Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahseen Chowdhury


 * 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. If anyone wants this userfied for the long-term (with the intention that when the future becomes the present it can be started up again in mainspace), let me know Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Tahseen Chowdhury

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician. Chowdhury's gimmick (announcing a candidacy before he's even eligible to vote) is cute, but in the end, candidates for this type of office are not inherently notable, and Chowdhury has only received the amount of press he has (which doesn't appear to be much) because of his age. If he wins the election in 2018, he will then become an eligible NPOL, but not before. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for declaring their candidacy in a future election, but this article features neither a claim of preexisting notability for anything else that would have gotten him over another notability criterion instead of WP:NPOL, nor enough reliable sourcing to deem him significantly more notable than other as yet unelected state legislature candidates. As written, the sourcing is based on a mixture of primary sources, blogs and purely local "teenager declares candidacy for office" human interest coverage of the type that every candidate for anything would always get. And for added bonus, the article was created by an SPA with no prior edit history, and has also been edited by an SPA named "TahseenCampaign", so there's some WP:COI in the mix as well — not that COI is a deletion rationale in and of itself if the article were otherwise salvageable, but it does confirm that the intent here was to use Wikipedia as a publicity platform rather than an encyclopedia. So no prejudice against recreation in November 2018 if he wins the election, but none of this makes him notable enough to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat. Zhangj1079 (T&#124;C) 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.