John Prabhudoss: Of the 5 sources cited on the page, 1 is his organization's own website and 3 are news articles that only mention him in passing.  The Christian Post article is the only one that goes in-depth on him, and Christian Post is not exactly a high-profile news outlet.  I've looked on Google and can't find anything much better.  It seems like his only claim to notability is leading the Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations, an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own.  I don't see how he passes WP:GNG .  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians , Christianity ,  and Virginia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment as The Christian Post is most definitely a major news outlet capable of conferring notability through SIGCOV.  Since the primary hasn't happened yet, notability might be contingent on a future event ( WP:CRYSTAL ).  As such, I don't feel comfortable putting in an ! vote.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll admit the Christian Post is more high-profile than I realized, but it's still a niche online publication.  Also, that's not how it works--the goal of this discussion is to determine whether Prabhudoss meets the notability requirements right now.  And even if he did win the Republican primary, being the Republican nominee for a U.S. House seat wouldn't automatically make him notable.  See WP:NPOL BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem confused: I just said that I'm unwilling to ! vote because of the reasons you repeated.  Also, The Christian Post is not a niche publication.  It's on roughly the same level as the Chicago Tribune in terms of establishing notability (speaking of which, here's a passing mention).  Right now, I'm most inclined to ! vote towards deletion.  I want to see if anyone finds something else first, though.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete this feels like a hard choice to make.  Mr. Prabhudoss is notable enough to be mentioned in publications going back 20+ years as shown above.  The article however, is severely lacking in additional sources.  Three sections have none at all.  I did find this article from India Today from last Summer where he was mentioned.  And here from Al Jazzera briefly.  So I can see an argument for why he should have an article.  He's a notable enough person that reputable publications want or will publish his input on a specific matter.  I can also see the argument for why he shouldn't have an article because he's not a notable person in the general sphere.  As of now I'm leaning towards a weak delete.  The issue Mr. Prabhudoss advocates for is a niche one.  Yes reputable publications have quoted him when they do cover that specific topic.  But that doesn't entirely make someone notable enough for their own article.  And when he is quoted it's usually on behalf of the organization he represented.  Which I do believe is notable enough to have it's own article.  FIACONA is covered far more extensively than Mr. Prabhudoss has been.  I am willing to change my vote if someone is able to convince me though.  Or he could end up winning his election making all this irrelevant. - ThisUserIsTaken ( talk ) 01:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most of the sources are covering his organisation, not him specifically as an individual.  It's likely his organisation would meet notability requirements, but having a BLP instead isn't helpful, especially given whole sections of this article are completely unsourced.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED .  The sources barely cover the organization of which he is part, and more the issues he espouses.  That is not enough for WP:SIGCOV .  Bearian ( talk ) 16:58, 22 April 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