Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 8: Line 8:
==Politicians==
==Politicians==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Junaid}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Chiongbian}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Chiongbian}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uday_Mandal}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uday_Mandal}}

Revision as of 15:28, 6 April 2021

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Politicians. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politicians|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politicians. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics for a general list of deletion debates on related issues.


Politicians

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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Junaid

Mir Junaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable Politician. Fails WP:NPOL, According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are notable if they held international, national or state/province post. Also somehow looks promotional to me. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed on notability based on other notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riteboke, Not significantly tho, Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability. He Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 15:01, 23 April 2021 (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.
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chiongbian

Roy Chiongbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable business person and political candidate. 2 of the 3 links in the article are dead. The only other source is a blog post claiming that he ran against Manny Pacquiao (the boxer) in 2010 for Congress, and lost. I did not see his name mentioned on Manny Pacquiao's Wikipedia article and have not found any verifiable information that that claim is even true. Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any sources to constitute inclusion to Wikipedia. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:46, 6 April 2021 (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.
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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Mandal

Uday Mandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, given sources are either self-published or not verifiable. Had been DEPRODed, WP:BEFORE does provide results only for a scientist with the same name. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has not held any political role that would confer an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and the article is referenced to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that are not about him, which are not notability-building sources. Also, the creator's username was "Uday88mandal", indicating that this is an autobiography. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:43, 13 April 2021 (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.
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. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21talk 00:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E. C. Alft

AfDs for this article:
E. C. Alft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alft was a mayor of a small city, school teacher, and author of local histories. None of the sources here would add towards passing GNG. One of them is actually a work he wrote. A search finds a few adds for books he wrote and lots of brief mentions to his works, but no substantial indepth information about him that would justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two-page, multi-column, in-depth biographical profiles in a major regional newspapers like the Chicago Tribune do not count toward a GNG analysis? There is no support whatsoever for that interpretation in WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:BASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time Alft was mayor of Elgin it had 56,000 people. Beyond this, Elgin is just one of many suburbs of Chicago, so its importance is not as high as it would be if it were a center of a metro area of its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Elgin "just one of many suburbs of Chicago" reflects a striking misunderstanding of its history. Elgin is not the product of post-WWWII suburban sprawl. It is located an hour's drive from central Chicago, has a long history (by Midwest standards) dating to 1835, and was home to the Elgin Watch Company and, from the 19th century through the 1960s, the largest watchmaking complex in the world.Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alqi Bllako

Alqi Bllako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If I were to make an educated guess I’d say this is a promotional autobiography. The subject of the of the article lacks in-depth significant in reliable sources independent of them. Although the article is unsourced at this point. A WP:BEFORE search turns back 0 reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Fleetwood

Seth Fleetwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a small city with very little coverage outside of the immediate area, even in the larger newspapers of the same state. Only other notable position is county council, which isn't enough for WP:NPOL. SounderBruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Haven't dug in to make a determination but I note that Bellingham is not so small with a population of 92,000. We generally presume notability for mayors of cities with populations over 100,000. Cbl62 (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mayor of the northernmost city with a population of more than 50,000 people in the contiguous United States is notable. KidAd • SPEAK 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I don't agree that the northernmost city with pop over 50k is enough to be notable, however- that, combined with the town not being that far under the 100k mark makes me pause. Technically I don't think he qualifies- but its close. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does not appear his legal career would qualify him nor would his mayoral service.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bellingham WA is not a large or significant enough city to extend its mayors an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a properly demonstrated pass of WP:NPOL #2, cities don't get special exemptions from NPOL just because their population cracks 50K or because of their geographical locations per se, and this relies mainly on primary sources rather than any significant volume of reliable source coverage for the purposes of getting him past NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The cited references do not go in-depth enough to qualify per WP:POLITICIAN. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the consensus is that mayors of cities of moderate size are not automatically notable, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. There's no standard policy for lawyers, but he would fail my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater 21:39, 7 April 2021 (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.
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 no consensus. Participants are evenly divided, both numerically and from a strength-of-argument perspective, and a fourth relist is unlikely to change that. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Niguse

