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. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Sandhu[edit]

Harpreet Sandhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable politician; outdated article. Only references come from local papers, which aren't independent enough. Split from this AfD Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep- One of a series of cut-and-paste deletion nominations by this nominator. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed in this case. I also find it offensive and contrary to policy that independent, published coverage in the local press is deemed not "independent enough." This is not NewYorkCitypedia or Londonpedia or Chicagopedia, this is Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the question I've asked on your other needless and unproductive procedural keep votes...have you actually read the article? Also, are you familiar with WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN, both of which this article fails going away? Furthermore, is not your keep rationale cut-and-pasted from other prodecural keep rationales? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Changing to Keep, see below) He was only on the council for a couple of years and got minimal coverage. However, I object to your rote claim that the article is "outdated". I personally updated this article on December 3, to reflect the fact that he is no longer on the council. I would appreciate it if you would respond to these articles in their current state, rather than the state they were in before your first mass nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, bad faith nomination and also, this guy was the only sikh politician in the whole state I believe which is pretty unique and notable.Luciferwildcat (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, so he has a lot more information now. I found a lot of mentions in the major publication the San Francisco Chronicle, I added his personal website, he was definitely the first Asian and of course Sikh on the council, he was endorsed by then attorney general/fmr. governor jerry brown (now governor) he was also chosen to represent this congressional district at the national level by Obama during the 2008 campaign, he was also one of the preeminent Sikhs invited to the white house's first Sikh celebration at the white house, he is president of what may be the largest gurdwara in the country or one of the largest ones, and he was also a member of the city of Richmond's human rights council, only sikh in office in california at the time, one of only a few in the whole nation, in addition to probably being voted out for joining the controversial Viramontes 5.LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my !vote to Keep. The additional sources added by Luciferwildcat, plus his status as a rare/first Sikh officeholder, make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the reasons stated above for my earlier Procedural Keep opinion remain, excellent additional work has subsequently been done to the piece to render this fully encyclopedia-worthy. So I'd like to emphasize I'm in the full Keep camp here. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment thanks for having a look, I hope purple would reconsider as well. I will say I have finals this week, but am able to find the same amount of sources on all these folks. I think Mindel Penn will be tricky, but the rest have tons of sources. Is there a way I can get the framework back if they are deleted before I have a chance to save?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication... Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Topic passes GNG, per availability of reliable sources (see specific Google News link below).

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, have you actually looked at the sources? For example, there is only one Scholar source, and it doesn't cover Sandhu in depth. I don't believe this vote should carry much weight unless a specific, in-depth source is mentioned Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by the narrow provision of "does he actually have scholarly sources". Someone can have four books about them but not scholarly research on them and vice versa, so you present a miserly false dichotomy. He is clearly of national importance as a Sikh and has received repeated non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. He meets GN.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (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.