Deletion of P.K. Firos

Comment: u|Kashmorwiki}} - take https://www.ibc24.in/news/Case-registered-against-two-leaders-over-embezzlement-of-deposit-fund-to-help-kathua-victims-family-140192 for example. This is clearly a) non-trivial mention - PK Firos is the main subject of the article (along with another IUML leader), b) reliable secondary source - IBC24 is a mainstream news outlet, c) independent from the subject - yup. There is absolutely no policy stating that only hagiographic works should be accepted in assessing . A person who is the subject of multiple articles across multiple medias can definitely pass 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: Subject has not held any role that would confer an automatic presumption of notability just because he exists, and the article is still referenced to a mixture of |primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, with short blurbs and glancing namechecks of his existence within articles that aren't ''about him'' for the purposes of getting him over , which is not the kind of sourcing we're looking for. GNG is ''not'' just "count the number of webpages that can be found with his name in them, and keep him if he surpasses an arbitrary number" — it tests sources for their type, their depth, their geographic range and the ''context'' of what they're covering the person ''for'', and ''not'' every possible "source" is necessarily always a ''notability-building'' source
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:GNG)

Comment: whilst PK Firos might not currently hold any public office to give automatic pass per , there is definitely  to pass  by any standards. In regards to PK Firos, there are plenty of articles in mainstream media on him, articles about the various scandals and disputes he's involved in and his election campaign (currently ongoing) has high public profile (have a look for example at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQF05durpoM ). In fact even in the last 24h there are multiple news stories on him in relation to the latest Supreme Court ruling. To recap, per , "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," below a selection, by no means exhaustive, which illustrates that such coverage exists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: If being Very Badly Written were a deletion reason, this article would certainly qualify. Now it has to do with qualifying for deletion only on notability grounds: I can't see a single thing that even suggest notability. Fails  / 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: I know it is , and my purpose in referencing it is in the context of this discussion, e.g. {{tq|That guy wants to help me get the article kept}}. I am hoping that you or someone else can point to  coverage that {{tq|contains an author's ''analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis'' of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources,}} because per , {{tq|Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability}}. The https://malayalam.oneindia.com/news/malappuram/deepika-singh-rajawat-arrived-tanur-for-road-show-with-pk-firos-in-kerala-assembly-election-2021/articlecontent-pf442787-286076.html first source does not appear to have much depth - it mentions allegations, that they are denied, and that Firoz has a lawyer, and this is reported in the context of an election. The https://www.ibc24.in/news/Case-registered-against-two-leaders-over-embezzlement-of-deposit-fund-to-help-kathua-victims-family-140192 second source (translated title: Case filed against two leaders for embezzling deposit funds to help Kathua victim's family) appears to be a video that I cannot access, but based on the title, may be routine reporting, similar to the https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/kerala/misappropriation-of-kathua-unnao-fund-youth-league-s-pk-firoz-faces-allegation-1.5405712 third source. My own research has not turned up secondary coverage, but it has been a more limited review than what has been documented above
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ONLYESSAY||WP:SECONDARY||WP:PSTS)