Arora Akanksha : Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion.  All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory.  Mottezen ( talk ) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Women ,  and Canada .  Mottezen ( talk ) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria.  The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect?  Curbon7 ( talk ) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed.  While, most ! keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.  Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept.  and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection .  Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant.  Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.  Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection.  Arora moved on to become a lecturer .  Mottezen ( talk ) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E , since WP:GNG is clearly met.  BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met.  Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile).  So is Criteria #3 met?  Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok.  Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"?  As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented."  On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion.  Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial.  On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason.  I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page.  However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome.  — Ganesha811 ( talk ) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection.  Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG. - KH-1 ( talk ) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page.  SportingFlyer T · C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented".  I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources.  Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits ) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign.  Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published: AFP (February 19, 2021) Arab News (April 4, 2021) NYT (February 26, 2021) Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021) Business Today (March 2, 2021) The Print (February 13, 2021) CBC (April 4, 2021) Forbes (May 7, 2021) New Yorker (June 14, 2021) Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted.  Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented.  The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it  merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work.  Mottezen ( talk ) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree.  Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office.  This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable.  SportingFlyer T · C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as BLP1E.  Jake Wartenberg ( talk ) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability.  Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as BLP1E.   Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event.   (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.)  And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per BLP1E, largely per SportingFlyer's additional comment at 06:56 8 May in response to Mottezen (immediately above).  SF's comment addresses the prior AfD result in context of when it was resolved, and is correct in their assessment of our current standards regarding unsuccessful candidates for political office as I have seen at DRV over the years.  Agree not notable and this falls in the 1E category.  Daniel ( talk ) 03:30, 28 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete