suggests the notion of vandalism and this is why we do practice SALTing. I'm not, against the subject or furious of the COI thing. We can AGF but can not really let a editor to carry on his vandal activities for the AGF sake. I've a simple concern, that this subject should be "prevented from creation" again, to save the community time now on. Other contribution from the editor, is most welcome, whether images or texts, to Wikimedia projects. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Anupmehta , this article create after election is over , this is not to promotion , I am winner for runner up of mrs. India queen 2013 . I ask for help to create this page according to that . I don't want to promote myself .Rubyyadav (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rubyyadav - Indian general election, 2014 is happening in nine phases, and it'd end up on 12 May 2014. Well, it is over at some places, and at the same time, awaiting to happen at some places. I'm, here, not concerned about the WP:PROMO thing, but notability standard. Subjects notable for one-event do not warrant a Wikipedia article. Yours is the same case. I see, there's some claim for "India queen runner up 2013" thing coverage, but where is the source? Present us, those sources, here or in the article. I've never heard of this "India queen" contest, not sure even this organized event, is notable itself. I do not see, anything substantial on Google or Indian newspaper archives search, as well. Let me assure you, being an Indian and a resident of Delhi, no one here, is against you, it is just that an article you wrote is not in compliance Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In answer to your question, why there are articles on other politicians on Wikipedia, and Why you can not have one, similar, is that, they are "elected representatives". Once you're declared winner (I wish you so), you'll qualify to have an article on you, here. Hope, it is clear. If not, feel free to ask me more questions. In the meanwhile, you may try editing Wikipedia, and learn how it works. And, it is AnupmehRa not AnupmehTa. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:49, 24 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt as non notable person, The COI doesn't help neither. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:01, 25 April 2014‎
Delete and salt. Spinning Spark 18:21, 25 April 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.