Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The page creator might be a sockpuppet but the accounts were just blocked today so there was no block evasion occurring so this article is not eligible for CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta
AfDs for this article:


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

Seems to fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Never been elected and referencing is very poor for a WP:BLP. He is a son of notable politician, but notability isn't inherited.  scope_creep Talk  07:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India,  and Gujarat.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The article easily qualifies for the WP:GNG . The author has given 30+ genuine references and 5+ independent and established news agency articles. For the deletion request starter please note that the person is not claimed to be a politician but an activist, so it does not need to qualify WP:NPOL.Jatin1219 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Quantity is never really a thing. What is the top three references per WP:THREE that proves he is notable. It states in the lead and has a load of election results listing in a BLP, so WP:NPOL applies. Also he doesn't seem to be activist either. It says he is an activist, but there is not a section on his activism. It is super tenuous.  It has also been previously deleted due to lack of coverage. and having done a WP:BEFORE I couldn't see anything of note. So where is WP:THREE that prove he is notable?    scope_creep Talk  07:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep please read the page carefully, without even trying hard i can find three reliable and independent references qualifying WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV . Take a look at these  , here is also a bonus one for you.
 * I think you are having confusion because of the nature of the article, it is an activist page and that too an election contesting activist . These type of pages are quite rare, I can help you with these type of articles in future too, if you need then you can just mail me before directly initiating a WP:AFD as some might consider it violation of WP:NOBITING . Better safe then sorry.
 * Have a good day ahead Jatin1219 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Scope creep, I have added activism section now, please check it.
 * Subject has many such reliable sources through which it is proved that the subject is a notable person being an activist, such as
 * This source https://ahmedabadmirror.com/fight-for-recall-right/37560635.html is published by a notable media group, which tells how activism was started by the subject, which is completely Based on independent research.
 * This source https://ahmedabadmirror.com/right-to-recall-activist-spurred-by-annas-win/36616620.html demonstrates how the subject contributed to a national movement and it is written independently and researched by a notable source.
 * Similarly, the information given in this https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/an-ad-calls-out-for-action-against-evms source is also written on the basis of an independent research, which gives recognition to the subject as a notable person. This source is not an advertisement, but it is an original research done by Notable Media Group.
 * Similarly, the allegations made on the subject in this source https://archive.org/details/gujrat-sandesh-20-nov-2015 are original research done by a Notable Media Group. It proves the subject notable.
 * Now this source https://www.aajtak.in/education/story/from-all-over-india-farmers-and-these-groups-are-raising-issue-of-back-to-ballot-tedu-668758-2019-07-15 is also an independent research by a notable media.
 * This source https://www.thequint.com/news/india/only-19-parties-received-money-from-electoral-bonds-bjp-got-68-investigation-bjp-reporters-collective-supreme-court-105-parties also proves subjects notability.
 * Now if you declare all the sources as press release or advertisement, then I would like to know the reason from you that what have you seen in the given sources that you are calling them as press release or advertisement . For your information, let me tell you that all the sources given are considered remarkable in the view of Wikipedia. Rejecting the articles published by them as original research by calling them press releases raises a question mark on the notability of those media groups which have been considered notable by Wikipedia many years ago, which is a surprising thing. Therefore, I request you to review all the sources given by me.  Info.apsharma (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of your sources aren't considered reliable here . He's got tons of coverage, but next to nothing in sources we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment of the four sources linked above, the first is simply repetition of an advertisement placed by the subject of the article, the second is almost entirely quotes from a press relase, the third is marginally passable, the fourth lacks a byline and appears to be a press release. It's possible that the subject passes the GNG, but the sources cited here are not a particularly convincing demonstration of that. Also, FWIW a "genuine reference" does not equal a reliable source. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn Dude, the subject is an activist not a politician. All the given references qualifies WP:RS . Our wikipedia platform do not have detailed policy to handle the WE:NP(Activist), that's why we are having confusion here.
 * The nature of activism(especially political activism) is that they do not get many detailed biographies published for them(like politicians) but still the references given are quite good and effectively proves that the subject have received significant media coverage according to WP:SIGCOV.
 * Now you might have miscomprehend some references sources, the first reference i have highlighted is an event coverage by reliable source and it proves that the action of the subject(i.e. advertising against EVM) have gained a significant media coverage from reliable and openly verifiable media agency, the second reference too is coverage of the subject's relation with other significant and notable movement by a reliable news agency so it too easily qualifies the Wikipedia policies.
 * The third reference too is a detailed news coverage on the Subject when he partakes in election activity, it too is according to WP:RS . I think calling it "marginally passable" will make majority of other news references of same nature as "marginally passable".
 * Please note that all of the above references and other references of the article qualifies WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV . They all are writtten by independent and relaible professionals working in well established and trusted news agencies.
 * I do request you to read the article again and keep in mind that the subject is an activist that have attracted significant coverage according to WP:SIGCOV and not an politician. Also my personal view here is that I find no other reason to renominate the article forWP:AFD other then disgusting Biting the newbie habit of some people of wikipedia.
 * Have a good day ahead. Jatin1219 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of him being an activist. It is most tenuous evidence I've seen in a long time. It is a puff-piece article.   scope_creep Talk  16:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * However one classifies this person, there's no convincing sourcing on display to demonstrate satisfying the GNG. The majority of the sources in the article at present are no more than passing mentions, citations to registers/directories or self-generated. Those that are not suffer from the problems of those cited here: press releases full of direct quotes with no independent analysis. An article which regurgitates of the contents of the subject's paid for advertisement with no analysis whatsoever or counter opinion cannot be considered for the purposes of demonstrating notability.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/this-iit-graduate-makes--right-to-recall--his-poll-plank/694337/

