Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiral Tipirneni (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.

Hiral Tipirneni

Hiral Tipirneni (edit | 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 should be merged/redirected to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Twice-failed candidate for office would not meet
  WP:NPOL, all news coverage is campaign-related, not notable outside campaign context. Bkissin (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and then restore redirect. Candidates do not qualify for articles just for being candidates, and the campaign coverage shown here neither mounts a strong case for deeming her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies nor demonstrates that she would have passed another notability standard prior to her candidacy. I'll grant that during the election campaign, the heat of partisan passion sometimes causes AFDs on unelected candidates to close "no consensus", as happened here, because people who don't understand how our notability rules actually work think the campaign coverage automatically translates into a
  ten-year test for enduring significance, not necessarily everybody who happens to show up in the current news cycle, so the existence of campaign coverage isn't automatically enough to make an unsuccessful candidate permanently notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep People (and the events they take part in), need to be seen in context. Normally, we wouldn't keep bios from people who loss elections for US congress. I understand that. However, this, and her over performance, was a key indicator for a historic US election.. These special elections were seen by WP:RS as highly significant because they were seen by WP:RS as a key indicator for the political environment under President Trump. These special elections are significant enough, the people involved in them are WP:N, even if they lose. A simple question to ask is this. In
  WP:10Y, would someone who wants to study this period want these bios or not? We are here to be useful, now and in the future, and not to hold to some firm rules. Finally, the fact that she ran again and that received national coverage elimenates the one event issue.Casprings (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I understand your concern

that election will keep the information about the importance of that race for those who want to read about a historical election, despite the candidate lacking individual notability. Bkissin (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NPOL. Casprings (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect per
  WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete twice-failed candidate. There's not a single article about her outside of her failed electoral bids. There's two possible redirect candidates, so picking one is fine by me - but as we've seen recently the article first needs to be deleted, then redirected. SportingFlyer talk 10:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per
  one event" where two campaigns in close succession are concerned — are they one long event?). Nothing in the article is so ghastly that it warrants removal from the publicly-accessible page history, so deleting is not at all necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Perhaps it won't be an issue since the election's over, but we've seen candidate supporters just restore the version right before the redirect shortly after the AfD ends, which is why I'm advocating for the delete/redirect. SportingFlyer talk 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects can always be page-protected. XOR'easter (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete defeated candidates for congress are not in general notable, and the only thing for which she got notice was her race for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Statement B on Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates, and also it's the only way I would know how to pronounce her name. :-) Her candidacies have been covered multiple times in The New York Times and I'm guessing many other reliable national sources. -- RobLa (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would argue that the discussion there needs to close before this one does, as it directly relates to it. It appears B will have consensus. If this closes as delete and B has concensus, I will take this to review.Casprings (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if B does achieve consensus, which is not certain, it doesn't change the fact the coverage here is routine campaign coverage. For instance, the New York Times article was primarily about the election in her district, the other New York Times "article" was election results. There's no reason we can't include the information about her in the article on the election per
  WP:PRESERVE. SportingFlyer talk 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There has not been any consensus established that "Statement B" is the new rule going forward as of yet. As I've pointed out to you many times before, adopting statement B would make it completely impossible to ever deem any candidate in any election not-notable anymore — every candidate always gets campaign coverage, so every candidate would always pass Statement B. Wikipedia then immediately loses its value as an encyclopedia, and becomes nothing more than a worthless repository of campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also am not sure if there will be consensus either way in Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates. There are two separate discussions with different proposals and discussions and different editors commenting on the each discussion. Depending on how you count, numerically, either support for something like statement B either has a slight numerical plurality, or not, as my read at this moment is about evenly split. --Enos733 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean Keep largely because there is not a great redirect target (both the general and special elections would be equally valid) and I think it is a strain to suggest that a candidate running in two "general" elections is involved in only one event. --Enos733 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2018 (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.