Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arora Akanksha

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

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

Arora Akanksha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(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]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the amount of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, I reckon Arora tends to meet GNG. That said, even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably - there's good international coverage of her run for the UN seat, but this really feels like a WP:BLP1E to me. I don't think this is particularly significant per BLP1E#3. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the proposal to delete the article quite odd when the election has not yet even been completed and nominations are not closed. This article has multiple reliable sources in multiple languages around the world. This would also affect multiple other pages on the site such as 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Even if not nominated, she is still a pioneer for a future female UN leader one day. Given the existing gender gap on wikipedia, I think we should tread carefully. ─ Qetuadgjzcbm (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our general rule here is that candidates for political positions are don't have any sort of inherent notability, in part due to BLP1E. She's already covered on the page you mention. It looks like this will come down to whether people think the candidacy is important enough on BLP1E grounds, but I think it's correct to object if it's true that she does have absolutely no chance (as the sources have said), we can review whether there's a need for a stand-alone article again in time, if no new reasons for notability arise. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets GNG. [1] --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is pretty clearly adequate news coverage, and it doesn't seem that anyone's disputing that particular point. Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection, even if it doesn't end up translating into a win or even a plausible showing. Just the candidacy is unusual. The difference between this case and Shahid Buttar's case (linked above) is that it's routine for American congresspeople to have primary challengers. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under GNG. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arora_Akanksha&oldid=1018178862"