Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yadav Nathwani


 * 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 a WP:SNOW keep. The consensus is that the subject passes WP:NPOL. I noticed the 10 Jan- 17 Jan comment, but I feel there is enough consensus that likely will not change for that one day anyways. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yadav Nathwani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Former senator (maybe?), believed to be used by the subject and their relations/colleagues to promote subject. No immediate notability seen through current cites and historical ones Nightfury 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment from filer:-, I note the page is fully protected, would you be able to add the AfD template to the page? Thanking you. Nightfury 08:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Note to the closer, this should be closed only 7 days from when the notice was posted 01:59, January 10, 2019.‎ -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 02:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Night</b><b style="color: White">fury</b> 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:POLITICIAN says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." The subject of this article has been a member of a state legislature, and is therefore presumed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep members of state senates are default notable. It does not matter if they have short terms of office. As long as they serve any term at all they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Members of subnational legislatures are considering notable per WP:POLITICIAN--Mpen320 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:POLITICIAN is unambiguous -- it doesn't matter how long someone serves in a state senate; as long as he or she is a member of that state senate, he or she is notable. That's a decision that's been made through a longstanding consensus.  I created this article, and I have no ties to the subject.  Whether the subject edited the article after I created it is frankly irrelevant as long as it's not promotional or inaccurate. Jarvishunt (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Considering he held two offices at the same time, the whole thing seems sketchy to me.George Orwell Peterson (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except one of those offices is considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN and whether or not you think someone holding two offices at the same time is sketchy does not change WP:Notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree I don't agree, this guy is not Notability.George Orwell Peterson (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:POLITICIAN says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." It has already been established that the length of tenure is not a deciding factor. What is your objection to notability other than you don't like the guy?--Mpen320 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Would pass WP:NPOL as a former member of a state legislature. I think the concern for some here may be that Nathwani was appointed in the six-week period between the 2018 election and the swearing-in of a new State Senate. If that's the case, it may be a slight grey area (did he actually get sworn in, or was he a placeholder? Was the Senate in session during this time?) but regardless I think that existing notability policies still apply. Could use more WP:RS, but passes notability checks. Bkissin (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He was sworn into office (see Senate Republican press release here. His profile on the Illinois General Assembly website is here. He even sponsored 4 bills. It was a caretaker appointment. Chris Nybo resigned after losing to Suzy Glowiak. Nathwani was a full voting member of the Illinois Senate even if his term was from November 2018 until January 2019.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There are some WP:COI concerns, with the subject of the article making changes to the page. Bkissin (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So those changes can just be eliminated or revised, correct? Why delete the whole article?--Mpen320 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I voted to keep the article. I was not saying that the entire article should be deleted, I was merely voicing concerns about COI and trying to determine the details here. Remember to assume good faith with other users. Bkissin (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean accuse or to come off as accusing you of anything. I was just commenting on the COI itself. The deletion and the COI seemed like separate issues. I'm sorry I failed to make that point.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This article was created by Mr. Nathwani See Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia and  COIPOLITICALIt   should be clear this guy has very little notability save, as a local political  "Wonk" insider appointed, as place holder and now is hoping to use Wikipedia to help launch his political career. George Orwell Peterson (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you read above or review the article's history, you'll see that Jarvishunt (talk) created this article. Jarvishunt has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2008 and has no connection to the subject. A user that is likely the subject added additional content in violation of Conflict_of_interest. You are correct that conduct is unacceptable. However, any content added in violation can be removed or revised to meet Neutrality.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * sounds like a meat puppet of NathwaniGeorge Orwell Peterson (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, false. I created the article, and I have no ties to the subject.  Zero.  Never have met him, couldn't pick him out of a police lineup, don't have an opinion of him, I'm not a Republican anyhow.  But all that is irrelevant (especially my opinion of the subject).  The reason I created this article is that I read in the Daily Herald that he was appointed to the Illinois Senate.  I looked for a Wikipedia page on him and didn't see one, so I created one.  Beyond that, however, what we're here to discuss isn't whether he's held two elected positions or not (that's irrelevant), or whether he's a political "wonk" (not even sure what that means -- are you trying to call him a political hack or an opportunist?).  No, all we're here to discuss is: Is this subject notable by Wikipedia's well-established standards?  The answer by a clear consensus that has been formed among Wikipedia users over the years is yes.  Being in the upper legislature of a U.S. state automatically confers notability, regardless of the duration of that individual's time in office.  Therefore, the subject of this article is notable.  Jarvishunt (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jarvis Hunt is a local Wheaton/DuPage historical figure associated with Chicago Golf Club, so I assume you are a local guy, so you know, Mr. Nathwani is a local political Hack/Opportunist, regarding his Notability, this article is self-serving. But, if "the consensus" decides to keep this article, it should be very short, no-more than one paragraph. George Orwell Peterson (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles do not have to follow size restrictions. No matter what you think about the size of the person's notability claim, there is no such thing as "this person is only notable enough to have one short paragraph" vs. "that other person is notable enough to have a longer article" — if a person passes a notability criterion, then their article is always allowed to be as long or as short as the depth of reliable sourcing about them allows us to write. Notability criteria only govern whether a person qualifies to have an article at all or not, and once that test has been passed they do not impose any caps on how long their article is or isn't allowed to be. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability test for state legislators does not only attach to current incumbents, as was claimed by at least one person in the edit history — everybody who has ever served in the state legislature is always eligible for an article regardless of whether they're still in office today or not. The article does not read unduly promotionally in its current form, and any minor conflict of interest problems can be dealt with through the normal editing process — but concerning the fact that the subject has edited the article himself, the only edits I can actually see in the article history that are signed "Yadav15" just involve perfectly reasonable formatting corrections and a perfectly neutral statement of the name of his successor. Literally not a one of them actually lapses into the self-promotionalism issues that our COI rules actually concern themselves with — article subjects are not prevented from editing the article themselves to make purely factual edits that don't pose any WP:NPOV problems, the rule is just that they're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a personal PR platform or a venue for giving themselves the last word in an NPOV dispute. All in all, there's no serious reason why the article should be deleted at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment What constitutes "Self-Promotion"? George Orwell Peterson (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Writing the article in a tone that reads more like an advertisement (or a press release, or a campaign brochure) than like a neutral, objective encyclopedia article. That can and does happen on Wikipedia, but it hasn't happened in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep technically passes WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.