Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saikat Chakrabarti


 * 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 keep.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Saikat Chakrabarti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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.* 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)
 * (*Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/Archive 5.) – Athaenara  ✉  00:50, 16 June 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.  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).,   You can see in the Washington Post article, this is coming from background around campaign finance issues   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.", he is getting interviewed as such.,   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.  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&thinsp;ich 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Intercept quote was from June, from his activities operating Justice Democrats long before he became her CoS. Several of the Indian articles were presented a month before the campaign finance Fox News stuff.  The New Yorker article quoting him on the Green New Deal was also in January.  Detonate your BLP1E. Trackinfo (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the "1E" is being "the brains behind AOC". All the coverage is about that. So, Justice Democrats was her PAC. The Green New Deal is her policy proposal. Every time he's in the news, he's talking about either working for AOC as COS, or, before that, working to get AOC elected. Leviv&thinsp;ich 14:17, 18 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)
 * I argue for redirect because that maintains the history in case he later meets GNG and qualifies for a full article. You obviously have not tried to revive an article that was once redirected, which is what you suggested we could do in the future.  And when this article was NOMed, the NOM only was able to find  Politico and Fox news sources, or actually that was the merger guy.  This guy didn't try at all.  WP:BEFORE.  We are now at 17 sources, many sources, particularly the Indian sources, are taking about HIM.  Do you still think he doesn't meet GNG?  Are your fingers in your ears?  Are you humming loud enough? Trackinfo (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trackinfo, please be polite. And please read my previous comments about the sources, directly below this conversation if you had noticed, where I point out that every source in the article was written after his successful connection with AOC brought him to public attention, and that all information about his previous activities is from those recent, AOC-related articles. He did not meet GNG prior to that, and his current publicity could be considered WP:BLP1E. He may well become more notable as time goes on, and yes, I have often seen or participated in the expansion of articles from a redirect - even a redirect that resulted from an AfD. The requirements are the same as those at WP:G4 - namely, that the expanded article not be substantially identical to the original article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of 17 sources currently in the article, 14 name AOC in the headline, one is the Politico article that is all about his work for AOC, and the remaining two are brief reports that he was featured by Politico. There is an objective lack of SIGCOV covering him independently of his boss. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:37, 13 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 use bare urls, virtually exclusively. User:Trackinfo, I have yet to have ANYONE show me how all the link formatting helps make a source more or less reliable, or prevents it from going away at the will of the copyright holder or website.  Its giant B.S. Trackinfo (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trackinfo, that is selfish of you and results in greatly inferior articles from the reader's point of view. (After all Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the readers, not for the convenience of editors.) The reason for including the full citation is so that readers can quickly and easily evaluate a citation - in particular: where is it from? when was it written? and what is its headline? Your complaints in your essay, about all the terrible long hard work it takes to do a full citation, are misplaced. There are numerous scripts and helpers available here that make citation easy. Personally I don't use a script, I use the "cite" button right here at the edit window, and it takes me about 30 seconds to insert a reference. IMO full references are so important to an article that I often expand bare-url references when I see them. If this article is kept I will probably expand its references. While grumbling about you not doing it in the first place. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This* is a collaborative project. I'm the editor who added full cite web format for the references other editors had supplied.  I didn't complain about doing the work, why should you?  – Athaenara  ✉  17:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC) (By "this*" I mean the encyclopedia.  – Athaenara  ✉  17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC) )