Yemane Niguse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Might have been G5 eligible but not totally sure. Noah 💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:-noah-: What does "G5 eligible" mean, please? BushelCandle (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eligible for G5 speedy deletion.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not making the exact extent of my ignorance clearer, Kieran207, but I think I understand the "eligible for speedy deletion part" - it's the G5 jargon that has me nonplussed: where can I find exactly this (presumed) G5 rule or whatever? (A link or URL would assist my education...) BushelCandle (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The full policy can be found at WP:G5.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 10:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy response and for those great links, Kieran207. If I have understood those pages correctly, I have deduced that this article is NOT eligible for a G5 deletion because it it has substantial edits by others - specifically 12 others (including myself). --BushelCandle (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Noah 💬 17:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The only sources which give any coverage about him are about his assassination, which would fall under WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 TT me 20:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage for WP:GNG needs to take into account the demographic bias of en.Wikipedia editors and sources. We have a mainstream Ethiopian media source, Borkena, that reports on Yemane and his leadership of a group opposed to the former dominating party in Ethiopia, the TPLF; this is not only about the assassination itself. We have a major Oromo media source, Kichuu, reporting on Yemane being sufficiently independent that several groups disliked his leadership of part of the Tigrayan opposition. Both mainstream sources state that Yemane was killed for his political activities. The mainstream sources are currently reasonably widely used in en.Wikipedia for Ethiopia-related topics, showing that many editors consider these reliable, even though nobody has created the sources' Wikipedia articles yet; the red linking is reasonably associated with the systematic demographic bias on en.Wikipedia. WP:BIO1E is only about the question of whether the article on a noticeable person/event should be rather on the person or rather on the event; it's not an argument to delete the overall topic. Keep in mind that since early November 2020 the Tigray War with a near-total blockade on most forms of communication has been in place. This is not the UK.Wikipedia or the US.Wikipedia; this is an English language encyclopedia aimed to cover information about the whole world. Boud (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he's so notable, then find the sources! This Isn't about bias, this is about an article that doesn't comply with WP:V, who's subject fails GNG.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further focus on sources brought up later during the discussion may help generate a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH21talk 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search turned up nothing outside of what was in the article already. Likely a non-notable activist that only received attention for dying. And before you talk about my bias, FIND THE SOURCES. If sources for him exist in a language I don't understand, then find them and add them to the article.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 01:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cocnur with Boud; claim that WP:BIO1E applies is incorrect, Niguse's role prior to his assassination is notable, evidenced by reporting of the Fenkil Movement. It's also reasonable in this case to take account of the censorship restrictions in place and the difficulty in finding multiple sourcing to overwhelmingly satisfy the GNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 19:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough. Doesn't comply with WP:Notability (politics). Ragmuffin-AGASTOPIA (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC) strike sock-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of these exceptionally difficult AfDs where it's nearly impossible to make a determination based on English sources and available non-English sources. Failing NPOL doesn't mean you can't otherwise be notable. Going only by the sources in the article, he probably does fail WP:BIO1E, but the sources aren't so bad that a neutral article can't be written about him. If there's anything else written on him, which wouldn't be in English, he's probably notable enough for an article. I don't find myself agreeing with the delete !voters, but can't defend a source-based keep !vote due to the difficulties in finding sources. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 28 April 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukkoli Moideen

Kurukkoli Moideen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A politician who is only a candidate in the upcoming Kerala election. Basically fails NPOL as the subject has been never elected into any legislative bodies in the past. There is also no significant coverage. Hence fails GNG also. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete He is Indian politician of Indian Union Muslim League

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/iuml-releases-list-of-candidates/article34053385.ece

He currently Editor-in-Chief 'Swathanthra Karshakan' Magazine https://find.uoc.ac.in/Record/ch.6734He currently serves as president of Swathanthra Karshaka Sangham Kerala State He is the selected UDF candidate to contest for the Member of Legislative Assembly seat from Tirur constituency 

https://thehinduimages.com/details-page.php?id=144433764&highlights=SWATHANTHRA%2520KARSHAKA%2520SANGHAM

Don't delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:3917:607D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a candidate to contest an MLA seat is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — politicians get articles on here when they win election to, and thereby actually hold, a notable political office, not just because they ran as a candidate. Being a magazine editor is not a reason why a person gets a Wikipedia article — magazine editors get articles when they've been the subject of critical analysis about the significance of their work as magazine editors, not just because you show a photograph of them doing their job. And new comments in AFD discussions go at the bottom of the page, not the top. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Najeeb Kanthapuram

Najeeb Kanthapuram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A politician who fails NPOL as he has been never elected into any legislative bodies. Also does not have any sigcov thus failing GNG also Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:46, 1 April 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared L. Valanzola

