Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sona 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. There were clearly editors here making an argument to Keep this article but I judge the consensus is to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Sona Patel

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

Insufficient notability based on what is essentially a single event. Fails WP:BIO in general and WP:GNG. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 01:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete so her claim to fame is as a pot doctor? For all of the six lines this article is... Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does she write for the New York Times? That's all I find for a person with her name. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The NYT writer is someone else....and a lot more notableMedGME (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine,  and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. She was making news in 2007 and I've updated the article to make that clearer. She was also previously an actor, although only primary sources confirm this. Pinging Oaktree b as my update to the article answers's their question, I hope. CT55555 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewed the sources, the Cosmo magazine article mentions her in one paragraph in passing, so it's not a good source (helps establish notability, but only to confirm her name and website). The Los Angeles Times article is solid, the LA Weekly is a few paragraphs, better than the Cosmo one. I can't open the rest of them. If you had one other source with the same quality as the LA Times, it would be a keep. It's almost there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I find this in Jezebel but it rehashes what the LA Times article is about. Seems ok, not extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ABC investigation into her work, I find significant, because it's anything but PROMO.
 * See:
 * https://abc7news.com/archive/5831969/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20170202044725/https://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/11/doc-420-the-med.html
 * CT55555 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Barely notable. She was in the news once 15 years ago.MedGME (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * *Weak keep with the new sourcing/explanation, I think it's just barely GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - In its present state, the article does not speak for itself and does not indicate why the subject is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - For the reasons offered by the nominator and by Robert. This person received about 5 minutes of fame for a single event, and it just fizzled out as nobody took an interest. I'm sure the subject thought it was cool to have their own Wikipedia article at first, but as their report at DNR suggests, I'm sure they've had time to rethink that. There is nothing good about having your own Wikipedia article and we're not doing anybody any service by keeping mediocre articles like this that will never be anything more than a stub. It leaves room for all kinds of nasty things and BLP vios to be put there when nobody is looking. (I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy.) There is no indication that this person is notable beyond that 5 minutes of fame. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Agree with the above. MedGME (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, is WP:BLP1E for the marijuana/prescribing, and is just a doctor. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Following the excellent edits by Beccaynr, I need to modify the rationale, but not the !vote. This is now a simple WP:BIO failure alongside WP:NACTOR, but the BLP1E has been excised.  I disagree with the suggestion to speedy made by MedGME. This AfD should run its course, the more so since there are three voices for retention so far. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * keep Although article is in pretty bad shape. But we can't deny this person is qualifying GNG. As per WP:GNG 2 sources are required to claim a person notability. I have founded these 2 reputed sources Los Angeles Times, Cosmopolitan including which make this person qualify for WP:BASIC. Iffyhuber (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cosmopolitan is marginally reliable, and also it doesn't really cover Sona Patel significantly, though it does quote here a good bit. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I removed the 2007 ABC7 News source used to support text accusing her of possible state law violations per WP:BLPCRIME, and ABC7 sources that did not support referenced content. The 2015 Cosmopolitan source states at the top, "We may earn commission from links on this page, but we only recommend products we love. Promise", and includes a link to her website. While she is quoted several times as an expert, the promotional disclaimer at the top undermines support for notability per WP:PROMO. The 2009 Los Angeles Times source is mostly based on her statements about her biography, the development of her career, and current practice, as well as what appears to be a reference to the 2007 reports, although this is not clearly identified by the LAT, so there is limited independent and secondary coverage. The 2014 LA Weekly source refers to her business as a "prescription mill" and notes "Patel tells us that she supports Senate Bill 1262, even though it would “effectuate an end to my business.”" WP:JEZEBEL is considered generally unsuitable for contentious claims about living people, and the brief 2009 post refers to the ABC7 investigation and substantially quotes the LAT report. The 2011 Hollywood Weekly (pp. 8-9) source is substantially based on her statements and concludes with what appears to be an advertisement. Her use of billboards to advertise her business seems to help demonstrate she has had a history of high-profile activity, so this is probably not WP:BLP1E, but the initial 2007 ABC7 reporting raises BLP policy issues, the 2009 LAT reporting substantially lacks independence, Jezebel regurgitates previous reports, LA Weekly similarly refers to the LAT and Hollywood Weekly sources and offers limited secondary commentary, while Cosmo and Hollywood Weekly appear to be WP:PROMO. The available sources do not appear to support WP:BASIC notability due to the limited secondary coverage in independent and reliable sources, as well as BLP and PROMO issues. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest speedy deletion. The article as-it-is now is just a glamorous picture and a couple of claims that were sourced from interviewing her. MedGME (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed for all the above-stated reasons; please delete or let me know if you'd like me to do so. Thank you. Mlundheim (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iffyhuber 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Delete  - For the reasons offered by the nominator. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GN.MedGME (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: MedGME (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
 * Agreed for all the above-stated reasons; please delete or let me know if you'd like me to do so. Thank you. Mlundheim (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Basically per nom and Timtrent. Not notable per GNG or other notability possibility, coverage is essentially completely from an insignificant single event. Bestagon ⬡ 19:37, 18 January 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.