Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suraj Patel (4th 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 03:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel

[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)

Semi-procedural nomination: Articles about this apparently-perennial candidate have been brought to AfD 2 times already (the first AfD is about an unrelated subject who shares the name), and each time the consensus has been deletion due to lack of coverage other than routine election press. The same can be said of the level of coverage this time around as well. The argument could be made that the amassed coverage across the elections adds up to GNG, but I think this needs to be brought to community attention given the number of times the article has been discussed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfDs aside, Patel is now competing in a radically redrawn congressional district. The two other competitors are both powerful Democrats of long standing - Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney. Patel's campaign ads are more visible than theirs [at least to this resident of the district]. Finally, in the 2020 Democratic primary, Patel achieved 39.3% to Maloney's 42.7% [1]. Whether or not he wins, he is not inconsequential. Tedency (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under no circumstances should this be deleted, it provides valuable nominee information, and not winning the prior primaries should have no bearing on this, I would suggest that it's removal is being discussed

due to political competition reasons, flagged by said adversaries. 79.68.229.172 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable, seems to enjoy running for election, hardly enough on which to base an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have a number of real references. Andrevan@ 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite apart from the fact he hasn't been elected, he fails WP:NPOL - even being serially unelected. That's the trouble with democracy - you don't get elected, youse is nobody. There's no other grounds for notability I can see. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. Perennial candidates who never win can be still notable sometimes. Andrevan@ 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NPOL specifically states that unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the GNG, which Patel does based on significant coverage from several reliable sources cited in the article, including the New York Times. Hatman31 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG, a subject is presumed to be be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Coverage here from The Hill discusses the subject and their political campaign. This is hence what I consider to be significant coverage from a perennial source which has by consensus been found reliable. Same for this piece in the New York Times. A Google search shows further coverage from the NYT in the first page of results. Of significance is this coverage is only two weeks old, demonstrating the subject has been covered for a sustained period of time. There is countless examples of further significant coverage within the article and online, but as the sources shown already demonstrate a meeting of GNG there is no need to explain my assessment of these sources. Per WP:NPOL - being an unelected candidate does not guarantee notability, though such people can be notable if they meet GNG. As this individual undoubtedly meets GNG per the above, there is no tenable argument for deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2022 (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.