Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwin Madia (3rd 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 delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Madia

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

This article appears to be a promotional vanity article. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate and beyond politics, fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG. Reads like a press release. His military service does not rise to a level of notability; he ran for public office and lost. Just nothing notable enough. Trivial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; very much a press release.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a losing candidate for Congress with no other notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last discussion was based on a flawed understanding of the guidelines of notability for politicians. Candidates for political office are not counted as "local politicians". Instead they need to pass very high muster of non-routine coverage. That is just not reached in Madia's case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in elections, but this doesn't make any proper claim that he's notable for anything else — the few sources here that exist outside the context of his election campaign itself comprise two namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things and one piece in which he's the bylined author rather than the subject. This is not how you demonstrate or source a person as notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (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.