Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juned Mohmed Patel


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ as lacking multiple sources which provide significant coverage of the subject.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 07:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Juned Mohmed Patel

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject seems to be related to a few notable politicians, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL himself, and notability is not inherited. PROD was contested. Recommend Delete -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India,  and Gujarat. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He had served with state wide office and refrence of organisation website put there. So that he set in WP: POLITICIAN category.He is from Dynasty politically family and have enough Media refrence to prove notable. He is also family member of MLA Ibrahim Ali Patel BootTPP (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD on how to vote in an AfD. But, since you haven't voted, let me point you to WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, to meet WP:NPOL, a subject needs to be an MLA, at minimum, themselves. Failing that, you'll have to show that the subject meets the General Notability guidelines, which require multiple, independent, reliable sources which talk about the subject in-depth. Hope that helps. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN set here. He is Authentic, Dynasty Politician belongs from the well-known Political families of Gujarat BootTPP (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: without engaging in an evaluation of WP:POLITICIAN, SIGCOV is met based on a collective assessment of references [5] - [10]. Notable Jack4576 (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that what does and does not constitute significant coverage can be hazy sometimes, but this and this are so obviously not sigcov that I seriously had to question whether we were looking at the same news articles. Curbon7 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of them can fairly be said to be SIGCOV, my assessment was collective. Acknowledged that those ones you've linked are mere quotes and / or passing reference Jack4576 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sigh, why is my name at the top of this article. Has previously existed in draftspace-hell at Draft:Juned Patel before being cut-and-paste moved to mainspace. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, this has previously been deleted: Articles for deletion/Juned Patel. Curbon7 (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that time he had not enough refrence.Currently he have.see he have references like Rajasthan Patrika Ahmedabad mirror, Dainik Bhaskar, quint Hindi etc... BootTPP (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep : his refrence, his privious offices and Media coverage and organisations show's. enough. BootTPP (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: First-and-foremost, this reeks of clear WP:COI editing. An SPA whose only edits in all 6 months they've been here is to this article/draft. As for the sources themselves: 1 is clearly not reliable, 2 is just an organization leadership page, AGF on 3 and 4 due to the language but they're very short so I don't imagine they say much, 5 6 and 7 are just the same short quote repackaged, again AGF with 8 9 and 10 due to language but they are again so short I don't imagine there is much in the way of significant coverage. This "article" is just a vanity project to promote the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You told about refrence 3,4,8,9,10 are short.for your info sentence word's matter. Obove mentioned other languages reference that are reputed media in Gujarat. BootTPP (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the Google Lens app to translate the non-Eng sources; 3 is just a very short sentence that he received congratulation for getting a position (not sigcov), 4 is a statement by him advocating against child labor (not sigcov), and 8, 9, and 10 are just short quotes from him advocating for various political positions in his capacity as a party official. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend Salting of this title and Juned Patel by the way. The socking surrounding this subject is really becoming frustrating. Curbon7 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I just noticed that Juned Patel has already been salted for two years. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is clear sockpuppetry in the history of the deleted contributions on Draft:Juned Patel and so I've blocked this user along with a few others. Sockpuppet investigations/Sadupatel looks to be the account based on that history. Izno (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep  Juned Mohmed Patel is Authentic Dynasty Politician. His organisation website and organisation side refrences shows enough. I can't understand why Wikipedia's writer removing Congress party leader's Wikipedia article.In Last 2 months they Removed article of aiswarya Mahadev, saral Patel (hi) ,and others and currently Juned Patel.All those are National and state's reputed and Notable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.6.10 (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)  — 103.247.6.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep  Juned Patel is Authentic Notable Politician and reference of Rajasthan Patrika, Ahmedabad Mirror, Vatsalya News, organisation website show authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.96.92 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)  — 106.216.96.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep  : Juned Patel have State Office and Dynasty Politician relative of MLA Ibrahim Ali Patel. Refrence of organisation website and other news of department side shows also authentic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.247.54.51 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)  — 103.247.54.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Given this attempt to subvert the discussion process, I suggest this IP's not-vote is appropriately discounted by the closing admin. Grachester (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Subject is a public spokesperson, sources in article are mainly statemetns made by subject in interviews, nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. Additionally their is a self published bio, and routine news announcements. Source eval by Curbon7 and BEFORE done by others above show nothing, and the keep votes present nothing that meets SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Tossing out the sockpuppet Keeps, the only basis for keeping advanced is a "collective assessment" based on sources the editor concedes are not in of themselves SIGCOV. This is an argument for 0+0+0+0+0=53, and plays no part in any notability criterion.  This is a plain GNG failure.   Ravenswing      01:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * actually its an argument that: 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 + 0.25 = 1
 * and it is an argument compatible with SIGCOV policy, as written Jack4576 (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NPOL, he's not elected to any post but just nominated in some inter-state party posts. Moreover, he is not connected with Ruling party of the state. Other than this, people here are continuously adding comments and i can see Jack4576 writers than 0.25 four times make 1, but you should have an Notable subject to say this. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – the sources in the article are not impressive at all. Translating their content, all I can see is non-notable statements, and a Google search reveals no reliable, independent, SIGCOV sources. And again to Jack, SIGCOV is not determined collectively. SIGCOV source = 1, while a non-SIGCOV source = 0. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 05:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You have yet to substantiate your bare assertion that SIGCOV cannot be established by an evaluation of multiple sources in combination; with any reference to policy. Yet you repeat the mantra constantly. Jack4576 (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2023 (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.