Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pasha Patel (2nd 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The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pasha Patel

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

Not notable as per wp politics. Not much media coverage. Did not do anything notable either. —usernamekiran[talk] 14:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as per
WP:NPOL. See http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-maha-polls-will-this-bjp-muslim-candidate-make-history-2024523" Domdeparis (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: there are around 500 MPs per five years in india. The news he has been in, all were just before and after the elections. Each and every contestant has that enough media coverage. Nothing special.

he was never in coverage after that. Did not do anything. Niether notable nor un-notable.

the person is not notable. Ergo, he doesnt deserve an article in encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran[talk] 15:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:POLOUTCOMES Domdeparis (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep passes
WP:NPOL as a former MLC (Member of the Legislative Council). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW, instead of being bureaucratic. As of March 2017, there are 4120 members of legislative council, and around ~500 Member of Parliament. That is per five year. Pasha Patel here, is not notable at all except being a member. So the "generally" clause can be, and should be applied here. I always support for keeping articles, secondly of merging (you can see my recent contribution on AfD discussions), but Pasha Patel hasnt done anything notable, neither good stuff nor controversial. Actually, he hasnt done anything at all. —usernamekiran[talk] 17:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. The elected or appointed membership of a state or national legislature is one of those topics where Wikipedia's explicitly stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as possible a reference for all of them. We do not apply special arbitrary standards to determine that some members of the legislature are notable enough for articles while others are not; people want and need information about all members of that legislature. Yes, the article needs more substance and more sourcing than it has right now — but it doesn't require more evidence of basic notability than it already has. And the fact that this is the second time this has been tried this year alone suggests a political agenda that violates
WP:NPOV, not a serious or objective concern for Wikipedia's standards of notability. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: @Bearcat: that makes sense. And no, no political agenda here. I take back the proposal of AfD —usernamekiran[talk] 18:51, 14 April 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.