Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Bhathal

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bhathal

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

BLP of a perennial candidate with no notability outside of her repeated unsuccessful candidacies. The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a Pseudo-biography - "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not." AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates, they have to be notable for activities/achievements outside running in elections. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here:

Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example: https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/

https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-horror-show-comes-to-the-big-screen-20190708-p525ae.html

it won an award at a film festival too

https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/

(The first screening of the documentary got its own article as a fun side note https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth/green-alight/news-story/34f16b93c3f2d45b59addbf7c21a6053?amp)

I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability. GraziePrego (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more to my vote

I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide "in-depth coverage of her as a person", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years.

Also, I would love clarification as to why Amelia Hamer is notable enough to keep, but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to keep.

GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a WP:BLP1E, and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it's been made evident that this article passes the WP:GNG. I don't agree that this article is a WP:BLP1E; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable. J2m5 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject comfortably meets WP:GNG. The argument stated above that "we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates" is unsupported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's notability. A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g. Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media testify to subject's notability. She's been in the news for more than a decade. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was originally closed but was reverted following talk page message. Closing admin, can you please give me some advice and how this will be closed? Toadette^Edit! 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not meet notability outside of her candidacy. (WP:NPOL). I have thought quite hard over the past couple of weeks on what my !vote would be on this AfD and have come to this decision because I think it is important for a consistent policy as during an election cycle, most candidates will receive some level of press attention, and to have every single candidate to ever run for an election would ultimately be to the detriment of Wikipedia. So taking into account the sources present (and on Google) that are outside her candidacy and inside her candidacy (to an extent) I don't think that notability is established through GNG or NPOL. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- found this below [1],[2],

[3] ,[4],[5]. Possibly a WP:BASIC pass. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (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.