Content deleted Content added
→Saikat Chakrabarti: Keep |
→Saikat Chakrabarti: reply to MelanieN, Levivich: If you'd read the sources you'd understand that Ocasio-Cortez wouldn't even be in office if it were not for the work of Chakrabarti and the PACs he co-founded. You asked. |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:P.S. I invite everyone who is arguing KEEP to take a look a the sources in this article. The references are very badly sourced, mostly with bare urls, but if you take the trouble to check them you will find that ''every single one'' was written in the last six months and is primarily about his connection to Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. He had done a number of things up to that point, which people are touting as giving him notability. But the descriptions of his previous exploits are all sourced to articles written in the last few months, in flashback. Apparently none of his previous activities had gotten him any ''contemporaneous'' significant coverage from reliable sources. It is only his connection with AOC that gets him press now. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
:P.S. I invite everyone who is arguing KEEP to take a look a the sources in this article. The references are very badly sourced, mostly with bare urls, but if you take the trouble to check them you will find that ''every single one'' was written in the last six months and is primarily about his connection to Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. He had done a number of things up to that point, which people are touting as giving him notability. But the descriptions of his previous exploits are all sourced to articles written in the last few months, in flashback. Apparently none of his previous activities had gotten him any ''contemporaneous'' significant coverage from reliable sources. It is only his connection with AOC that gets him press now. -- [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::I would invite any editor who is arguing KEEP to post the top [[WP:THREE]] examples of [[WP:SIGCOV]] that would satisfy [[WP:GNG]]. Personally, I don't think there are three examples of sigcov out there. [[User:Levivich|Leviv]] <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">[[User talk:Levivich|ich]]</span> 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
::I would invite any editor who is arguing KEEP to post the top [[WP:THREE]] examples of [[WP:SIGCOV]] that would satisfy [[WP:GNG]]. Personally, I don't think there are three examples of sigcov out there. [[User:Levivich|Leviv]] <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">[[User talk:Levivich|ich]]</span> 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: {{Reply to|MelanieN}} {{Reply to|Levivich}} If you'd read the sources you'd understand that Ocasio-Cortez wouldn't even be in office if it were not for the work of Chakrabarti and the PACs he co-founded. You asked. – [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Redirect''' and mention at main article, if not already mentioned. Not independently notable; being mentioned in an article is not evidence of notability, nor is being on the Playboy politico list of whatever. [[User:El cid, el campeador|<span style="color:black">'''‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:el cid, el campeador|<span style="color:teal">ᐐT₳LKᐬ</span>]]</sup> 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Redirect''' and mention at main article, if not already mentioned. Not independently notable; being mentioned in an article is not evidence of notability, nor is being on the Playboy politico list of whatever. [[User:El cid, el campeador|<span style="color:black">'''‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:el cid, el campeador|<span style="color:teal">ᐐT₳LKᐬ</span>]]</sup> 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' This person is had significant coverage in the Washington Post, Politico, and other national media. He may be "only" CoS for AOC currently, but has been a Washington power player and an important campaign finance person --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 17:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' This person is had significant coverage in the Washington Post, Politico, and other national media. He may be "only" CoS for AOC currently, but has been a Washington power player and an important campaign finance person --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 17:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:56, 11 March 2019
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Saikat Chakrabarti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to have independent notability; article is more or less a WP:COATRACK for claims which more properly belong in an article about his employer, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and no sustained coverage. A few early history and personal details doesn't conceal the article - in its current form - as a WP:COATRACK. This guy is completely unnotable otherwise. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. 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 merger is a preferable alternative to deletion and the chief of staff is a useful redirect for his mentions at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. czar 21:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as independent article. Chakrabarti is Ocasio-Cortez's chief of staff but is also his own individual. What he says is expected to reflect her opinion, but that doesn't mean he cannot independently express his opinion when it vibes with her opinion anyway. This is an objectively edited, well-sourced article that meets all standalone Wikipedia criteria. It also describes in detail Chakrabarti's own personal life and career and appropriately cites and sources his pedigree and accomplishments. I don't believe it is correct to merge all of this content into AOC's campaign article or AOC' personal article. Castncoot (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Repeating what I said in the AOC talk page; Nom apparently doesn't google too well. I'll point out, I never heard of this guy until I saw this thread. First he was the technology director for Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign. It was the technological support that caused that campaign to start to take off, but he didn't get well publicized about it. Second he was founder of Brand New Congress.[1] That is significant and much more of a notable achievement. Prior to working for Ocasio-Cortez. after graduating Harvard, as a software developer, he worked at Apple, was a founding engineer that developed Stripe, and created Mockingbird (gomockingbird.com).