Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tej Ram Bagha

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. postdlf (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Ram Bagha (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)

Per WP:NPOL and longstanding consensus at AFD, Wikipedia does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on the mayors of individual boroughs within London, nor indeed on the mayors of any place where the mayoralty is a ceremonial post that rotates among councillors rather than being directly elected by the voting public. Accordingly, this mayor's chances of qualifying for a Wikipedia article rely entirely on being able to satisfy WP:GNG — but of the three sources here, #1 is a WordPress blog (an unreliable source); #2 is a single passing acknowledgement of his existence in an article about a local youth public speaking competition (not substantive coverage of him); and #3 is the borough's own website (a primary source). All of which means that GNG has not been fulfilled here. Delete unless a much bigger and better volume of reliable sourcing can be located than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2015 (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.