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. As pointed out, whether we should have an article does not necessarily fit with the state of the current article. Returning to draft. Black Kite (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Pandya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a mayor, not demonstrated as having enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, every mayor of every city is not handed an automatic notability freebie just because she exists -- making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires writing a substantive article, referenced to a lot of media coverage, about her political importance. Just writing "she exists, the end", and sourcing it to a single news article verifying her initial selection as mayor, is not enough to make a mayor notable all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V. Rajendrababu is another AfD on mayor being discussed.
• Delete never won any major election hence fails WP:NPOL no major accomplishments to merit an article. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, even the one source cited for the article's one sentence shows significant secondary coverage. Which is scarcely surprising, since we are talking about the mayor of a city of more than 2 million people. Even if one discounts the coverage of her actions as mayor for some reason (as some have attempted to interpret the GNG in these cases), she has also received coverage outside of that role in multiple sources, having been at the center of at least one major controversy: [1], [2]. Nom's suggested requirement of "a lot of media coverage about her political importance" lacks any discernible support in policy. No WP:BLP issue is apparent in the article, and the nom has not indicated any. -- Visviva (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that the source cited for the article has only 2 lines about the subject and I quote "A very active party worker and functionary, this is her first term as a councillor. Her education, personality and organisational skills were seen as major positives." This is not what we call significant coverage. DBigXrayᗙ 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is correct about how mayoral notability works. It is not established by writing "she exists, the end" and single-sourcing her existence to a single news article about her initial election or selection as mayor — every mayor of every single city town or village on the entire planet can always single-source the fact that they exist or existed as a mayor, so if that were how it worked then we'd always have to keep an article about everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere. But we do not accept all mayors of all places as being "inherently" notable just because they exist as a mayor — making a mayor notable enough for an article most certainly does require the ability to write much more than just one sentence about her existence, and to cite much more than just one source to support it. Even just trying to claim that she passed WP:GNG would still require quite a bit more than just one source. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Mayor of a city with more than 1 million people. Further, there are likely to be significantly more sources in Gujarati, a totally different script. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be shown to exist, not just presumed to probably exist, before the prospect of improved sourcing becomes a valid argument against deletion. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just being the mayor of a city is not enough for passing WP:NPOL.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on past precedent, being the mayor of a large city of almost 2 million residents is notable. If consensus has changed, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that any size of city confers its mayors with a free exemption from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Mayoral notability always lives or dies on the quality and depth and range of the sources the person can show to support an article with, and never just on the population of the city itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:GNG and WP:RS. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, mayors are not necessarily notable. In her case, there isn't much other than her election as mayor from secondary sources. According to the The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, the post of mayor in any city of erstwhile Bombay State would be ceremonial in nature which according to www.gujarat.gov.in is applicable in Gujarat currently. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.