Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shehzad Poonawalla

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. Being borderline notable doesnt overcome arguments about tnt. Promo or upe. No objection to someone trying something better based on thorough sourcing.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Shehzad Poonawalla

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

He is a non notable politician, does not hold any constitutional post or any senior post in any political party. He is in news by making various allegations Sonia89f (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 05:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Coverage found in notable news outlets, hence meets
WP:GNG. E.g. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/absolutely-false-says-shehzad-poonawalla-after-congress-denies-links-with-cambridge-analytica/articleshow/63399805.cms https://www.indiatoday.in/india/delhi/story/shehzad-poonawalla-releases-cambridge-analytica-s-pitch-to-congress-party-1213804-2018-04-17 https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/who-is-shehzad-poonawalla-the-man-who-challenged-rahul-gandhis-candidature-for-congress-presidential-polls/953794/ https://www.news18.com/news/politics/family-ties-in-rival-parties-do-not-always-end-the-poonawalla-way-1596119.html https://www.firstpost.com/politics/shehzad-poonawalla-hits-back-at-congress-says-he-became-whistle-blower-to-reveal-rigged-party-president-election-4240253.html Ross-c (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article are more than sufficient to establish notability. Furthermore the sources found by Ross-c only strengthen the argument. Finally, nom gives no valid reasons for deletion. There's no requirement that an article subject "hold any constitutional post or any senior post in any political party." Nom states that "He is in news by making various allegations" as if this disqualifies him from having an article. In fact, it does not. In fact, it qualifies him. Just edit the claim a little: "He is in news." By nom's own admission, therefore, he's notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In real life, I have been in the news too. But did it make me notable? Not at all. The Banner talk 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy Delete The article is essentially promotion for him. I suggest G11,if any other admin agrees with me. Notability is a relatively minor consideration here--the relevant basic policy is NOT ADVOCACY. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article. No evidence of any notability, as there is no evidence in the article that he was successful in any of the cases he brought to court. The Banner talk 07:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nom has
canvassed admins to this discussion czar 23:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

UTC)

I have made some limited neutral post seeking opinion of admins. Notification is polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and to find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. Sonia89f (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - my vote above stands. If the article is promotional, then
WP:SOFIXIT. Ross-c (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In that case: please fix it. The Banner talk 07:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ross-c. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is marginal at best, while the article is a highly promotional form of
WP:ADVOCACY. Likely UPE / COI-based editing based on behavioural evidence. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete looks promtional to me, and fails
WP:GNG.Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral there's certainly a ton of coverage on him from Indian newspapers, mostly for his challenging of his political party's nomination of a relative of Gandhi. He also appears on television, and a search brings up article after article with his name in it. I don't have any problems with blanking the article as it stands as there are a ton of problems with it. I also have no idea how to gauge notability in this instance due to general unfamiliarity with Indian politics. I think it's closer than the delete votes have given it credit for, but I am also unwilling to argue for it as a keep under
WP:GNG and due to the number of problems with the article as pointed out above, especially by DGG. SportingFlyer talk 04:31, 4 May 2018 (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.

He appears on a daily basis on national news networks reaching millions and sometimes tens of millions of viewers. His article must be kept or it shows western bias as thousands of much less significant people article remains. That is if Wikipedia's pretensions of being considered a genuine encyclopaedia has to have a modicum of credibility. Thousands of online defences are available too. If there is problem with his article, editors responsibility is to edit and modify, not recommend it for deletion. And he is a conservative, so most probably Wikipedia types don't like hi,. There is nothing wrong with it, but that she not a criterion for non inclusion or deletion. And even if he is an agitator or flame thrower, that is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.218.27 (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]