The relevant guideline says that a person is notable if "The person founded, leads, or operates a major political party or similar electoral organisation" and also if "The person is a major local political figures who have received significant press coverage outside their specific region". The concerned person Pushpam Priya Choudhary fulfils both these criteria. She founded a political party in which she is an elected President and also the candidate for the Chief Minister post in the State of Bihar in India. Her party contested is 148 constituencies in the last General Elections, the highest number of seats fought by any political party. Her party named The Plurals Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurals_Party) got hundreds of thousands of popular votes. Currently She has millions of followers and supporters which can be verified from her social media accounts as mentioned on the page. Just because the current central and state governments in India are working in a fascist manner and their supporters/workers in the digital space are working day and night to downgrade opposition leaders, a genuine and eligible article should not be pulled down in a discriminatory manner. Who will decide if an opposition upcoming politician is popular or not in a country which is ranking below 150 in the Press Freedom Index? In any case, in the age of digital coverage of news and reporting, press coverage should not only be judged by the coverage done by mainstream media (though Pushpam Priya Choudhary also has significant coverage there), but also in other spaces as in the current global practices specially in India, mainstream media is working under too much pressure from the governments. I will request the users to please don't allow a global platform like Wikipedia to be used as a political tool for fascism in a democratic country which is struggling to keep its democratic nature. Let's everyone have a fair opportunity and level playing field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakshinamurti (talk • contribs)
Closing admin comment: Just noting that nom and I did have a discussion and I support this DRV as I do not see any other way I could have closed this discussion. It's at User_talk:Dakshinamurti#Closed AfDs and not on my User Talk in case others weighing in wanted to be sure I was aware prior to filing. StarMississippi17:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse those quotes aren't taken from the relevant guideline, they are taken from Wikipedia:Notability (politics). This is a proposed guideline which doesn't have community support (at least not yet). Social media followers are not good indicators of notability, and nor is the number of votes achieved by the party she founded (although we do have an article on it). While this AfD had minimal participation, I agree it was reasonable for the nominator to close as delete in light of the better attended AfD from 2020. Hut 8.518:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the deletion is based on the 'better attended' AfD from 2020, then I must say it is ridiculous. Because that happened in the month of March 2020 when Pushpam Priya Choudhary had not started her political campaign. Though she launched herself as a Chief Ministerial candidate on 8th March 2020, her actual campaign on the ground started from 11th June 2020 as in between the whole country was facing lockdown because of COVID Pandemic. Even in March 2020, her party was not formed. Her party finally got registered on 13th October 2020 when she had her popularity at the peak and she campaigned in all 38 districts of the state while addressing hundreds of thousands of people. During her campaign she was significantly covered by the local and national press and media and tons of digital material including interviews etc can be found on the internet. Her party also contested a bye-poll election in October 2021 (only 4 parties contested) from Tarapur constituency. In nutshell, she is one of the important political leaders of the State of Bihar and definitely a youth icon. Finally, once again, I have to submit that the page should not have been deleted on the basis of AfD from 2020 which had not evidence of notability at that point of time. Also, I am aware that social media followers are not good indicators of notability but in the age of post-COVID political campaign, when the Election Commission of India itself is promoting social media campaign than the field campaign, the number of followers indicates the real supporters and political workers who support their leader. Today it is beyond doubt that Pushpam Priya Choudhary is in top 5 leaders of her State and her notability is beyond any suspicion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn If the deletion is based on the 'better attended' AfD from 2020, then I must say it is ridiculous. Because that happened in the month of March 2020 when Pushpam Priya Choudhary had not started her political campaign. Though she launched herself as a Chief Ministerial candidate on 8th March 2020, her actual campaign on the ground started from 11th June 2020 as in between the whole country was facing lockdown because of COVID Pandemic. Even in March 2020, her party was not formed. Her party finally got registered on 13th October 2020 when she had her popularity at the peak and she campaigned in all 38 districts of the state while addressing hundreds of thousands of people. During her campaign she was significantly covered by the local and national press and media and tons of digital material including interviews etc can be found on the internet. Her party also contested a bye-poll election in October 2021 (only 4 parties contested) from Tarapur constituency. In nutshell, she is one of the important political leaders of the State of Bihar and definitely a youth icon. Finally, once again, I have to submit that the page should not have been deleted on the basis of AfD from 2020 which had not evidence of notability at that point of time. Also, I am aware that social media followers are not good indicators of notability but in the age of post-COVID political campaign, when the Election Commission of India itself is promoting social media campaign than the field campaign, the number of followers indicates the real supporters and political workers who support their leader. Today it is beyond doubt that Pushpam Priya Choudhary is in top 5 leaders of her State and her notability is beyond any suspicion. Dakshinamurti (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, @Dakshinamurti:, Notability isn't inherited. See WP:NOTINHERITED. The party may be notable but that doesn't make its founder notable automatically. As mentioned in the AfD discussion, WP:NPOL doesn't make the requirement to satisfy WP:SIGCOV redundant. She must satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP but its not visible at all. When you claim that she does, the onus is on you to show us the exact set of references that qualifies her as notable. Chirota (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Yes, I understand that notability is not inherited. However, here the case is otherwise. It is the leader and founder who is more notable than the party and in fact to some extent party has inherited notability because of her. Party got registered and came into light only after Pushpam Priya Choudhary got attention and sufficient notability in the country. It would not be exaggeration to say that because of her party became notable automatically. Furthermore, WP:SIGCOV requires 'significant', 'reliable' and 'independent' sources to confirm notability. It can be seen even from the few references given on the article page, that Pushpam Priya Choudhary has significant coverage across all forms of media and press. All these sources are reliable and independent and their tone are clearly critical under the overall theme of political analysis. Also WP:BLP is based on three policies - neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V) and no original research (NOR). The article had taken a neutral point of view. It was neither promotional nor gossip. All the contents were properly referenced which were not the outcome of any original research but fully based on secondary and verifiable sources. Though sufficient references have been given on the page to prove the fulfilment of guidelines of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP. However, it will not be irrelevant if the same are reproduced here for further verification, though there are tons of material available even in the digital space to prove her notability:
I request all the contributors to kindly treat this case as genuine and please also see that the person does not get discriminated just because the hate and opposition she is facing in her political sphere where every now and then people are coming up to pull her down from the mainstream political space. Thanks. Dakshinamurti (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dakshinamurti you may look at WP:BLP1E, the subject apparently came under limelight for a few days while filing her nomination for the candidature. All the coverages originated from that event. Apart from that the references are highly dependent on what the subject says, hence aren't independent. Your points are well understood by other editors, there is no need to repeat yourself countless time, it will only annoy others. Chirota (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer to refer to the previous AFD.
