Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suraj Patel (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and references such as [1] are trivial. He isn't notable based on his business career either; references such as [2] are trivial coverage of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm fairly certain the first AfD was about a different person of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more references that demonstrate notability and that coverage is nontrivial. HPLeu (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL. But the references here are not demonstrating that he had preexisting notability for other reasons: nine of the seventeen footnotes here are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that's substantively about him; two are WP:ROUTINE candidate-directory sources of the type that absolutely any candidate in any election could always show; he's the author, not the subject, of two of them, and the interviewer, not the subject, in a third (but a person gets over a notability criterion by being the subject of the sources, not the creator of them); one is his primary source staff profile on the website of his own employer; and one is a Q&A interview with him on an unreliable blog. There's literally just one reference here (Punjab News Express) that's even remotely acceptable in terms of establishing notability, and one acceptable source isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates to office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2017 (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.