[2], [3] You can see in the Washington Post article, this is coming from background around campaign finance issues [4] [5] pushed by the right, where his name comes up. A developing story, I'll avoid characterizing the campaign finance stuff until I read up on it. It sure looks like the dealings of Chakrabarti will be coming up more often. His independent actions are being discussed, as are those of Manafort and Cohen, independent of the political figure who is the front person for the controversy. Additionally, he is treated as the "brains behind Ocasio-Cortez."[6], he is getting interviewed as such.[7], [8] We have articles on powerful aides; Huma Abedin for example. It would be wise of wikipedia to provide background on this name in the news.[9] Yes, it is a WP:BLP so then we have to watch that article to make sure it doesn't become a coatrack for garbage about him or other subjects. Trackinfo (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge – 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 WP:BLP1E. 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 WP:GNG 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). Leviv ich 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect, fails WP:BIO / WP:BIO1E 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. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per well-reasoned arguments by Castncoot and Trackinfo (and do not merge). Chakrabarti was independently notable before the Ocasio-Cortez campaign. Though his notability now may seem dim in the bright light of O-C media coverage, Wikipedia is not news (policy). That fewer knew of him last year than now isn't actually an encyclopedic criterion. – Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect He is notable enough for that, but not for a standalone article at this point. His "coverage" before the election of Ocasio-Cortez was pretty much nonexistent. It increased slightly when he became her chief of staff, as a mention in articles about her. The current high level of scrutiny is caused by his being accused of campaign violations - a classic case of NOTNEWS. I argue for redirect because that maintains the history in case he later meets GNG and qualifies for a full article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Having been down this road before, when an article is redirected and merged, that cuts off the ability to edit the article with future developments. It also stands as a major impediment to taking the article back mainspace. With a weak consensus declared in hand, one editor with an agenda can keep it bottled up until it is re-litigated on an obscure talk page which is watched by those with the same agenda. This guy has had his high profile job for barely two months. Do you think that possibly in the next 22 months, particularly with the garbage story currently being pushed, he might have more content written about HIM? A bad decision here will certainly keep this future content away from public view. And that will be the agenda. Without a neutral wikipedia article, the interested public will google and find the sources we have already, and the ever expanding array of right wing character assassination pieces that are already up there. Trackinfo (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting speculation which has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy and does not match with my experience. Expanding a redirected article is easy. Keeping an article about a subject who does not meet GNG, on the theory that he will later so we should have an article about him now, is counter to our philosophy and policy. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Having been down this road before, when an article is redirected and merged, that cuts off the ability to edit the article with future developments. It also stands as a major impediment to taking the article back mainspace. With a weak consensus declared in hand, one editor with an agenda can keep it bottled up until it is re-litigated on an obscure talk page which is watched by those with the same agenda. This guy has had his high profile job for barely two months. Do you think that possibly in the next 22 months, particularly with the garbage story currently being pushed, he might have more content written about HIM? A bad decision here will certainly keep this future content away from public view. And that will be the agenda. Without a neutral wikipedia article, the interested public will google and find the sources we have already, and the ever expanding array of right wing character assassination pieces that are already up there. Trackinfo (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. I invite everyone who is arguing KEEP to take a look a the sources in this article. The references are very badly sourced, mostly with bare urls, but if you take the trouble to check them you will find that every single one was written in the last six months and is primarily about his connection to Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez. He had done a number of things up to that point, which people are touting as giving him notability. But the descriptions of his previous exploits are all sourced to articles written in the last few months, in flashback. Apparently none of his previous activities had gotten him any contemporaneous significant coverage from reliable sources. It is only his connection with AOC that gets him press now. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would invite any editor who is arguing KEEP to post the top WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy WP:GNG. Personally, I don't think there are three examples of sigcov out there. Leviv ich 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MelanieN: @Levivich: If you'd read the sources you'd understand that Ocasio-Cortez wouldn't even be in office if it were not for the work of Chakrabarti and the PACs he co-founded. You asked. – Athaenara ✉ 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would invite any editor who is arguing KEEP to post the top WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV that would satisfy WP:GNG. Personally, I don't think there are three examples of sigcov out there. Leviv ich 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect and mention at main article, if not already mentioned. Not independently notable; being mentioned in an article is not evidence of notability, nor is being on the Playboy politico list of whatever. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This person is had significant coverage in the Washington Post, Politico, and other national media. He may be "only" CoS for AOC currently, but has been a Washington power player and an important campaign finance person --rogerd (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)