The URL Dump in this appeal annoys the reviewers but does not make the article notable.
User:Dakshinamurti - Saying Overturn multiple times is bludgeoning the Deletion Review.
I am not trying to do bludgeoning. However, I am sorry if it appears so. I am just trying to convey that the person here is a notable one in her field. She is fulfilling the criteria of notability. If overturning is not possible, I am requesting for *Temporary Undeletion so that the article can be looked into with fresh eyes by other contributors and notability can be discussed there in a more detailed manner. Dakshinamurti (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how the closing statement can be seen as anything more than a supervote. The majority of the keep votes seem to be citing non policy based reasons for keeping and the sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient. On the contrary, the claims were that the sourcing is sufficient and that Nixon's status as a European champion is clearly sufficient to prove notability. It is not the closer's job to decide whether or not sourcing is sufficient. If it were then we would not have AfD discussions. We would just mandate any admin to delete any article they thought was insufficiently sourced or decided was not notable enough. Closing an AfD that was at best a keep and at worst a no consensus as a delete makes an irrelevant nonsense of the whole AfD process and is a worrying extension of the closer's remit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. My "keep" vote in the discussion pointed directly to the fact that Nixon has received coverage in national media such as the BBC, and I linked to an article there. That is absolutely policy and guideline based (WP:GNG) and there is no rationale as to why that is being dismissed as a "non policy based reason". Sjakkalle(Check!)18:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, Closing statement is accurate and reasonable. Of the "keep" voting editors only one identified any specific published sources supporting their position and they offered a single BBC article. GNG looks for multiple sources. An editor produced an assessment table and no editors pushed back on it. Several editors claimed that a European championship is enough to establish notability but this is not supported by notability guidelines. NSPORT points out that this is not a valid criteria, see Q8. Gab4gab (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, per Gab4gab. Consensus is based on strength of argument, and the arguments for keep were very weak - I note that the only editor who did provide a source only provided one and didn't even claim it was WP:SIGCOV, just that it was The most substantive BBC article covering Nixon. BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of users accusing admins of supervoting because they did not apply the non existent policy the user cites in their argument. Let's see exactly what NSPORTS says
An athlete is likely to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and thus be notable, if they have been successful in a major competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page.
Lawn Bowling is not listed in the notability standard and therefore it cannot be a policy based assertion that winning a major championship qualifies under NSPORTS which was the opinion advanced by the OP. I was also mindful of this discussion which found a community consensus that at least one substantial source was required for sports notability. The remaining keep votes do not address the requests to identify substantial coverage but are basically champion = notable, per someone or an assertion of GNG but not actually providing the substantial source. Indeed one keep vote argued for an aggregation of minor sources which is not only clearly in contravention of the RFC but is hardly a GNG supporting argument. Taking the policy into account and assessing the arguments against that policy I found that most of the keep votes either asserted non-policy based arguments around all major champions being notable or failed to provide the substantial source required by a widely attended RFC on sports notability. Basically the only way I could have not found a consensus to delete would have been to have supervoted. SpartazHumbug!18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - If a majority of the participants in the AFD are citing non-policy reasons, that doesn't create a consensus for the minority, only a lack of consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The content couldn't be seen as temundelete wasn't granted. From the AfD discussion it was clear that the keep side was more inclined to forcefully establish Nixon's notability for being European Champion. Whereas there is no policy based notability criteria that confirms such claim. We all know, its not about the vote count but the policy based argumentation that prevails in AfD. Moreover, the keep side couldn't address failing GNG concern adequately. In that light, I don't see why I should opt for overturn. The closure was very much in line with WP:CLOSEAFD. Chirota (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse Do I think we should have articles like this? Yeah. But the guideline-based arguments were mostly on one side. I'd also likely endorse a NC close, but I don't see how this isn't within discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus not only per Star Mississippi, but because while evaluating the strength of policy based arguments is within closing admin's discretion, the argument in this case is about notability guidelines where WP:DGFA and similar guidance leave no room for a closer to discount !votes which they feel fail to align with their interpretation of guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]