Jared L. Valanzola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a county councillor and local radio host, not adequately referenced as passing our notability standards for politicians or broadcasters. As always, neither serving on a county council nor hosting a local radio program in a single media market are "automatic" notability freebies that guarantee the right to an article in and of themselves, but the article is not referenced well enough to make him notable for those things -- two of the four footnotes here are primary sources (his staff profiles on the self-published websites of the county council and the radio station) that are not support for notability at all, while the two that come from media just namecheck his existence within coverage of the county council election as a whole, and thus aren't evidence that he's somehow more notable than all the other county councillors and/or candidates whose names also appear in those two articles. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than just technical verification that he exists as a person who has jobs. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The job title that a county government uses for its members makes absolutely zero difference to our notability criteria for politicians, because regardless of whether the county government is called a "council" or a "commission", it's still a county government, which is still a local office where people do not get an automatic presumption of notability just for holding it. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In some places the county commission has both legislative and executive power, so yes they are not the same. But this is Massachusetts, where very little power at all is in the county, so having legislative and executive power at that level still amounts to next to nothing. In the US terms county council, county commissioner, county judge, and county legilstor are all used. County Judges are almost all executives, but there are often multiple ones, in Utah County, Utah with roughly 300,000 people, maybe more, they have 3 county comissioners, so this is clearly an executive and legislative function, it is like how Bull Connor was one of the city comissioners in Birmingham, Alabama, he was part of a three member executive authority. However in Macomb County, Michigan before we got a county executive we had I think an 18 member county commission, for reasons I understand even less we made it smaller when we got county executive. However the county commission in Macomb County had less than full executive power, since the sheriff (over police operations on the county level and the jail system), the prosecutor (Michigan has county prosecutors instead of state district attorneys, which means the counties are the local level of crime enforcement for prosecution, the Wayne County Prosecutor, Kym Worthy is without question notable, some states divide prosecutorial districts in ways that ignore county lines, thus lessening county power), the clerk and the tresurerer, and I think even the assessor are all directly elected. I really thought the new charter should have made less of these postions directly elected and if anything increased the number of comissioners. I think Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties should rename their comissioners councilors. In Utah, Salt Lake County, which has a county mayor, also has a county council, so if you compare that to neighboring Utah county you see they are using the words with their historic meanings, in Macomb County the county seat, Mount Clemens, Michigan, is run by a commission, Warren, Michigan has a mayor/council set up, while Sterling Heights and Eastpointe have a council/city manager set up, although in Sterling Heights the mayor is directly elected to that position, but he is just the chair of the city council with any extra function fully ceremonial. The fact the other 6 members of the council are elected at large, while the mayor is elected in a one person election and the mayorial term and the council terms are the same length means that at times mayors run unopposed, because it is easier to get elected if you run for the council.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our consensus has long been that county politicians are not presumed to be notable, and a Google news search brings up nothing except election results. Plymouth isn't even a particularly large county. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails all the relevant notability criteria, and that's even before taking into consideration that county office is not deemed presumptively notable, that even with that county government in New England is quite weak compared to the rest of the US, and that county government in Massachusetts in particular is vestigial: in most of the state the counties have been abolished as anything other than geographical references. Plymouth County's one of about three exceptions, and even there the county commissioners don't do much more than oversee the county lockup. Whoop-de-doo. Ravenswing 22:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per pburka.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: County councillors or commissioners (i.e., local government) do not inherit notability from WP:POLITICIAN --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no where in the US are county commissioners default notable, in Massachusetts they are pretty much default not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (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.
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 redirect to Altamonte Springs, Florida with no prejudice to it being merged if proper sourcing is found. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Altamonte Springs, Florida

List of mayors of Altamonte Springs, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of not-notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:37, 31 March 2021 (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.
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. The "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. LISTN is not met. Randykitty (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Melbourne, Florida

List of mayors of Melbourne, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of not-notable local politicians. Melbourne is not big enough community to make their officials notable and most people listed here are notable for other reasons if they have an article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cross-categorisation refers to circumstances where X and Y are two completely separate topics. In this instance, "mayors of Melbourne, Florida" is not - it's just 'X,' or a sub-categorisation. Therefore, LISTPURP doesn't really apply, and there's still no evidence these have been referred to as a group or set. Furthermore, a merge to another article is still possible as this article's really poorly formatted and can be easily trimmed down. SportingFlyer T·C 14:54, 16 April 2021 (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.
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 redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor. Numerically, opinions are roughly evenly split between delete, merge and keep. There are sensible arguments for all three outcomes, but in the end it is a matter of our collective editorial judgment to what extent we want to cover these allegations; as such I cannot determine on my own whose arguments are stronger. I can, however, determine that rough consensus is against deleting this article but also against keeping it as a separate article at this time. This makes "merge" the most consensual outcome of this discussion.

