Sri Preston Kulkarni: The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas.  Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN .  There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election.  I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage."  The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters.  Aside from its use of puffery , it's also NOT UNORTHODOX.  Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district.  Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp ).  His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni , but notability is not inherited.  There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 ( talk ) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions .  Mpen320 ( talk ) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions .  Mpen320 ( talk ) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability.   But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups.   The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear: Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston.  His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics.  Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas.  His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director.  Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close" Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote.
 “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said.  Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party" Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.”  New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷ Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages.  By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself.  Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas" So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing.   Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs.   Feels notable to me.   Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush.  Vivisel ( talk ) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply .  The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally.  It mentions him once.  It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign.  The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff.  It's basically self-published .  Relational organizing is not new.  From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new .  Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements.  The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is.  The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are.  This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds.  This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign.  This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative.  Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing . -- Mpen320 ( talk ) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article?   I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate.   And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.  And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?  I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive.  (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.")  Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.  Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself.  Vivisel ( talk ) 18:28, 14 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!  04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:50, 25 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: no consensus