 * (Edit conflict) Yes, I just noticed that and was just about to thank you for it. Trackinfo should thank you too, but probably won't. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody owes me thanks for normal encyclopedic editing. – Athaenara  ✉  17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MelanieN I do not use the cite web format because it is a useless function that takes up unnecessary time and bandwidth. It makes it HARDER to find information.  It makes it HARDER to even locate where you are making an edit.  I'm not lazy, its a statement.  It doesn't improve or hinder the credibility of a source, as you were trying to intimate.  Bare urls clearly indicate where the information comes from.  If its not at the top, if you were to do a word search for something like "Chakrabarti," and such a common word it is, you'd be taken directly to the passages where the article is talking about the subject.  If other editors, like Athaenara, find it necessary, they can click through the process every hundred or so edits to an active article and your problem is solved.  I do thank Athaenara and every editor who makes a positive contribution to wikipedia, each in their own way.  That is why I am here too. Trackinfo (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow smh. One has to click on a URL to find out, e.g., who wrote it, when it was written, who published it, and the title of the work. So you're making readers click on each and every reference to get that information instead of being able to read it on the page. In articles with 300 references, how would that work for our reader? It's a jaw dropping "statement" you're making. Leviv&thinsp;ich 17:27, 13 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&thinsp;ich 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Furthermore, by that logic, Ted Sorensen, McGeorge Bundy, Larry O'Brien, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Pierre Salinger, Maxwell Taylor, and Averell Harriman should just redirect to John F. Kennedy. Ocasio-Cortez is no JFK, but Chakrabarti isn't a nobody, either.  If anybody rode in on anybody's coattails, she rode in on his.  – Athaenara  ✉  19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I agree with you, but that's not what I asked. (Also, that only reinforces that all he is known for is AOC, and thus his notability is inherited, not inherent.) What I asked is: what are the top three examples of significant coverage of Chak in reliable independent secondary sources? It's not enough to assert his notability, it must be demonstrated with WP:SIGCOV. Let's see if the SIGCOV withstands scrutiny. Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I read all of the sources during the few hours when I was, off and on (it's tedious), formating citations added by other editors. I recommend you read them as well.  – Athaenara  ✉  19:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , so two things: First, suggesting that I haven't read the sources is an ad hominem attack that might convince people I'm an idiot but it won't convince anyone to keep the Chak article. Second, the more I say, "post the three best sources", and the more you say stuff without posting any sources, the more you make my point: any potential source you post will be about AOC or Brand New Congress, not about Chak, except maybe for one. We both know that's true, and we both know that's what separates Chak from Schlesinger and all the rest of the examples above. So I humbly say: if there's GNG, post the best three. I'm making the "put up or shut up" challenge. It's up to you if you want to take it on. Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, not responding to any commands. I spoke my piece, and left in peace.  – Athaenara  ✉  19:31, 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)
 * That's the Politico Playbook (nothing to do with Playboy). – Athaenara  ✉  18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and Oppose Merge 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)
 * Keep and Oppose Merge mostly as per Trackinfo. The subject of this article is notable beyond his involvement with AOC. Also, really bad form to start an AFD, just an hour after a merge discussion was started. I guess I have comment there too since both are active. At the very least, the person nominating this for deletion could have mentioned the active merge discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and oppose merge he is separately notable, and his past positions (as " Justice Democrats executive director and former director of organizing technology for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign" and "Brand New Congress co-founder" are informative to our readers. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment. He seems to be notable 'only' as her chief of staff. Not an independently notable person who would deserve a separate page. Also agree with arguments by MelanieN. My very best wishes (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I added eight new sources covering his time before the victory of Ocasio-Cortez. His one on one interview with Rachel Maddow was more than two years before the Ocasio-Cortez primary win.  There is also coverage of his later one on one interview on The Young Turks, still more than a year before the primary.  The Ozy article puts him in the powerbroker role to select Ocasio-Cortez as a candidate. Trackinfo (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Then maybe. I do not watch US politics very closely. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and oppose merge - Subject has significant coverage and it serves our readers to keep the entry to help people understand the world around them - the encyclopedic mission. -- econterms (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge rare to see notable staffers, but not unprecedented (i.e. Amrish Tyagi). nominator might well consider, they would not want to be this editor, or this editor. -- Peavyeavy (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC) This editor has been CU blocked as a sock. Their !vote has been stricken. Leviv&thinsp;ich 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to see this too. There's been little talk of choice sourcing from those who oppose merger. There was the Politico mini-feature, the few paragraphs in the New Yorker, and what other "best source" did I not see that wasn't an incidental mention? czar  22:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and do not merge per the work of Trackinfo. The subject has been covered by RS and does not fall under 1E. Davey2116 (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Response to request for three examples of significant coverage. Here are some of the sources:  (1) The Kozub (2017) piece interviews Chakrabarti as a central figure in a new left/techy political movement as he was executive director of an organization and had been a manager in the Bernie Sanders campaign; it refers to a new technology they "pioneered".  Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned.  (2)  The Hough (2017) piece is also an interview with Chakrabarti and has his name in the title.  Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned.  There is some emphasis on his background as a small tech company founder and more on the Sanders campaign.  (3)  The 2016 interview by Rachel Maddow, of him alone, about the Sanders campaign.  Maddow's show is huge.  Ocasio-Cortez is not mentioned.  (4)  Shaw's (2019, Fox) piece is about him although his role is in the headline, not his name.  It mentions his background and a potential/incipient scandal and characterizes the scandal and him as being "in the headlines"; (5)  The Politico (2019) piece should clear any notability hurdle as he is characterized in a list as one of the most influential "behind the scenes players" in America politics.  If I have to pick exactly three examples of significant coverage, I pick Kozub's, Maddow's, and Politico's.  The case would be weaker if I had to pick three that didn't mention Ocasio-Cortez but the first three might clear the bar.  -- econterms (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hough (#2, Inquisitr) is an unreliable source. And that Chakrabarti appeared on Maddow (video-only, no text) puts him alongside hundreds of pundits—not in itself a sign of independent notability, as only usable as a self-published ref. The Shaw (Fox News) article is about the AOC campaign, though it does roundup some extra detail from right-leaning press. I suppose this makes Kozub the "third source", but I'd argue that it doesn't offer us much on Chakrabarti himself if we're looking to write an encyclopedic biography that does justice to the subject. I don't think anyone is sincerely arguing for "deletion" here but if the coverage of Chakrabarti is not specific to him as a figure (instead about his organizational affiliations) then we'd be looking at a tasteful merger. czar  01:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll study Inquisitr and WP:SPS and reflect on the quality of those sources.  They seemed fine but I didn't know they didn't meet guidelines. -- econterms (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. I struggle to understand the motivation and thinking of the deletionist advocates here. This looks like a snow keep case to me because it has lots of sources, and is helpful to readers.  (I don't remember knowing about this person till I read it yesterday, and it's been helpful and illuminating.)  One hypothesis is that many people think politicians, who got the actual votes, are the real players, and that staffers are nothings.  But I've met a bunch of legislative staffers (not this one), and seen them interviewed and they are often brilliant, well-informed, non-partisan, and pretty expert on legislation.  It is appropriate to illuminate the legislative process by covering them on Wikipedia.  It's not just a paperwork matter of whether there are more than three, or five, sources for each one. Reading about such people illuminates the meaning and effect of a Tea Party movement or a Justice Democrats movement in legislation.  They are analogous to top civil servants who often don't get coverage anywhere but they have to put procedural substance behind the top officials who have the microphones.  In the cases when they get >3 sources, it makes sense to have an article about such people. -- econterms (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and oppose merge - Subject is a notable figure in his own right. As for published sources mentioning him outside of his relationship with Congresswoman Cortez, here is an interview from two years ago of an interview of Mr Chakrabarti by Cenk Uygur on The Young Turks: Meet The Exec Director Of Justice Democrats Saikat Chakrabarti - YouTube -- Phersh (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – I appreciate the work that many editors have put in trying to establish notability of the subject of this article. 26 references as of right now–but unfortunately, almost all of them still have "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez" in the headline and not Chakrabarti. Looking at the best examples: the Politico profile is entirely about his work for Sanders, JD/BNC, and AOC (all of which is really the same employer, this is all Sanders' progeny), and it's not really very significant in length. Counting that as one example of significant coverage in an independent reliable source, we still need multiple such examples to meet WP:GNG. The Rachel Maddow interview doesn't count; it's entirely about Brand New Congress, it's not about Chak; he is only the spokesperson. Kozub/The Verge, and Shaw/Fox News, are both all about AOC and the PACs, and from marginal RSes. Inquistr is not an RS (news aggregator, not journalism). Everything else put forward is either a passing mention or from a non-reliable source. Look at his article right now: the sections are Bernie Sanders, Justice Democrats, AOC. Almost all of the content is about somebody other than Chakrabarti. We can't write a decent stand-alone article about him because he is not notable enough and we don't have the RSes to draw from. It's not about how many sources we can gather, but about their quality . And in this case, he is always treated as a "part of" the Bernie Sanders/AOC political machine. Barring multiple examples of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, his article should be merged and redirected. Leviv&thinsp;ich 14:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles in Politico and India Abroad  both focus on Chakkrabarti. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The India Abroad article has 7 paragraphs: 3 paragraphs are reprints of quotes from the Politico article; 2 paragraphs are reprints of quotes from the Rolling Stone article (about Justice Democrats, in which Chak was quoted); 1 paragraph quotes DC Beat; the remaining paragraph is two sentences summarizing his life before AOC. It does not seem that any actual journalism or reporting went into the writing of the India Abroad article. Politico still seems to be the only one, and even that one is marginal. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm not trying to be "cute" in analyzing the sources. The Politico article is 16 paragraphs. The headline has his name in it (not AOC's). The picture is a picture of him. The 16 paragraphs are all the product of original reporting and interviews–you can tell work went into the writing of this article. It's still all about his work for AOC, but in my view it's at least marginally significant coverage in an independent reliable source. I think that's charitably one for GNG, but all the others cited in our article or posted here fall well short of even a relaxed standard. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the case that "almost all" of the headlines of the footnoted sources refer to AOC. It is utterly, thoroughly, and totally not the case that "Sanders, JD/BNC, and AOC" are the same employer. Chak's employment with the Sanders campaign-for-president would not even be the same usually as employment with the Sanders Senate office; AOC's office in the House of Representatives is very very very different legally and administratively from the Sanders campaign, it's a legislative office.  Chak is one of the founders of Justice Democrats and also of Brand New Congress which are independently notable PACs by Wikipedia's definition.  They are definitely distinct from political campaigns or legislative offices.  It makes sense to say they are part of the same movement, but Sanders' "progeny" whether family or virtual/intellectual can be independently notable.  JD and BNC have been judged independently notable for example.  -- econterms (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do Sanders, JD, BNC, and AOC have in common that Chak doesn't? Notability, as evidenced by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. For Chak, he has one such example: the Politico article. Still waiting for someone to produce a second one. So far, everything in our article, and everything posted here, hasn't been significant, independent, or in a reliable source, except for the one Politico article. In my view, AfD shouldn't be about the number of sources or the number of !keep votes; it's about quality, not quantity. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:GNG calls for in-depth coverage in multiple sources. It does not say the article or headline must not mention the person's more-famous employer, father, spouse, etc. -- that would set an impossibly high bar for many notable people who are closely associated with others more famous. The Rolling Stone article talks about Justice Democrats in the context of a long interview with Chakrabarti, describing his trajectory from Sanders campaign, his associates there, the motivation behind their creating Brand New Congress, and finally Justice Democrats. It is certainly in-depth coverage of Chakrabarti. So is the Verge piece. So is the Politico piece. Maddow interviewed him about Brand New Congress--which he co-founded, and which was, as Maddow pointed out, a brand new idea. People are much more interested in AOC than they are in Chakrabarti. He still passes GNG, our relevant policy. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree having a more-famous employer does not disqualify a person as being notable. An example of this is Sarah Sanders, who is notable because of her employer. There was no wikipedia article for her before February 2017. -- Phersh (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If Chakrabarti is being interviewed in an article about JD, then the article is about JD, not about Chakrabarti, and supports JD's notability, not Chakrabarti's. People aren't notable because they were interviewed by the media about something. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You claim "If Chakrabarti is being interviewed in an article about JD, then the article ..supports JD's notability, not Chakrabarti's." Please show me where in our policy it says that in-depth coverage must be an article ONLY about one single notable person. Nothing in GNG supports that claim. Rolling Stone interviewed Chakrabarti at length and in depth about his own career and achievements (Chakrabarti is a co-founder of JD and BNC, both notable organizations.) For people who are not porn stars or instagram models, "in-depth coverage" is coverage of their career and their achievements. You seem fond of WP:NOTINHERIT, which it is not policy but part of an essay about arguments to avoid. Speaking of arguments to avoid, "People aren't notable because they were interviewed by the media about something" is a straw man argument. Nobody here has been saying that. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This Rolling Stone article is not significant coverage of Chakrabarti because:
 * The headline doesn't name Chakrabarti, it names Justice Democrats
 * The lead paragraphs don't mention Charkabarti
 * The lead photograph isn't a picture of Chakrabarti, it's a picture of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The article has two pictures of her, zero pictures of Chakrabarti.
