Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isudan Gadhvi (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. North America1000 09:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isudan Gadhvi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Isudan Gadhvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating the article for deletion because this previous discussion seemed me controversial - There was 7 keep votes in the article but first vote was from the user who created the article, second vote was from a sock puppet, third vote was from an IP address, forth vote was again from a sock puppet, which means there was 3 good keep votes and 3 delete votes in the discussion.

And, I think he fails WP:NPOL because he was only a candidate in Chief Minister election. He was also a candidate for 2022 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election from Khambhalia Assembly constituency which he lost. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The basic criteria has already been established in the previous nomination. The wide and extensive coverage the subject received should leave no doubt.
No need to go over this again. Please recheck WP:NBASIC which states:
"People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". Krayon95 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Krayon95 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I have no opinion on the article but LordVoldemort728, please do not relist an article until after seven days since it has been nominated per WP:RELIST, which states that However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus. Additionally, given that you are the nominator you should not be deciding when to relist, which would be best left for uninvolved admins. Thank you for your continued contributions. VickKiang (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LordVoldemort728, VickKiang is absolutely correct, a deletion discussion is relisted after a week if there is no consensus and this one has only been open several days. And as the nominator of this article, it is not your place to relist the discussion (or close it). Please do not do this again in the future or it could be considered disruptive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will not do this again. I don't know about this rule. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LordVoldemort728: Even though you worded it neutrally, inviting other editors should generally be avoided, as it can be considered as WP:CANVASSING. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a Chief Minister 'Candidate' does not pass WP:NPOL, there are hundreds of parties in India and every party announces their CM Candidate. He has News because he is associated with a party which formed govt. in a state recently. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Misterrrrr (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination misunderstands that AfD is not a vote. The admin (78.26) close of the previous discussion clearly recognised some of the keep !votes were weak but noted "three unchallenged sources from the most recent argument demonstrating GNG is met". To repeat my contribution: "reliable sourcing clearly available (eg BBC Hindi, The Print, The Hindu)". This nomination borders on disruption. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The third source is a press release. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a press release, it's The Hindu carrying a Press Trust of India report. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep there is no need to pass WP:NPOL if the subject passes WP:GNG. A lot of the coverage stems from subject being candidate for chief minister, and later because of becoming state head of a political party. But like discussed in the previous AfD, subject was receiving coverage before these two events. The subject still receives coverage outside of these events. More coverage can be found in Gujarati language sources if you use Gujarati script: ઇશુદાન ગઢવી. If we apply the same logic of failing NPOL to Rakhi Sawant, we will have to take her article to AfD too, as she contested 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and received 15 votes. In short, she fails NPOL too. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC Hindi and The Print articles in Goldsztajn's comment and BBC Gujarati, Rediff, The Quint, The Indian Express are in-depth articles on him. I'd say The Hindu's PTI report is not an in-depth one. Also, just a note, these articles are published in the context of the election and him being CM candidate despite him being a "popular TV reporter" WP:1E WP:BLP1E. [Perhaps there are sources from that period in Gujarati[?] and thus would be out of my reach.] Those articles still count towards GNG as they are in-depth. There is also a sustained coverage on him, ex: TIE and The Hindu. Altogether, he has notability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Amend: Revisiting those two stricken off, I see he has sporadic coverage in 2021 and early 2022 and only in limelight since November 2022. Still the in-depth coverage attains him notability 22:11, 29 January 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isudan_Gadhvi_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136855608"