It has been noted that the content of this article is not more that what there is already about this topic in the main article Matt Gaetz, which also indicates that most people think that there does not seem to be very much content for a subarticle at the moment. Consequently, given that most of the merger seems to have been already done, I think it best reflects this discussion and is best in terms of article quality to simply redirect the title, allowing editors to merge whatever they think is useful from the history. This does not preclude the recreation of a spinoff article per WP:SS if our coverage of the matter grows substantially, but I advise discussing this on the talk page first to avoid a re-run of this discussion. Sandstein 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations

Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined, redirect to his main page declined. The reporting on this is all less than what, 12 hours old? I have yet to see an actual story that says he was charged. All the reporting is about the fact that someone found out he was being investigated. Not enough for our BLP rules. Merging all this to the main article might be OK as he has been responding to the claims in the media. But keeping an article with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal" when the investigation has not been confirmed and charges have not been laid? --- Possibly (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: this is being discussed at WP:AN#Matt Gaetz. I moved the article to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations per BLP. Fences&Windows 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's adequately confirmed it may deserve a mention at Matt Gaetz, but it's not yet at that point. As a separate page, no. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sensational breaking news story, essentially based on the reporting of one source. Grossly premature to call this a "scandal." It is early to even give this a mention in the Matt Gaetz article, due to BLP and undue weight concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge keep, not delete. It's trivially easy to obey WP:BLP by limiting ourselves to reporting the coverage in WP:RS media. As for now, WP:TOOSOON certainly does apply, but this topic can be added to the Matt Gaetz page for now, with the option to fork back out into its own article when that section is more fully fleshed-out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm really uncomfortable with this. It says in the article that no charges have been brought, yet the article name uses the phrase "child sex scandal" without any qualifiers, which could well give the impression that not only charges have been brought but they've also been proven. I know WP:BLPPUBLIC sort of allows this, but while the article may be within the letter of that guideline, I don't think it is within its spirit. If it were my call, I'd say speedily delete this as wholly negative BLP that's also just WP:TOOSOON. But given that the story is merely a day or two old, I guess I could live with it being draftified for a while, pending further developments, assuming that's okay legally etc. (And just to say, I've never heard of this chap, I don't even know which party he represents, so my comment is entirely unbiased in that respect.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per what literally everyone else said. Maybe send some info to Matt Gaetz a day or so later, or something. AdoTang (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeto the main page for reasons stated above.JTZegersSpeak
    Aura     15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (partial) to Matt Gaetz. Widely covered in reliable media: he himself has acknowledged. Djflem (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for those voting merge, a note that this material has now been covered in the main article here. --- Possibly (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The topic of this article is not a random piece of gossip that can simply be dismissed by claiming it is a "hit job," it is an investigation being conducted by the US Department of Justice into whether a US congressman has committed the sex trafficking of a minor. Coverage in this article (as in the press, where it is a major story) balances both the serious allegations and the denials by the alleged sexual predator. The investigation which this article is about is very much a real and notable subject and therefore the article is completely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta (talk • contribs)
