Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arora Akanksha: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:34, 10 April 2021

Arora Akanksha

[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)

Fails NPOL. Longstanding consensus that candidates for office are not inherently notable, and that articles about a campaign launch are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. While this office might be different than most political offices, it's still decided by a vote, and she is a long-shot candidate. No countries have yet to endorse her candidacy. Mottezen (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as page creator. WP:NPOL says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." I would argue that Arora passes the WP:GNG due to the specific coverage of her in reliable sources. Although I agree her candidacy has essentially no chance, the coverage of her as an individual is high-quality. It's not as though she's running for a County Board seat somewhere - as you imply, this is a high-profile position. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued to add one other thing. Not to be overlong, but I especially disagree that this is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Beyond the fact that that guideline does not mention the launch of political campaigns, Arora's candidacy has gathered attention especially because it is *not* routine. No Secretary-General has ever faced this kind of challenge before and it is outside the norms of the United Nations system. 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:NPOL notes that unelected candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Those claiming she passes GNG should note that all the sources are firmly in the WP:BLP1E territory. Consensus is that candidates for public office that received disproportionate election coverage because they were running a hopeless campaign against a high-profile incumbent were still to be excluded from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Buttar (3rd nomination). Mottezen (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Mottezen, I think that's a good point. The guideline says that articles should not be kept when all three conditions are met - 1) Person covered only in relation to one event 2) Otherwise low-profile 3) Insignificant event or person's role in event not documented in reliable sources. In this case, I agree that 1) and 2) are applicable. However, I think 3) is not met and the article should be kept. This is clearly a significant event, and Arora's role in it has been widely covered by reliable sources (including the CBC, though it's not currently in the article). However, I see your argument and a WP:BLP1E deletion would not be unreasonable. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this subject through the eyes of BLP1E, the event in question is her candidacy to become secretary general in 2021. Is it significant? If it's doomed from the start and ignored by power brokers, as some commentators have noted, then it isn't, so 3) is satisfied. Mottezen (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is most likely failing NPOL. But her notability can be easily established by general notability criteria. She has recieved plenty of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources which makes her easily passes WP:GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 06:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 :*'''Reply''': {{u|Mottezen}}, I think that's a good point. The guideline says that articles should not be kept when all three conditions are met - 1) Person covered only in relation to one event 2) Otherwise low-profile 3) Insignificant event or person's role in event not documented in reliable sources. In this case, I agree that 1) and 2) are applicable. However, I think 3) is not met and the article should be kept. This is clearly a significant event, and Arora's role in it has been widely covered by reliable sources (including the [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]], though it's not currently in the article). However, I see your argument and a [[WP:BLP1E]] deletion would not be unreasonable. [[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 20:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 :::Looking at this subject through the eyes of BLP1E, the event in question is her candidacy to become secretary general in 2021. Is it significant? If it's doomed from the start and ignored by power brokers, as some commentators have noted, then it isn't, so 3) is satisfied. [[User:Mottezen|Mottezen]] ([[User talk:Mottezen|talk]]) 06:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''': The subject is most likely failing NPOL. But her notability can be easily established by general notability criteria. She has recieved plenty of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources which makes her easily passes [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Kashmorwiki|Kichu]]🐘 <sup>[[User talk:Kashmorwiki|<i style="color:green">Need any help?</i>]]</sup> 06:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)