- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- J. Sivaneswaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG and NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Data is correct only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneswarapandian (talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. Poor sources with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly all the reference added. Will add few reference Vigneswarapandian (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but the article is referenced entirely to a mixture of run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of his non-winning campaigns and primary sourcing that does not support notability at all, so nothing else here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides non-winning candidacies at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Data is correct and accurate. All information are true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F4:102B:A92B:6591:BAC2:2B96:3244 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting that the article is "correct and accurate" is not sufficient. The article doesn't just have to be accurate, it also has to be (a) supported by WP:GNG-worthy referencing that verifies its accuracy, and (b) meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (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.