  • Keep and speedy close this. Yet again again again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with stupid deletion tags, on another big and somewhat complex story that people are looking up and wanting to learn about. It's as if someone dreamed up the most evil strategy for giving a bad image of Wikipedia, to be widely spread whenever Wikipedia is most useful / most visited. Instead, there oughta be some sign put on the page "ANOTHER GREAT BREAKING STORY EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND ACCURATELY AND WELL BY wIKIPEDIA, YOUR FRIEND. BE SURE TO REVISIT THIS PAGE AS MORE FACTS BECOME AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO. CONSIDER DONATING $1,000,000 TODAY." But no, our message is "We are stupid and divided!". --Doncram (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are not Wikinews. This is just a handful of allegations at the moment. No charges have been filed, and we aren't exactly sure where the investigation is going, though I'm sure Twitter is loosing it. TOOSOON, we'll see if this develops into anything, then we can have our article. At the moment, a small paragraph on the Gaetz page will suffice. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Premature WP:CONTENTFORK that clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. Problematic title as well. KidAd • SPEAK 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article does not violate any of the four points in WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not OR, it is not written as a news report, it's not a who's who, and it is not celebrity gossip or a diary. However, it is valid to suggest that at this time, this is a premature fork. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Matt Gaetz article. This page is simply not large enough to justify a separate article.★Trekker (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Though I think the content should be saved for possible merging into Matt Gaetz or to even be released as its own page in the future, we don't know enough about the story, the validity of the claim, or the motive of the claim to merit its own article. I agree with DoubleGrazing that the title and spirit of the article are quite harsh for something that hasn't even been officially proven yet, upon looking at the most recent developments to the story today I would argue there is not enough information for its own page. Possibly also makes a good point that there is already a section for this topic on Matt Gaetz's page. Yy958 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Matt Gaetz: per WP:TOOSOON. A section in the main article is suffice for now. Curbon7 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is more than enough reporting from a vast number of reputable sources to qualify this for its own article. All it needs is a WP:CET, and then we should get to fleshing out this article rather than scrapping it. (Everyone here citing WP:TOOSOON should maybe find an actual Wikipedia policy that backs their argument rather than an essay Internetronic (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.--- Possibly (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a situation where an article about a rapidly-developing story gets AfD-ed when there's less coverage of it, and as more information comes in it's obvious that an article is needed. Note that most of the delete votes were from a few days ago, and most votes now are to keep. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Per WP:SNOW, The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes. Nothing about this page's notability is "likely" or "quite likely." KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
just out of curiosity, what if the scandal section of the Matt Gaetz article ends up growing until it's 90% of the article? That would still be okay and not a case of WP:UNDUE, would it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypotheticals have no bearing on the issue at hand and your comments thus far haven't advanced the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^ WP:OTHERSTUFF KidAd • SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd • SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't just whenever someone mentions another article. Davey was very clearly comparing the coverage of the two incidents, which is the metric we use to determine notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with a redirect - I don't really see the rationale for deletion. It's a developing story receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only question is where we should cover it (here or on Matt Gaetz), not whether or not the content should remain on the encyclopedia full stop. This should have been listed as a merge discussion on the talk page, not brought to AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, leaning towards Keep. I think this is actually very similar to the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign AfD. Initially yes it was WP:TOOSOON but over time it developed much more into a complete article. As the investigation pans out, I am certain there will be more information which will make this a more complete article, but we just need to be patient and find out how much merit these claims have. Right now, I think this article is in that sweet spot of being too short for its own article, but too long to merge with Gaetz's article. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main article currently contains more text on the "scandal" (18 sources/ 659 words/ 4250 characters) than this standalone article (16 sources/ 520 words/ 3350 characters) does.--- Possibly (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SunDawn: Merging is not the same as deletion. And when merging, the article would typically be converted to a redirect for multiple reasons including attribution purposes. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:49, 5 April 2021 (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.
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. Sandstein 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Uunona

