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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prasun Kumar (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)

PROMO PUFF piece with lot of weasel words and conferred notability ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Leader of a youth thing and a covid liberator are not notable, I'm not even sure what either of those is. Delete for not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the available news articles and the subject's work, I found this topic noteworthy. Passes WP:GNG. GM Nova (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why does it meet notability guidelines though? That's what we're discussing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, and changed my vote to Delete. For now the person is not notable and does not meet WP:NPOL. GM Nova (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under any of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability criteria, but the depth and volume of referencing is nowhere near what it would take to earn him notability of the "media coverage exists = WP:GNG pass" variety (which is not just automatically extended to just everybody who can show a small handful of local-interest coverage in run of the mill contexts). Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO per above. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  21:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The March 2023 NDTV piece is clearly SIGCOV and contains multiple paragrahps about the subject's role in the emergence of a state party with national implications and provides details of his personal history. However, the pieces in Hindi and Telegu are essentially rehashes of the NDTV article and the piece on COVID appears to be churnalism with a tag indicating the site assumes no responsibility for content. My searches find no further sources that would lead to passing the GNG threshold. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2023 (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.