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. Please note the difference between non-notability problem and a hoax. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay Ketan Swain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is a complete hoax as search has proved so, it is unfit, it fails every guideline ever given by Wikipedia and as so I say it should be speedy deleted This administrator @Sarahj2107: has for some reasons declined two speedy delete tags put up by different editors. Celestina007 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read This : The creator of this article was speedy deleted earlier today after he created this page if the creator of a page can have his Userpage deleted in only two days + after joining Wikipedia why then should his false article remain?? Please let's work together and make Wikipedia a place for only clean information Celestina007 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I declined the first speedy deletion because it was A7 and a credible claim of significance was made. I declined the second because the edit summary was "Recovering previous edit which was valid and correct action." which seemed to me like BlackJack was reverting to Celestina007's first speedy deletion tag and claiming that my decline was incorrect, a belief supported by their rather aggressive message on my talk page. Celestina007 you have conveniently left out the fact that the speedy deletion was declined a third time by another editor, hence this AfD. I have no comment on whether this article should be deleted or not, I don't care, but it is not the end of the world if we wait for 7 days, despite what the hysterical ALLCAPS on the talk page might lead someone to believe. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahj2107: in as much as you were trying to follow due procedure, your actions were portraying a mild support for this article to remain on Wikipedia and obviously you know it should not, it fails basic guidelines. Celestina007 (talk) 20:54 , 11 3 March 2017 (UTC).

• Comment Not only User:Sarahj2107; I also declined the G3. In my edit-summary I noted: Rotten article, but not a hoax: Rajanagar_(Odisha_Vidhan_Sabha_constituency)#2009_Election_Results, http://eci.nic.in/archive/se2000/pollupd/ac/states/s18/Acnstcand47.htm, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/57027898/.) I can now expand on this: There is clearly a man called 'Bijay Ketan Swain'; he at some point has been a politician; and he clearly either lives in or has a connection with, the Indian state of Odisha. The sources are available to show this: not only is he mentioned in a two-year old article of our own, but this, this, this, this, and this all testify to the fact that at least some of the points the article (tries to!) make are true. I also note that WP:HOAX tells us that Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax so the original speedy was probably misplaced in the first place.

Lastly, regarding this particular AfD, I note also that WP:NPOL tells us that Politicians... who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office are generally notable. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. Carry on, — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Citations you provided are not from reliable sources, majority of which are about an organization and not an individual Celestina007 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

No; you are confusing two different things. You claimed the article is a hoax. My sources, in clearly demonstrating the subject's existence, refute that. They are reliable sources for the fact that someone of a certain name exists within a certain organisation, which you have suggested, wrongly, is not the case. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 08:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is a blantant hoax. It seems that the CSD fracas arose from a relative WP:NEWBIE using A7 instead of G3 but then we typically kicked into "process for the sake of process" instead of recognising that an error had occurred and a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE prevailed. Sigh! The main thing is to get this rubbish off the site and WP:BLOCK its "author". I have reported it all to ARV. Although I support Celestina's assertion that it should have been CSD, I don't condone the use of ALLCAPS and she should not be shouting, however frustrating some of these, er, processes may be (voice of experience). Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although this person could possibly exist, the argument for delete seems to outweigh the argument for keep. The user who created this article shared a username with the article's subject. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a hoax. I've cleaned up the article, added the sources to the article. One could perhaps consider WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL. Has been a president of the ruling party BJP in the state of Odisha for the Ganjam district. Lourdes 05:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would be like claiming the chairman of the Oakland County, Michigan Republican party who had run for and lost in a state senate race was notable. I would say delete there, and I say delete here. He was not the head of the party for the state, but of a sub-unit of the state, which is not a notable level to be party head at.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax, bunk refs. Indef creator for wasting time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:L3X1, please read WP:HOAX (or at least this whole thread), and then make a !vote based on policy. Cheers, -- — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread it. So your holding that because the dude exists its not a hoax, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without rehashing the whole thing, I think what we're in the process of establishing here, is that it's a totally non-notable subject, rather than a fake one  :) -- — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 19:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and the GNG. Not a hoax, the subject exists - it's a Notability issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The issue is not that the subject of the article doesn't exist (i.e. a hoax), but rather that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO (i.e. non-notable). --Joshualouie711^talk 22:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable WP:NPOLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:27, 10 March 2017 (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.