Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Rajendrababu

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 redirect to Kollam Municipal Corporation. There seems to be consensus that this Mayor is not notable. Redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. Rajendrababu

V. Rajendrababu (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)

The only claim is mayor of Kollam which is not enough for her passing notability guideline. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what forced you to do all these things spontaneously. Such a massive activity! Anyway I wish to help you by giving a big list to continue.

• Category:Mayors of Thrissur - Full list of articles can be deleted as they all contain only "Mayor" info, nothing other than that
• Category:Mayors of Mumbai - Most of the articles contain only "Mayor of Mumbai" info
• Category:Mayors of Delhi - Most of the articles contain only "Mayor of Delhi" info

Expecting the same from your side after reviewing all these articles.

Arunvrparavur (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. I agree that the nomination is failing to make accurate points. Orientls (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: Can you explain how does the article meet WP:GNG, please?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NPOL since the subject has never won any national or state level elections. just being a mayor does not entitle the subject to get an article. DBigXrayᗙ 06:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while the article is a bare minimum. His policies in the post of mayor of Kollam however receive regular coverage from major news agencies which should pass him for WP:NPOL.^[1][2][3] Tayi Arajakate (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tayi Arajakate, Thanks for participating. I have reviewed all these 3 articles, and found that none of these 3 articles are covering the subject. They are routine articles about the work of Municipal corporation with minor passing mention of the mayor or his statement as its office bearer. so these sources does not meet WP:GNG. DBigXrayᗙ 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the articles are policies implemented of the Kollam Municipal Corporation of which he is the executive head. The mentions are attributable in nature. Tayi Arajakate (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayi Arajakate, but we need articles with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and not passing mentions or one liners. DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mayors are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, but the article is not sourced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2. The notability test for mayors is not that their name gets mentioned in the routinely expected local coverage of local politics — they have to be the subject of a significant volume of sourcing, not just a name that shows up in some news articles, to get over the bar. But conversely, just because you can show a small blip of coverage about him specifically in the context of his initial selection as mayor doesn't get him over the bar either, if you can't show sustained coverage about his work in the mayor's chair. That's not how notability works when it comes to mayors: we're looking for substantive content about his political significance, not just technical verification that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the proposition that the elected executive of a city of more than 300,000 people would not have received any significant media coverage is, on its face, highly implausible. Nobody has suggested how such an unusual situation might have come about, and per Tayi Arajakate, there seems to in fact be ample coverage even in English-language sources alone. The Malayalam version of this article has attracted 6 references (all of which are also conveniently in English). No BLP issue is apparent. The arguments for deletion appear to be classic examples of reading policy upside-down; the fact that someone does not qualify for a presumption of notability does not mean, and has never meant, that an article about them is presumed deletable. The idea that articles about what a person does as mayor do not qualify as "significant" because they are only about the person's actions rather than the person in themselves is bizarre sophistry. -- Visviva (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia does not keep articles just because we assume that better sources probably exist than anybody has actually deigned to locate — while it's true that a poorly sourced article can be kept if better sources can be found, we only consider the sources that are shown to exist, not sources that are merely speculated about.

And secondly, saying that "the idea that articles about what a person does as mayor do not qualify as "significant" because they are only about the person's actions rather than the person in themselves is bizarre sophistry" is not a mic drop — you're literally arguing against a strawman with that one, because literally nobody even said that in the first place. The three sources shown above are about neither "him as a person" nor "his actions", but just mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about other people, which is not the same thing as sources that are about him — and the sources present in the article just offer cursory verification that he exists, which is not the same thing as sources that cover his mayoralty in a sustained way. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is a marginal case. We tend to keep mayors of cities over 1 million, or state capitals, automatically. For cities of 250,000 or less, we tend to delete pages about their mayors. What do Indian Wikipedians think? Bearian (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearian, considering the Indian population (1.3 billion) we would need to be far more stricter in our criteria for Indian mayors as compared to the one used in other cities. This city currently has a population of 0.3 million which is less than 1 million. So this clearly fails. DBigXrayᗙ 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to a suitable article about the municipal corporation should be good here. Mayors in India are generally heads of the municipal corporation body. This is important information to keep, but not necessarily as a standalone article. May I suggest to redirect this article to a page about the Kollam Municipal Corporation?--DreamLinker (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Kollam Municipal Corporation, per DreamLinker's proposal. There is no sign of significant coverage so he does not pass WP:GNG, and he also has not won any state-level elections, so he fails WP:NPOL. The article seems unlikely to grow beyond a stub, and the information could easily by included in the "Mayors" section of the Kollam Municipal Corporation-article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2020 (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.