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 Keep .The Subject is a member of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly a state or provincial legislature.Subject is notable as per WP:Politician.( non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 12:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Jalam singh patel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article was originally created as an exact duplicate of the Shivraj Singh Chouhan article. It has subsequently been somewhat vandalized so that the similarities are not as clear, but the Political career section of both articles is still almost identical. While there is an Indian politician named Jalam Singh Patel, this article does not appear to contain any information relevant to that person, and would need to be rewritten from the ground up to conform to WP:BLP policies. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 14:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article is very poorly written and is a very long way from meeting wp:blp guidelines. -- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 15:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a hoax. Epicgenius ( talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van( எவனோ ஓருவன்) 16:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep: No reason to delete now. I have stripped it to stub and removed all copy-paste from Chouhan's article. The subject is notable; been MLA atleast twice from MP. Also has been in news for some alleged criminal activities. (I am genuinely surprised why none of the editors did it themselves instead of voting for deletion. They all are well-experienced. Am i missing something?) §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 18:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What you missed is that the need to completely rewrite an article from the ground up is a valid reason for deletion if no editors express interest in doing the rewrite. What you have written is a two sentence biography that contains just about all the verifiable information about this individual. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 20:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

So shall we keep it now that someone has already rewritten it? We don't delete articles for just being stub. I haven't added other info that is covered in newspapers, his and his son's crime-links most prominently. Thats because i would have to invest more time in finding out what exactly is the scene now. Newspapers give you info of what he was accused of, but then there is no followup. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 06:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted? Why so? I thought it was ready to be kept. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 10:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Relisted because so far only two people have commented on the matter, and we two disagree. Now that the article has been rewritten, I still do not feel it meets the criterion for inclusion. While members of national assemblies may well be presumed to be notable, the only real proof is in the availability of sources. As Dharmadhyaksha has pointed out, there was a flurry of coverage over accusations regarding Patel, but no follow up (thus I suspect the whole matter just blew over). There doesn't seem to be enough to pin an article on here. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 14:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Members of Houses become notable enough to stay just by being member of House. They don't have to be scandalous or Mother-Teresa for staying on Wikipedia. The-no-follow-up part of my statement was meant to mean i did not dig in well to see if the followup has been present or not. The low-key news always end up on 10+th page of google results and i hadn't bothered to get till there. AfDs are not FACs. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep and move to Jalam Singh Patel. The article has been rewritten and the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2013 (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.