And

https://ahmedabadmirror.com/fight-for-recall-right/37560635.html

Reference has a level of original research. WP:THREE is just a personal guideline and not a Wikipedia policy, so not all Wikipedians adhere to it.

The editor can use more reliable sources but deletion will be excessive.Oyemithoon (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 17:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete there are no Reliabe Sources talking about this person. Economic Times and the like are non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify to incubate and improve; better than just deleting the page in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Political candidates do not get articles just because they've been candidates, and I'm not convinced the small handful of articles that might confer notability are independent enough of him because they're interviews on his political positions. Not quite enough here for GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Indefensible. I agree that this is too promotional of a BLP to be in mainspace in its present form, but I am not at all convinced that it does not meet the GNG. The arguments above to that effect appear to hinge on rather questionable authority -- either an ad-hoc whitelist maintained by NPP (whose members may be surprised to discover that it does not actually have authority to set policy for the whole encyclopedia), or the mere fact that RSN discussions ended in "no consensus", as in the case of The Economic Times. A "no consensus" on a source should not be turned into a consensus to disregard it. -- Visviva (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It has already been draftified and then deleted. Its the same article with the same UPE agency team. I doubt that will make a difference in an article that has zero real sources. And drafting is not something you do when the article has previously been deleted.   scope_creep Talk  10:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll have to disagree on whether it has zero real sources, but do you have any authority for the statement that drafting is not something you do when the article has previously been deleted? I don't see anything to that effect at WP:ATD-I or WP:DRAFT. -- Visviva (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving to draft is a good middle ground in my opinion, there is a possibility the subject has enough notability already to keep the article per Visviva. There seems to be more here than some of the other stubs or articles which are more clear delete candidates. - Indefensible (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify per others. Okoslavia (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep or draftify per the above comments – a rewrite would be beneficial to make it sound less promotional but I agree that it does sound like it pass the notability standard and should not be deleted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We will take a look at the references today.   scope_creep Talk  08:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The originating editor has just be blocked for being a sockpuppet. So it is essentially the same guy that created the previous article and this article.    scope_creep Talk  15:42, 15 July 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.