The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Arpan Khanna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, unelected politician. Does not meet GNG or NPOLITICS. Madg2011 ( talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 ( talk) 23:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC) reply

•  Comment: Arpan Khanna has a significant media coverage from major news media in Canada. Google News Search, which falls under the GNG guidelines. And Canadian federal elections are less than 100 days away and he is the candidate from high approval rating party. I think it should not be deleted until the election and can be considered for deletion after the elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.88.105 ( talk) 19:18, July 20, 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:POLOUTCOMES, "Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." You need to win an election, not just run in one, to be considered notable; otherwise, you need to be externally notable for some other reason. Coverage saying "person X is running" is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't really pass the bar. Also, if he's not notable now, he's not notable now; there's no reason to wait for the election. Of course, if he wins, he should have an article. He just doesn't qualify for one as it stands now. Madg2011 ( talk) 03:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being as yet unelected candidates in future elections — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding office, not just running for it. And just having a couple of hits of "party chooses candidate" in the local media is not a free pass over GNG that exempts a candidate from having to win the seat first, either, because every candidate in every riding can always show a couple of hits of "party chooses candidate" in the local media. Rather, the only way he would already be eligible to have an article today is if he were demonstrable as having already been notable enough for an article for other reasons before he was selected as a candidate for anything — absent that he remains non-notable unless and until he wins. So no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to keep an article today. And no, our rule is not "keep candidates pending the election results and then delete the ones who lost", either — it's "wait until election day before starting articles only about the new MPs who won". Bearcat ( talk) 15:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete since subkect fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Let's gallantly invoke WP:TOOSOON. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notalbe political candidate. Local media coverage exists for all candidates, but they are not all notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:33, 27 July 2019 (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.