Deletion of Saikat Chakrabarti

Comment: per the analysis of the sources above. I do not believe there is  issue at all because the two most in-depth sources deal with 2 different events: One with his nomination as AOC's chief of staff, and the other with the campaign finance mismanagement claim
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I don't understand the procedural effect of simultaneous AfD and merger discussions, but Chak isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article. It should be a redirect to AOC. There isn't enough SIGCOV with ''him'' as the ''subject''. He is in the media a lot as a spokesperson for some other organization or person (e.g., a PAC, AOC), but notability is not |inherited, and I can't find now the link to whatever page talks about spokespeople not being notable if they're only speaking on behalf of someone else. As far as the campaign finance issue goes, that seems to be . All the coverage of the campaign finance focuses on AOC and the PACs, and only briefly mentions him (because he is named in the complaint). He fails  and thus shouldn't have a stand-alone article. That may change in the future, of course, but for now, it should be a redirect (or deleted
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG)

Comment: This nom is out of process. There is an active merge discussion at Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez#Proposed merge with Saikat Chakrabarti.* To be clear, I agree with the nom's sentiment, but -M|merger is a preferable alternative to deletion and the chief of staff is a useful redirect for his mentions at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: I appreciate the work that many editors have put in trying to establish notability of the subject of this article. 26 references as of right now–but unfortunately, almost all of them still have "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" in the headline and not Chakrabarti. Looking at the best examples: the Politico profile is entirely about his work for Sanders, JD/BNC, and AOC (all of which is really the same employer, this is all Sanders' progeny), and it's not really very significant in length. Counting that as one example of significant coverage in an independent reliable source, we still need ''multiple'' such examples to meet . The Rachel Maddow interview doesn't count; it's entirely about Brand New Congress, it's not about Chak; he is only the spokesperson. Kozub/The Verge, and Shaw/Fox News, are both all about AOC and the PACs, and from marginal RSes. Inquistr is not an RS (news aggregator, not journalism). Everything else put forward is either a passing mention or from a non-reliable source. Look at his article right now: the sections are Bernie Sanders, Justice Democrats, AOC. Almost all of the content is about somebody ''other than'' Chakrabarti. We can't write a decent stand-alone article about him because he is not notable enough and we don't have the RSes to draw from. It's not about ''how many'' sources we can gather, but about their quality. And in this case, he is always treated as a "part of" the Bernie Sanders/AOC political machine. Barring multiple examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, his article should be merged and redirected
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: fails  and no sustained coverage. A few early history and personal details doesn't conceal the article - in its current form - as a . This guy is completely unnotable otherwise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: or '''Redirect''', fails  / 1E for now; most coverage only mentions him in passing and is unsuitable to demonstrate notability, and the only non-trivial coverage focuses on a single event, which has no indication that it has or will receive any sustained coverage.  Strongly oppose both keep and merge options - no content on this page is usable outside of the sentence that has already been added to the main AOC article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO1E)