Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roopali Patil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roopali Patil

Roopali Patil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. At least doesn't deserve to be a standalone article. We may merge it with an appropriate one. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This completely useless article was already speedily deleted once [1]. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - I've nothing to say but A7.--NAHID 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says - "She is the vice president of the Maharashtra Navnirman Vidyarthi Sena(MNVS)". Hardly A7, right? But, it still looks like fodder for AfD. Is there any article this can be merged to? Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I nominated this article using Twinkle script. In case there is any bug exists, please report it here. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Falls under A7. Notability is not constituted by being a member of a student government in a non-notable school. Plm209(talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you saying, dear? "A member of a student government in a non-notable school"! Hoa... the school was never mentioned, and group is a major political force in one of the largest and wealthiest states in India. A vice-president of MNVS is supposed to wield more political clout than 50 mayors from the American mid-west. I only proposed a merge because of the lack of substantiation and material in the article, not because of "non-notability". Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - current role is not notable and there are no sources to indicate notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vice president of "student wing" of a "regional" political party which was established only recently (in 2006) and understandably doesn't have any representation on any parliament / Government (regional or national) - is definitely not a notable role. Arman (Talk) 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The region that hosts the regional party is bigger than five European countries taken together in terms of population, and ten African countries taken together in terms of economy. The student wings in these parts of the world are "the political force" more often than not. This doesn't pass notability criterion because of lack of availability of sources that cite the subject. Not because of ignorance about the student wing, the party or the region. And, A7 should not be guided by ignorance. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
It's mighty tiring to argue against systemic bias. In the US no one gives a shit what the students think or do about politics. In India they matter big time, often more than the working middle class. Describing Indian matters in an American context is ignorance taken to extreme. Have anyone noticed that by Indian context half the US bio articles here are non-notability exemplified? This particular article in discussion may go to hell, as there is no "third party reliable source" that mentions the subject "in a non-trivial way" (not yet). But, saying that the vice president of MNVS is inherently non-notable (and may be material for speedy delete) is pure ignorance. This discussion has already seen the importance of students in Indian politics, the state of Maharashtra and the Shiv Sena much deprecated. Let's not take it further. If you guys want a delete, I don't see a problem. But, nurturing a Northern-Western bias is a problem indeed. And, this discussion has already seen much of it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how that really applies here. The fact of the matter is, if she were truly notable there would be neutral third party sources discussing her. If the office is really given that much weight over there, there should be some neutral third party sources attesting to that as well.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I would point out that nobody in this discussion had even mentioned Shiv Sena before Aditya claimed that it had been "much deprecated" in this discussion. The only connection between this discussion and Shiv Sena is that the subject is a leader in a political party which was formed by former members of Shiv Sena. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment No, we are not nurturing Northern-Western bias here. That might be your personal feelings. People just mentioned some examples here. Before an admin delete this entry, you could make an option like Keep,Merge or something else. That may give you a better satisfaction, right!--NAHID 19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For Oni: Yes, you are right. But, my point was not in claiming that she is notable, but the post is (it is possible that she may a hoax). And, all sources don't exist on Google, the only way I can try looking her up (being outside Maharashtra and all).
For Metropolitan90: The comment that said - "student wing" of a "regional" political party - was very much about the Sena. And, not realizing that already shows how little we care for the Indian context.
For NAHID: Please, I am trying to talk about bias, not personal feelings. While you are most welcome to have feelings, and find how ways to achieve better satisfaction, this may not be the right place to discuss so.
Thank you all. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for Arman, but the comment that said "Vice president of "student wing" of a "regional" political party which was established only recently (in 2006)" would not make sense if referring to Shiv Sena, which was founded in 1966. By contrast, the MNS was founded in 2006. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Which regional party? Aren't we talking about MNS, a part and parcel of the Sena family? Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For Metropolitan90: You are absolutely right. MNS (est 2006) is NOT Shiv Sena, it is a marginally notable off-spring of Shiv Sena. And the article-subject is NOT VP of student wing of Shiv Sena, she is VP of student wing of MNS. As the leader of student wing of a newly established marginally notable political party (no matter of which country / region we are talking about) she is not notable. This assertion is fully supported with the lack of any 3rd party source on the article subject.
For Aditya: Where did you invent "Sena family" from and what makes MNS part and parcel of Shiv Sena? On the contrary, after Raj Thackeray came out of Shiv Sena and established MNS, the relationship between the two parties have been rather hostile. Please, before accusing others of ignorance, bias etc. study the subject and as NAHID said, for heavens sake, either clarify your stance (keep/delete/merge) or stop wasting others' time on an article of which so far no one has found any merit. Arman (Talk) 11:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For heaven's sake, stop shouting. Did you at all read what I have been writing above, apart from looking for holes in my points? Just because a finger pointed at you doesn't mean you have suddenly grown a right be rude and incivil. It's pretty sad to see editors telling others to do research when they fail to even read what is in front of them. Let me recap for you what I have been writing:
  • But, it still looks like fodder for AfD. (16 January)
  • This doesn't pass notability criterion because of lack of availability of sources that cite the subject. (17 January)
  • This particular article in discussion may go to hell, as there is no "third party reliable source" that mentions the subject "in a non-trivial way" (not yet). (18 January)
I'm quite speechless at your outburst. Please, read before you write. And, I beg you, be a little more civil in discussions. And, please... please... please... don't bring back that time-wasting theory. It's pure personal attack. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I have shown some unwanted outburst of emotion. On my defence, I don't get called "ignorant" everyday by "civil" members of wikisociety. So, you also support delete of this article -that means you agree with the consensus. And yet you diligently contradict everyone's posting with accusing some for ignorance, some for bias etc. And at the end of the day, I get to be the one who is looking for hole in other's argumunt! I am simply amazed with your innovative argument, I would love to award you a barnstar on Wikilawyering, but alas, I couldn't find one. Arman (Talk) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as still I believe that this article fails at WP:NOTE. I carefully observed the whole debate and finally came to this decision. Here goes my arguments supporting my decision.
  1. This article has already been deleted once as User:Oni_Ookami_Alfador mentioned. Of course it lakes on certain WP policies, thus it was deleted.
  2. I do agree that a Vice-president of a non-notable organization can be notable. Say for an example, a famous leader in his early life might be in a post of a small organization. It doesn't mean that such organization will became a notable one, or that famous person will turn into a non-notable figure. But, does this article in anyway matches in such example? I don't think so. (@User:Plm209)
  3. We can hardly find any reliable source that supports her notability or even speaks for this person. I do agree with Aditya Bhaia (User:Aditya_Kabir) that all source doesn't exist on Google ONLY. This is the only reason why I was a bit shaky while tagging this article for AfD. But, after observing the whole debate I become quite confident that there is no such strong reference available that supports her case (if so, then local Wikipedians might come up with those references.)
  4. I do agree with Arman Bhaia (User:Armanaziz) on the point recently established organization. Here the context is not like USA where usually two parties are seen on election or political activities. In Indian subcontinent, hundreds of parties participate in election and political activities. It is a common case that in general election some of the parties even do not get a minimum votes defined by the election commission. Here establishment of a political party doesn't make it notable. They become notable by their activity as time passes by.

So the nutshell of my argument is - she might be a Vice President of a political party (unsupported by any source) or a wing of a political party or any such. But, neither she nor her party could satisfy WP:NOTE. Thus I am voting against its existence on WP. Thanks very much. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Solid reasoning. It uses WP:NOTE (of which WP:BIO is supplement) without belittling anyone or anything, and it doesn't call for the A7. Nice. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (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.