 * The article is 19 paragraphs; only one sentence is about Chakrabarti exclusively. That sentence is: Chakrabarti was in tech, an early employee at a multibillion-dollar startup in the Bay Area, growing increasingly disillusioned with the industry. That's the only information in the article about Chakrabarti's background.
 * In every other instance in which the article gives information about Chakrabarti, it's in the context of him and the other two founders of Justice Democrats, and only about their founding of Justice Democrats: The three leaders of Justice Democrats — Chakrabarti, Alexandra Rojas and Corbin Trent — met back in 2015, when the only thing they had in common was the fact that they each dropped everything they were doing and went to work for Sanders not long after he declared his candidacy. ... Gradually, in early 2017, Rojas, Chakrabarti and Trent transitioned away from Brand New Congress and toward Justice Democrats. ...And that’s also what Rojas, Chakrabarti, Trent and Justice Democrats as a whole are turning their attention to: creating an entire system to support the candidates they’ve helped elect as they pursue these big, ambitious projects.
 * There are zero quotes from Chakrabarti about Chakrabarti. Every time he's quoted, he's talking about Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, Justice Democrats, or something else.
 * I agree with what you wrote, that GNG requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. This Rolling Stone article doesn't even come close to being in-depth coverage of Chakrabarti. He doesn't meet GNG because so far we only have one arguably in-depth source: Politico. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I registered my Keep vote early on, because I did my research, while the NOM failed to do an efficient WP:BEFORE. I used those sources, along with help from other editors, to improve the article and clearly refute the arguments of all but the most stubborn of dissenters. So lets review; We have been through this needless exercise because it was 1) nom is out of process, 2) (quoting myself) Nom apparently doesn't google too well and 3) While I hate the AfD process because it makes valuable content vulnerable, I does result in improvements to an article.  I had never heard of this guy until this was brought up, first as a merge and then this AfD, now I know he is an important player in our current political situation; recent past, present and future.  After those improvements to this article, we are now in a situation where; in the last 7 days there is but one lone dissenter against a barrage of 11 KEEPs  I think our work is done here.  WP:SNOW
 * Keep because I see him mentioned in political articles all the time. The election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is bound to have lasting consequences. It makes sense that someone greatly involved in that election would be notable too. Connor Behan (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone idk Mosaicberry (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Observation: The consensus developed robustly here for 7-8 days toward a strong and unambiguous keep result: relisting the discussion was frivolous.  – Athaenara  ✉  03:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Athaenara; no need to relist. Airbornemihir (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The further moral to this story is whenever you see an AfD where a NOM says there is nothing to be found about this subject,
 * DO NOT TRUST THAT STATEMENT. Google it for yourself.  While I think it should be obvious and it should be a requirement that all NOMs do a legitimate BEFORE, there is no enforcement.  I think they should be penalized for making frivolous NOMs without one.  Somehow, I seem to have a gift for finding sources those other people miss.  I added 21 sources to this article (some were removed).  Is it just me?  I wish it isn't.  We need more WP:Inclusionists to help save Wikipedia's valuable content, or articles like this could be disappeared by ill founded NOMs or worse, by people with bad intent.  We all need to be vigilant.  Help here.  I will be willing to teach deep Google technique.  Maybe I need to formulate an essay.  I believe in collegiality.  Please contact me through my talk page to learn, discuss or help. Trackinfo (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. You didn't sign your first comment, and both your comments are indented so as to suggest they are replies to me - was that your intention? Airbornemihir (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not intended as a reply to you but to the entire subject at hand. I'm used to indenting after my initial comment where my !vote is registered.  I further indented my "Moral to the story" so as not to take away from the emphasis that this AfD should already be closed.  