Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puran Gurung

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 per WP:CSD#A7. This shouldn't have gone to AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puran Gurung

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

Copy editing doesn't generally lead to anyone knowing about you outside of your job environment, and, indeed, I find no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing to indicate that this person is notable. PamD 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article too short--27century (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. because there is no indication of significance. Copyeditor at a newspaper is very rarely a notable post wand would extraordinarily strong evidenceto be convincing. The A7 on this should not have been removed. (though of course shortness of an article is irrelevant if what is there does show notability ) DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A7. "Copy editor" is a job, not a credible claim of significance. VQuakr (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a local news editor, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:07, 8 March 2016 (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.