Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priya Bhat-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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Priya Bhat-Patel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Council member of a small American city, and "currently running for the California State Senate". Typical local coverage. I was unable to find any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Too soon per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being the first Indian-American woman to be elected to a city council in San Diego is certainly significant, and I think she gets past GNG, with multiple reliable sources in the article currently that have significant coverage about her. Not meeting WP:NPOL doesn't guarantee that she's not notable, it only means she's not automatically notable. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be precise, she's not the first woman elected to a city council in San Diego. She's the first Indian-American woman elected to a city council in San Diego County, California, specifically in the city of Carlsbad. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, I meant to include "Indian-American", and forgot to - I've updated the comment. That being said, San Diego County is a very large place, and that's still a significant achievement in my view. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 17:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * KeepPer the references in the page, there are secondary sources and media coverage which would meet the requirements of notability. I'd like to also add that not only is Priya notable for her role as being the first Indian-American women elected in the county of San Diego, Priya is the Council member for Carlsbad which is one of the largest cities in San Diego County. These two reasons I feel make her a notable person. Spacemars88 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep According to the deletion guide for Local politicians, they "are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits." Being the first Indian American person to be elected to city council in San Diego County is an incredible achievement given that this county is a population of 3.338 million people . It makes it California's second-most populous county and the fifth-most populous in the entire United States. Additionally, she was voted the Deputy Mayor of Carlsbad in 2019, meaning on occasion she would preside as the acting mayor in cases when the Mayor would not be able to be present. This additional rank must be seen as another achievement adding to her notability. Bhat-Patel, being evaluated on her own merits and given the multiple sources and news articles featuring her, including one by the national organization, Run for Something leads me to believe that she most certainly meets the standards of notability. I appreciate that the subjective nature of notability pushes some to vote in the negative, but in this particular case, I would be astonished to see the page deleted. Thank you. Kyotobali —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This takes first x to do y to a new extreme. In this case we are going down to the county level to see the first, that is an invitation to madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In what way does she not meet GNG, irrespective of how you might feel about "first x to do y" articles? Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 19:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that she is the first Indian American women to get elected in a regional area (which is one of the largest in the United States) is a big deal. Spacemars88 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be a big deal if it had made her the first Indian American woman to get elected in the entire United States. But since every town, city or county on earth is always going to have several of its own local "first [woman, person of colour, LGBTQ, person who's more than one of those things at once, etc.] to do this not nationally significant thing around here", thus adding up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of such people, that's not a thing that gets all of them into Wikipedia. A person has to be able to claim that their "first X" status has national significance, not just local significance within their own hometown, before it becomes a valid reason for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any policy that requires national significance - regional significance, yes, but not national. National significance is a fundamentally meaningless bar, and I'm strongly opposed to limiting Wikipedia articles to only what's picked up on in national press - not least because countries and borders change, and what was a region one day might be a nation the next! I'm minded to think we should examine articles on their merits, not based solely on where coverage about them has been published. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 11:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete- Surprisingly (as I think I've heard of her and started out thinking I would vote Keep) I couldn't find any actual WP:SIGCOV of her. Simply quotes from her, reports on which way she voted on a certain issue (where the issue, not her vote, is the focus of the story) and so-forth. The coverage is all incidental mentions in local papers. FOARP (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * EDIT: flipping to neutral. I'm still not sure that this is a notable subject (I think maybe you can argue either way based on WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL as she meets the first but fails the second) but WP:AUD doesn't apply to WP:BLP articles so I'm not going to hold the fact that the coverage only appears to have been local against this article.FOARP (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * These two at a very minimum meet SIGCOV for sure - the second article is entirely about her :p Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think both of these possibly fail WP:AUD, and the first ref is a listicle - possibly indiscriminate listing. FOARP (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of them are San Diego-wide - bearing in mind that the county of San Diego has a comparable surface area to Qatar, and a greater population than Qatar, Lithuania or Jamaica - and I don't think it's fair to call the first "indiscriminate listing", either - the list is accompanied by a pretty substantial collection of paragraphs about her. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I actually agree with you that WP:AUD makes little sense since "local" media (e.g., the New York Post) can often cover a much larger audience than "national" media (e.g., the Malta Times). I even raised an RFC pointing this out - but the vote went firmly for keeping it as-is. It would be fair to point out that WP:AUD is a WP:CORP guideline, not a WP:BIO guideline, though. Switching my vote! to neutral. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. "First member of an underrepresented equity group to do a not inherently notable thing" is not in and of itself a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article — so being the first woman of her ethnic background to be elected to a city council in her own county, but not even close to the first in the entire United States, is not a strong notability claim. And GNG is not, and has never been, a question of just counting up the footnotes and automatically keeping anybody who can surpass an arbitrary number of them, either — every city councillor in every city on earth can always show 12 pieces of coverage in their local media, so that's not enough coverage to claim that this one has earned special treatment. GNG tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the raw number of footnotes — a city councillor in a non-metropolitan city has to show nationalizing coverage, not just local coverage, before she's "special" enough to earn more attention in Wikipedia than other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, San Diego County is one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States. Being the first member of an underrepresented community is in fact a big deal. Again this was reported by a third party here which again makes clear this importance and meets WP:SIGCOV. Spacemars88 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "First person of one particular background to do an ordinarily notable thing in [one of the largest metropolitan areas in] the United States" still is not an article-clinching notability claim. I'll give you a hint: to make it an article-clinching notability claim, you would have to strike everything I wrapped in brackets, and what's left (first person to do that thing in the entire United States) would still have to be true. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, San Diego County is comparable in size and population to a lot of small countries, and this is county-wide press. Unless we're arguing that covering those countries is regionalism, I don't see how this is. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The notability test is not whether the area is "comparable" to a country or not. Our notability standards for politicians have nothing to do with how many voters are served by the political body that the person sits on — they require nationalized significance period, and don't care about the population of said nation or component parts of it per se. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Carlsbad is not a large enough city to get its councilpeople over the WP:NPOL threshold (which requires a showing of more than just "this person served on a local council"), and this also fails WP:PROMO as US campaign spam - it's written incredibly promotionally. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not meeting WP:NPOL isn't a guarantee that someone lacks notability; rather, it's saying that they aren't automatically notable by virtue of their political status. A local councilperson in Carlsbad is not automatically notable, this is true, but one can be so long as they pass WP:GNG - which I'm yet to see anyone successfully argue that Bhat-Patel doesn't. As to the way it's written... well, WP:SOFIXIT. I don't think it's TNTably bad. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 08:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it means that they're not presumptively notable. We also have a general local consensus that councilpersons who receive only local coverage are not notable, and that persons who are unelected candidates for political office are not notable, unless their campaign has achieved some level of notability above and beyond what is usual, since most unelected candidates sink back into obscurity after an election. There is no coverage in the article that's not routine Carlsbad city council coverage, and there's certainly nothing showing that she's notable through receiving coverage above and beyond what any city councillor would receive - if we assumed this level of coverage, all city councillors everywhere would be notable. Furthermore, the creation, timing, and content of this article clearly seems to violate WP:NOT, which trumps WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a slight absurdity to be discussing the timing of the creation of an article in an AfD, I have to say - we're talking about content here, not about anything to the periphery of that. I also don't follow how San Diego county-wide press, which - again, as mentioned further up the discussion - is of comparable or greater size than a fair few entire countries, can be regarded as "routine local coverage". If it was city press, I'd agree, but across an area that wide, it's significant and notable, in my view. Maybe this is skewed by being a Brit and thus not really knowing what counts as "local" in America, but that does not strike me as "local" press in any sense of the word. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 19:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's absurd at all - every couple years, we get articles for candidates who are running for US office but who aren't otherwise notable. This one raised my eyebrows for including op-eds and a few statements from her own personal website. Furthermore, a councillor for a local council who gets discussed in a London publication wouldn't necessarily be notable either, even though London is four times the size of the San Diego county - otherwise all councillors who received routine press coverage in London would be notable, and that's typically not how we've decided things. