Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohit K. Dasgupta
Being the first ''candidate'' of a particular ethnic background to contest an election is not a valid notability claim for Wikipedia's purposes, and neither is being the first gay person of colour — membership in any underrepresented minority group is not, in and of itself, a free notability boost over other non-winning candidates in the same election — and being the first candidate in his district's history ever to move his party from also-ran status to ''second'' place is not a notability claim either (''especially'' in an election where the Maybot vs Corbynmania dynamic plainly had far more effect on the final results than anything else.) In ''both'' cases, either he ''wins'' the election or he's got ''nothing'' that passes  — and the referencing here is far too strongly dependent on |primary sources, while the sources that actually do count as |reliable ones are ''not'' demonstrating a strong case for deeming his candidacy to be ''more'' notable than the norm, because ''every'' parliamentary candidate could ''always'' show that much campaign coverage. So his notability would have to depend ''entirely'' on passing  for his ''books'', but that part of the equation is parked ''entirely'' on the primary sources and ''none'' of the reliable ones — however, writers don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because primary sources nominally verify the existence of their books either, but rather their notability is still dependent on the existence of ''reliable'' source coverage ''about'' their writing. I'd be willing to reconsider this if somebody can rewrite it to place the |weight of content and sourcing onto his ''writing'' instead of his political activity, but the political activities themselves can't be the basis for inclusion as none of them constitute adequate notability claims
— User:Bearcat, 16:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NPOL||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS||WP:AUTHOR||WP:WEIGHT (Wikipedia:Notability)