All of that really was just one long comment (as always with corrections). Trackinfo (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with User:Athaenara and User:Airbornemihir -- relisting didn't make sense.  Trackinfo, okay yes I will sign up for Article Rescue; you are right.  I have an immediate process question too.  Isn't Relisting supposed to be done only by an admin?  Eggroll97 doesn't appear to be an admin.  I feel like the deletion-advocates here are doing something unusual, something that is not in good faith, wasting our time and energy.  Is it appropriate to ask for help at Village pump or ANI or someplace?  I might need to go to wikilaw school, after many years of trying to avoid conflict.  We could just request an admin to close this, perhaps, which isn't a fight really.  -- econterms (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to seem like an old tired hand but over a dozen years, I've seen this happen many times before. What you see happening here, especially below this comment, is called WP:Wikilawyering.  There is a class of editors, WP:Deletionists who advocate deletion even when it goes beyond reason.  They just want brownie points for a win, or worse, they have an agenda.  They will nit pick every little detail to mislead the discussion well after they have been proven wrong.  I don't think anything can be gained by stooping to their level by addressing their issues, they simply drag the discussion down or at least sideways from the key point.  Its a baiting process. Trackinfo (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Still looking for three good sources. So far there's this Politico article. Other possibilities put forward are this Rolling Stone article (which I see as being about Justice Democrats, not Chakrabarti) and this India Abroad article (which is mostly a collection of quotes from the Politico and Rolling Stone articles). Any other candidates? Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As discussed above: Kozub (2017), Maddow (2016), and Politico (2019).  Maddow's interview is a one-on-one prime time TV interview with probably over one million viewers about a organization he co-founded. He is not just its spokesperson, but a founder of this notable organization. The Politico one relates his role to Ocasio-Cortez; the others do not mention her. -- econterms (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Kozub 2017 in The Verge is not about Chakrabarti, it's about Justice Democrats and The Young Turks. Chakrabarti isn't in the headline, he isn't in the lead picture, and his name isn't in the lead paragraph. The whole thing is 17 paragraphs, and there are two sentences about Chakrabarti, and they are: As the director of Organizing Technology for the Sanders campaign, Chakrabarti worked alongside Justice Democrats co-founder Zach Exley and communications director Corbin Trent to create software to organize grassroots support. ... The group, which intends to be a consolidated resource and fundraising entity for all of its candidates, shares many of its members with Justice Democrats, including Chakrabarti, Exley, and Trent. All of Chakrabarti's quotes in the piece are about Justice Democrats, not about himself. This is not in-depth coverage of Chakrabarti. Same with the Maddow interview, in which Chakrabarti is being interviewed about his organization, Brand New Congress, not about himself. Maddow isn't profiling him, she's profiling BNC. Compare that with Politico, which is about him. If you set the "significant coverage" bar at Politico, nothing even comes close. Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 22:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It will be really good if arguments about what does or does not "count" as significant coverage are based on Wikipedia policy rather than personal opinions. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Examples of significant coverage that meet GNG are Politico, Rolling Stone, New Yorker, Verge, and Fox News. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that policy excerpt. Yes, I agree, that's the exact part of GNG we should be looking at. It doesn't have to be the main part of the story, but it must be a source that "addresses the topic directly and in-depth". Let's look:
 * Politico – ok
 * Rolling Stone – one sentence about Chakrabarti (quoted above)
 * The Verge – two sentences about Chakrabarti (quoted above)
 * New Yorker – two sentences about Chakrabarti: Last spring, Chakrabarti, a thirty-two-year-old veteran of the Sanders campaign, was leading Brand New Congress, an organization that he co-founded to recruit progressive candidates, and which helped persuade Ocasio-Cortez to challenge a powerful Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, in New York’s Fourteenth Congressional District. and In our conversation, Chakrabarti came across as curious and excitable—he kept using the word "gigantic" to describe the changes he envisioned—and not unlike the young people who, a decade ago, attached themselves to Obama.