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The county is 7.5x bigger in terms of area when compared to London, but using the example of London, I wouldn't be supporting keeping an article that has sources only from my London borough. If, however, the article was sourced by such publications as the London Evening Standard and the London Metro, then I would be in favour of keeping it - because that's significant coverage over a much broader region, covering plenty of people who'd never have heard of the councillor, much less voted for them.I suppose thinking about it further, the test I'd sort of end up applying is "is this something I'd think 'oh, them appearing again' about?" - and here, it isn't, much like hearing about a local councillor in the Evening Standard wouldn't be. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 20:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that standard is anywhere close to met, though - the coverage on her is pretty specifically limited to her own council. The coverage she's received would be analogous to if the Evening Telegraph had local reporters covering each council. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to highlight that the notability here has nothing to do with her being a council member hence WP:NPOL does not apply. Her notability comes from the fact that she is the first Indian American women to be elected to a political office in the county of San Diego, which again is a very major metropolitan region of the United States. I would think that being the first Indian American women to be elected in a region which is larger then many countries (which has been mentioned by others) is a big deal, just like if she were to be the first African American women, or LGBT women elected. Spacemars88 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem there: Wikipedia notability is based on what others have said about you. The only source which discusses her being the first is the San Diego Magazine, which is a blurb amongst 15 other women which includes the first female advanced sommelier in San Diego and first person to surpass 167mph on a bicycle, none of which would lend notability on her own. None of the routine city council coverage discuss her as the first, and only one of the articles even notes her ethnicity. SportingFlyer  T · C  06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And has already been pointed out several times above, "first person with her particular combination of gender and ethnic identities to hold political office at the municipal level in her own county" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia. If she had been the first Indian American woman to hold political office in the entire United States, there would be a valid notability claim — but if she can only claim to be the first in her own county, then that doesn't make her nationally significant regardless of whether the county is a "major metropolitan area" or not. Every single county in the United States has had or will have literally dozens of people who can claim to have been the first X, Y, Z and/or X+Y+Z to do an otherwise non-notable thing within that county — but if they can't credibly claim that their significance goes national, then they're not automatically of interest to Wikipedia just because the article has the word "first" in it. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify All local content that does not show notability rising above that of a generic council member for a smaller city. Sources are routine local coverage or non-independent. It's a bit early for 2022 campaign content, likely to be several candidates in that race, but perhaps maintain the content if she wins. Her status as a first is likewise only local and not even mayors of the city are notable. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again notability does not come from the fact that she is a council member, that can be agreed. Notability comes from the fact that she is the first Indian American women to be elected to a political office in the county of San Diego which is a metropolitan region in the United States bigger than many countries. And this fact is echoed by various regional and national organizations such as this and this Spacemars88 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There are a whole lot of potential firsts out there and they don’t all get articles for it. First Japanese-American mayor in Santa Clara County, first gay sheriff in San Bernardino County, first Iranian-American councilmember in Los Angeles County, first female Iranian-American councilmember in Los Angeles County, first African-American county treasurer, yadda yadda yadda, mix and match gender, background, location, etc as you will. Notability is not derived from being a specific combination of things; for political figures it is from holding significant office because it is neither feasible nor desirable to have articles on the hundreds of thousands of people who have held local office across the country, many of which were some sort of goalpost-shifting first (how many Indian American men and women have held some sort of office elsewhere? How many other minorities have been elected to something in SD County?). Reywas92Talk 08:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's the point here, though. There is significant media coverage here talking about this person - it just so happens that one of the bits of coverage is for that first. Media coverage does not become insignificant just because it's talking about someone having been the first x to do y, it's still just as valid as any other coverage. And again, significant office is for automatic notability - the mere fact that an officeholder does not meet that standard does not in any way mean that they are not notable per GNG. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've discussed above, only one source (which is mostly an interview) specifically mentions that about her, and it also mentions 15 other firsts for local women in San Diego, including the first woman to travel more than xkph on a bicycle. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:24, 2 June 2020 (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.