AfDs for this article:
Adolf Uunona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was the subject of a contentious no-consensus AfD in December where the closing admin found the delete arguments stronger than the keep. Since then, it's been at the core of a fair amount of controversy regarding its appropriateness, particularly in the context it was apparently written for a DYK hook that was later deemed inappropriate.

The subject is at best extremely borderline for WP:NPOL, an SNG that has been interpreted as exclusionary as well as inclusionary, and quite likely doesn't fit it at all. What coverage he has is quite certainly WP:BLP1E -- and I say that with significant intent, as someone who in the vast majority of situations is on the critical, "that's not a 1E" side and wrote the damn essay on it. Uunona hits every hallmark for BLP1E, specifically the fact it's more or less a by-proxy WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. He is, in his personal life, low-profile. He is covered only in the context of a single event -- his name -- that is, independently, not exactly something where he has a significant role (he certainly wasn't Adolf Hitler himself, and it's not something he particularly chose). He does not seek out attention for his name and indeed is actively ashamed of it. He actively opposes media attention on the topic, refuses interviews, and otherwise shows every hallmark of wanting the matter to be low-profile. Essentially: BLP1E is at its core a proxy BLPREQUESTDELETE, something where we must make the call for ourselves "would the subject request deletion if they knew how?", and delete as BLP1E if so. I confidently believe Adolf Uunona would want this article deleted. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL since his elected office is municipal. Doesn't meet notability for one event, since the event is not notable. TFD (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable local councillor. The subject received some coverage in December but it was all related to his unusual name and therefore fails WP:SUSTAINED. This is as close as we will ever get to a textbook WP:NOTNEWS / WP:BLP1E example. Valenciano (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL by holding a notable office, as his role is at the local level rather than the national legislature — but getting a brief blip of "news of the weird" coverage because of his name just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of enduring international significance who would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Meets WP:NPOL Adolf Unona is notable under the provision for people who have been members of legislative bodies at provincial levels. In Namibia, constituency councillors have a dual role as far as I can tell. Although they are local officials who have a local office, they also members of regional councils, which are the Namibian equivalent of state or provincial legislatures. ( Regional councils also elect members of the National council, the Nigerian upper chamber of the national legislature from among their members) Although this technically meets NPOL, and therefore I feel like it should be kept, I don't want my vote to stand in the way of a snow close if there are no other keep votes soon given the subject not wanting attention because of his name. Changing my vote to Keep per my already stated rational, since it thankfully did not go to the main page and give the subject unwanted attention.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Having a politician (as opposed to just an ordinary person) with such name, which did not prevent him from being elected, seems to be marginally notable/interesting. Or may be this is just as a hilarious story, something like "vote for the name you know". That is why this story was published in many RS and was widely debated in other media, which is a reason to keep. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make it any less BLP1E. And yes, this is BLP1E, not the conviction of a lot of deletionists that BLP1E means "anything where if you squint there's a primary event means BAD ARTICLE". Someone who got a flash of news-of-the-weird coverage that they were openly unhappy with and avoided as much as possible is classic BLP1E. Vaticidalprophet 01:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what exactly event you are talking about. He won several elections. Sources refer mostly (but not exclusively) to elections in 2020, but again these local elections were not a notable event. The potentially notable is the story about the person. If the subject likes the story is irrelevant. Saying that, I agree that the case is weak, and would not be surprised if the page will be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LOWPROFILE -- seeking political power at the level he does is entirely compatible with being low-profile, and nothing he's done outside of having an awkward name is relevant. Whether the subject likes the story is indirectly relevant to BLP1E (which is far more a privacy guideline than a notability one) -- a subject who rejects attention for their one event fits the relevant clauses. Vaticidalprophet 08:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this link/policy, Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile. That guy clearly was seeking media attention, for example by giving interviews to Bild and other newspapers (see here, for example). It would be strange if he did not. Every politician does it if he wants to be elected. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politicians are covered by the clause above the level normally expected within the field in question. There's nothing going on here that makes him self-promotional for his field, and every indication he isn't. Vaticidalprophet 02:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as described here [1],
"He told Bild, the German tabloid, that his father named him without realising the connotations. "As a child I saw it as a totally normal name," he added. “Only as a teenager did I understand that this man wanted to conquer the whole world."..."
Here is link to Bild [2]. This is a self-promotion. See Media attention He gave interviews voluntarily. These are not local newspapers. There is nothing bad when someone does self-promotion, especially in politics. If he did more or less promotion than other politicians is irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, I think none of three conditions of WP:BLP1E was satisfied here ("We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met":
  1. No, there were multiple elections, not a single event; or perhaps there was no an a event
  2. No, he is not a "low profile" individual (see my comment above)
  3. Not clear what event. The role of the individual in his elections was the key. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what BPL1E is intended for, a subject who is barely notable for one thing, especially where that one thing is not a major high-profile event, and the subject does not wish to be known for it. If he had committed a prominent murder, or if his political career had included a significant scandal, something like that could be a single event sufficient to make him notable. He appears to be notable solely for his unique name, and the article quotes him explicitly as not wishing to be known for that reason. Aside from his name, and holding a non-notable political office, what is notable about this individual? Hyperion35 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per detailed rationale by Vaticidalprophet. Celestina007 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing about him comes even remotely close to indicating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I was a child, there was a member of the local city council in my hometown named Michael Jackson. He was not the same person as the world-famous singer who has the same name, although this was during a time (late 1980s) when that singer was perhaps at his peak of fame. I feel fairly comfortable in asserting that the local politician Michael Jackson was not then or now notable by Wikipedia standards, and he almost certainly received more votes than Mr. Uunona. There are a great many people who have the same name as someone famous, or otherwise have an unusual name. Occasionally, some people do go on to become notable despite their names, but it is not notable that a local politician has the same name as someone famous. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But was the story of that man covered in Bild, Independent, Euronews, etc.? That is what makes someone famous, and I simply think that man is already famous. I do not think it really matter so much for what reason - from the WP notability perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is just famous for their name that seems like a rather flimsy reason for them to be notable, especially if the coverage was against their will. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is not just name. The story gain such publicity only because he is a successful politician and an former anti-apartheid activist. Despite some his statements, nothing was really against his will: he gave all these interviews willingly (see links with citation above and on the page) precisely to gain publicity as a politician. I suspect he would be disappointed if this WP page about him was deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2021 (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.
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 Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Geenakumari