 * Fox News – In terms of depth, definitely second-place behind Politico, but still only a handful of sentences, and the focus is still more about others than him. Every time they say something about him, it's in the context of saying that he works for her.
 * Meet Saikat Chakrabarti. At 33, he came to Washington a wealthy tech entrepreneur, and now serves as the congresswoman’s chief of staff – or as he quips in his Twitter bio, "CoS to @AOC."
 * The aide for months flew under the radar, but hit the headlines amid fresh accusations of possible campaign finance violations in a conservative watchdog group's FEC complaint. Far from an in-the-trenches organizer by trade, Chakrabarti was a Harvard-educated computer engineer and went on to make his riches in a number of startups in Silicon Valley, before eventually turning his attention to promoting the new wave of democratic socialists.
 * Chakrabarti spent eight years in Silicon Valley, where he co-founded the web design tool Mockingbird -- before working as a "founding engineer" at a payment processor called Stripe, according to his LinkedIn page. Politico reports that work came after a "brief stint on Wall Street." From there, he shifted into the world of left-wing activism, where he worked for Sen. Bernie Sanders', I-Vt., 2016 presidential bid, before co-founding Brand New Congress -- an organization looking to launch left-wing candidates into Congress. That in turn led to his co-founding of Justice Democrats -- the organization that seeks "to usher in a new generation of diverse working class leaders into the Democratic Party" and that propelled Ocasio-Cortez to her unlikely primary victory over then-Rep. Joe Crowley. During her longshot bid, Chakrabarti served as her campaign manager.
 * Finances, though, are turning out to be problematic for Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti. The latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint accuses the pair of violating campaign finance law by funneling nearly $1 million in contributions from political action committees Chakrabarti established to private companies he also controlled.
 * I guess if you concede that Fox News is a reliable source for information about AOC's Chief of Staff, then maybe the two (Politico and Fox News) would get him just across the GNG line (though there's still the BLP1E concern). Leviv&thinsp;<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(45deg);position:relative;bottom:-.57em;">ich 14:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting GNG, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources" In addition to significant attention, GNG requires significant coverage. We don't have to guess what "significant coverage" means, the policy tells us what it means: enough detail about the topic that "no original research is needed to extract the content." The New Yorker and Rolling Stone articles report much of SC's story using his own words, using sentences that contain direct quotes. Those sentences also contain much direct and in-depth information about SC and his work. I disagree with 's claim, which GNG nowhere supports, that only one or two sentences of each article are "about" SC. Also BLP1E? Of the "three conditions" mentioned in BLP1E, SC meets exactly zero. Can some admin please close this AfD as a clear Keep now? HouseOfChange (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you feel comfortable closing this discussion? I think the consensus is clear. Castncoot (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per the analysis of the sources above. I do not believe there is WP:BLP1E issue at all because the two most in-depth sources deal with 2 different events: One with his nomination as AOC's chief of staff, and the other with the campaign finance mismanagement claim. Emass100 (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, I don't. For two reasons. One, because I participated in the discussion, arguing to merge. Two, because I still think that while the numerical count favors keep, the arguments against keep are better reasoned and more persuasive. So no, I will remain as a commenter at this discussion, and you should find someone else to close it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.