Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Bhatia


 * 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. The delete arguments are in part based on the false premise that "Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons", when that isn't the standard, coverage from reliable sources is. It doesn't matter so much what he has done, as someone else points out, but instead about how many WP:RSs talk about him. This doesn't mean what he has done is noteworthy, only that he is noteworthy for having done it, demonstrated by the briefness of the article. There have been enough sources provided just within this AFD to strengthen the arguments that this individual passes the bar of WP:GNG, giving strong credibility to the keep arguments. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Gaurav Bhatia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mere member of a party Uncletomwood (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - There are ample news articles on him. He is not a "mere" member. He was a spokesperson of Samajwadi Party. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  18:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see him meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG at this point. Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons. Vanamonde (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat alarmed to find myself on opposite sides with Vanamonde93, who is an admin from India, but I'd say the Gnews results show he does meet WP:GNG. He is or was a notable media spokesperson for the Samajwadi Party, based on the search results. Someone who would be a regular fixture on Indian TV, as this article puts it, when a major political "fire" needed to be addressed -- and someone notable. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd also disagree with "Spokespersons are not considered notable simply for being spokespersons" - they certainly can be, per Category:Press secretaries, Category:Spokespersons, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Lets not confuse "notable person who also happen to be spokesperson" and "a person whose alleged notability is being a spokesperson". I randomly checked a few in Cat:Spokespersons, and they fall in the former. Vanamonde lists some reasons. Another is the WP:SPIP guideline. Others should write about this person for who he or she is or has done, not what he or she communicates on behalf of the organization who pays him to say so on their behalf. If being a representative of another organization and spokesperson alone qualifies for notability, millions of lawyers, talk show attendants, tradeshow hosts and press reps from around the world will qualify in Cat:Spokespersons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The NDTV article I link to above states that "Bhatia... has been the SP's face on national television for many years." Uttar Pradesh is "the most populous state in the Republic of India as well as the most populous country subdivision in the world. The state, located in the northern region of the Indian subcontinent, has over 200 million inhabitants." So if NDTV is correct -- and I know no reason for it not to be -- then we're looking at notability on a massive scale. His change of parties spawned multiple news stories. And, we're not going to have articles on "millions of lawyers" and others who merely are "merely representatives" -- unless they're notable. I won't bludgeon here, I've no particular interest in keeping this, over and above the fact that he's apparently a notable Indian media and political figure, far as I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep He is notable Kvs90bc (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: as a spokesperson, he is going to get a lot of mentions of his name. It doesn't mean he has actually done anything notable, other than recite what he has been told to recite etc by the party leadership. I can't see any notability which really extends beyond the level of a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I will add that changing party allegiance is almost a rite of passage in Indian politics. It means nothing much and there are quite a few instances of people changing allegiance five or more times, and sometimes ending up back where they started. That's just the way it is. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep He is a prominent panelist in regular political news shows. He is also Secretary for Supreme Court Bar Association. Too many google results of different events to imply GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * he was also Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh until recently, which is a public office — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per Vanamonde93 and Ms Sarah Welch, who have detailed the rationale quite well.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.