AfDs for this article:
T. Geenakumari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPOL. No RS with a As part of WP:BEFORE, I have looked at the sources presented in the previous AFD and they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The book written by the subject has no substantial English reviews to verify whether they can be classified as an author. If someone wants to improve the article per WP:HEY I'll withdraw my nomination. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, she represented the two women who entered the Sabrimala temple but that in itself does not make a lawyer notable. However, it might be a case of BLP1E for the woman entering the temple though that would be a digression for this subject.
2. The positions in SFI are not inherently notable in themself even if it were in Kerala. SFI has units in all States and there are women office-bearers in each of those units.
3. The role of an activist is not brought out clearly through SIGCOV either in part or taking all the sources together.
4. Subject is a local politician without SIGCOV and hence fails WP:POLOUTCOMES.
5. Book by subject hasn't received substantial reviews nor any notable literary award.
By all these criteria, the subject fails notability. Vikram Vincent 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the first AfD of this article just closed by @Sandstein: as KEEP 20 days ago (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Geenakumari). We don't need to keep beating a horse until it dead. Respect time of other contributors. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Draftify per Vikram Vincent, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) per WP:BASIC, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HEY - as this article expands, it appears there are clusters of coverage about various aspects of her work, and not always available in online English-language sources. For example, there appear to be more sources available about her SFI activism, because she became prominent and featured in newspapers in 1994. There also is some coverage of her work with the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation, and more substantial coverage of her work as a lawyer, including her practice focus on family law (where she has been quoted as an expert by independent and reliable sources), and her involvement in part of the Sabarimala temple cases, which picked up coverage over time. In addition, she recently was noted as involved in a high-profile case as a prosecutor. Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In reviewing the sources presented both in the article and in the first AFD, there is only one source with significant coverage of T. Geenakumari, the article by Biju, K G in Malaysian. All of the other references are merely trivial mentions of the subject. For example, the Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications. merely mentions Geenakumari in passing within a footnote. The recent additions of Beccaynr are not any better, with only passing mentions of Geenakumaru or routine coverage of court cases without anything other than a name drop of Geenakumari. We need something more substantial that is about her directly and not just mentioning her in passing. With all due respect to the keep voters, could you please list the sources here which display significant coverage, because I am just not seeing anything other than this one source.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does not appear to be a footnote, nor a passing or trivial mention, but instead quotes her as an attorney with a practice that includes a focus on family law, for her expertise:
Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications.

Advocate Geena Kumari, a family lawyer from Kerala discussed4 how women in Kerala suffered domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. She said that a lot of deserted women in Kerala do not want to actually say that they are single and wear the mangalsutra and put sindhur (jewellery and red vermilion on the forehead worn by married woman) so that they are socially accepted. She said that the courts were not accessible to everyone because family courts were only located in district headquarters and low income women could not spend the money to reach them or hire a lawyer. She said that the procedure also took a long time and that was why people normally went to the court as a last resort. She pointed out that to get maintenance women had to prove not only the income of the husband but also that they were living separately for some valid reason. She said that the courts are gender biased and women are frequently told to reconcile and live with their husbands. She said that the maintenance that is awarded is often not even 5 per cent of their spouses’ income, particularly in cases where the male spouse has a high income. She also commented on how difficult it was to execute maintenance orders. According to her, in Kerala the dowry system was pervasive and people gave huge amounts and even property as dowry.

Similarly, she is quoted for her expert opinion as an attorney here:

[...] “Majority of the cases sprout from the problems of adjustment between partners. There is an increasing trend in the marriages from 2002 for divorce,” says T Geena Kumari, a counsel who specialises in family cases. She points to ‘adjustment problems’, with single children and the couples’ parental interference for the increase in number of cases. [...] “The rate of dowry is high in the southern districts. There are instances where the husband asks for more dowry after the birth of a girl. There are many cases of the husband and his family demanding more dowry after the marriage of the wife’s sister by comparing the amount,” says Geena. [...] The relationship between husband and wife also gets strained owing to the modern modes of social networking. “Most of the relationships between married men and women start off as mere friendship. But they end up in extra-marital relationships, if they are suffering from a bad marriage. Mobile phones and Internet chatting form a smooth medium for the marriages to rock as they offer more chances to meet and share their feelings than before,” says Geena. The 099 list some more factors for the increasing number of divorce cases.[...]

And here:

The stigma associated with single women, the paltry amount in alimony, expenses incurred during trials, "class and gender bias" among lawyers are some of the problems that were raised during the course of the seminar.

"Let's take the case of Kerala which has the highest women literacy rate, but even this state is not spared of violence, crime and discrimination against women," said Geena Kumari, a lawyer practising in the Kerala High Court.

Women often feel that they are doubly harassed, first by their husband and marital families and then by the police and lawyers they approach for help, she said.

"Women most often are unaware that they are entitled to maintenance, have no idea how much their husbands earn, or even where they work, and are unable to provide their income proof in order to ask for maintenance," Kumari said.

