Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjay Awasthy (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Awasthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I was the closing admin for a very recently-closed AfD on Sanjay Awasthy. The consensus of that discussion was to delete the article. However, the previous AfD appears to have taken place in the midst of a political election in India, which Awasthy appears to have won shortly after the prior AfD closed. Therefore, while this is admittedly somewhat unusual, I've decided that the best course of action is to start another procedural AfD to discuss the fate of this article, in light of this new information. My hope is that AfD participants can discuss whether or not the results of this recent election provide sufficient notability for Awasthy to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't have any personal opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I assume that Scottywong is doing this out of an abundance of caution. Awasthy now passes WP:NPOL after winning the bye-election yesterday. He is now a member of a legislative body (Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly), in a country that has a federal system of government. He still doesn't pass WP:CRIN, but that doesn't matter. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's unusual for an AfD to have strong consensus to delete, and then the subject of that AfD suddenly becomes notable a day or two later, and the article is re-created. I think it's worthwhile to have a discussion to ensure that the new consensus is indeed that this article should be kept. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It is unusual to nominate a long existing article after the subject becomes a candidate for state election. I question the wisdom of the admin in deleting the article on the day of election results, when the subject is in current news, despite multiple participants including me asking for relist (hold). And then starting an AfD when the subject has clearly passed Wikipedia notability criteria. These are what I call unusual. Venkat TL (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you on the need for a 2nd discussion, if only so that future editors aren't left scratching their heads about the oddity. -MPGuy2824 (talk)

  I dont think anyone would nominate it after he became an MLA. --Venkat TL (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has won the state legislative assembly elections so now he passes WP:NPOL. Agree with MPGuy2824. Venkat TL (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Procedural nomination as the subject now passes WP:NPOL. It's humorous that he became notable only a few days after clear consensus for delete. Curbon7 (talk) 05:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing funny. The first nomination was inappropriate, since it was not a recently created article. Venkat TL (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject was definitively non-notable, as proved by consensus, until a little bit ago. This is just procedural, it's an obvious keep now. Curbon7 (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, you are right, it was non notable to begin with. But once the election was announced, the first nom and the subsequent deletion could have waited. All in all the wrongly timed AfD was a waste of everyone's time. Venkat TL (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per his political success now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shouldn't have been deleted first time around, but given his political success now, there is no questioning his notability. StickyWicket (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:NPOL. No prejudices because it was deleted in past. Having pages of politicians who haven't won is unusual because most of their sources are marketing propagandas. If WP:NPOL won't be granting an automatic notability to elected politicians, many of those politicians might fail WP:GNG! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SNOW; or, to quote Blur: "there's no other way" Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:45, 4 November 2021 (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.