"These are the least of their problems. In addition, they have to carry the stigma of being a single woman, go through the cumbersome judicial process, try to meet the expenses for each hearing and the end of all this make-do with the meagre alimony they get which can be as low as Rs 500 per month," she said.

Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. I confused my sources, I meant the footnote on page 32 of the Poverty, Women and Capability study as the footnote example. Thank you Beccaynr for catching my error. That said, expert opinion quotes like these are not considered substantial coverage at AFD. The kinds of sources we are looking for at AFD are ones in which Geenakumari is the main subject being discussed, not her opinion as a lawyer which is about something other than her. Can you provide evidence where Geenakumari is the main subject of the article or study? Perhaps something about her work as a lawyer in general, or positioning her work as exceptional within her field? Please remember, that routine coverage of an individual court cases or expert opinions in a publications are not evidence of notability. Otherwise we would have tens of thousands of articles on average lawyers doing routine interviews.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cheers, and it looks like we agree that the Biju, K G article in Malayalam is significant and in-depth, and I also think it supports WP:BASIC notability that is sufficient for the article (due to the content, commentary, and documentation that other news sources exist), in light of the additional sources since then that help show Geenakumari did not otherwise remain low-profile, so this is not WP:BLP1E. For example, in the article, the Google Translate version of the lede is:

November 25, 1994. The day when Koothuparamba went down in history as a river of blood. As a warning of the impending police terror, there was a picture on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning. A picture of a girl with her head cut off and bleeding during police brutality. Her name is T. Geenakumari. At that time he was the State Joint Secretary of SFI. Geena may be the first woman comrade to call on Kerala through a front page newsreel that such blood-soaked struggle is not unique to male comrades. Today she is a lawyer. Additional Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor. Lawyer defending murder and rape cases. [...]

And there is more in that article, including about her incarceration for twelve days, although it is not clear if there is additional news coverage about that, or other aspects of her work as a student activist, but given her prominence in 1994, it seems possible. The article also appears to position her as exceptional as a lawyer, in what appears to be an exploration of the tension between her women's rights activism and her criminal defense work. I also disagree that it is routine coverage or a routine interview when she is quoted as an expert about her experience as an attorney; it appears to be secondary source opinion about her by the publication due to their consideration of her as an expert, and therefore contributes to her notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, the general consensus of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG in AFD discussions on wikipedia is the "rule of 3" (ie multiple sources) that are substantial. Basically, we are looking for three sources which show significant coverage over time. The Malaysian article is more in-depth and its more personal, and it positions T. Geenakumari and her work at the center so it is significant. That's just one source towards BASIC, but does not establish BASIC on its own, because at least two other sources of that caliber are needed to meet BASIC. The interview quotes do not count towards BASIC, because professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. get routinely interviewed in the media in the course of their jobs. They may be expert enough to be quoted in an article, but that doesn't make them necessarily notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. (ie not all doctors, lawyers, etc quoted in the press as an expert opinion are exceptional doctors, lawyers, etc. who deserve an encyclopedia entry) WP:NOTNEWS is pretty clear on this. Likewise, being quoted in a few academic journals isn't likely to count towards notability either. When we look at quotes in research, as seen in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we usually look for individuals widely cited in research in a particular field, which in this case would be at a minimum dozens of journal articles, and not just one or two. I hope this helps you understand what we are looking for at AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That source has images from what appear to be two newspapers from 1994 that feature her. And per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [...], and I am suggesting that her notability appears to have been established based on coverage of her activism in 1994, including due to the 2017 coverage and commentary, and that the additional sources show that after this WP:NOTTEMPORARY notability, in the event that it appears WP:BLP1E, she has not otherwise been low-profile, having given interviews as an expert, and participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), 219, engaging in civic leadership documented by multiple news sources, and serving as a lawyer or advocate in high-profile cases. Also, per WP:CIVIL, I would appreciate it if we could focus on the article and the relevant policies and guidelines, thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, I have not been uncivil. I have been courteous through this entire conversation. Please calm down. Unfortunately, I don't think we can count this article as more than one source because there is no publication information for those articles to cite and that assertion is speculative. Participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), and being a civic leader is also not inherently notable. Participating as a lawyer in cases covered in the news does not make a lawyer notable. Those are all wonderful professional achievements but wikipedia is not a CV. WP:SIGCOV requires three sources where the subject of the article is the main topic (or at least significantly featured beyond the routine) of the source. The evidence simply does not satisfy that requirement.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 article quoted above states that her picture was "on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning" (November 25, 1994), and includes images of what appear to be at least two of those newspapers, so I do not think it is speculative, given the precise information about the publication and the images, and the front page placement appears to be 'significantly featured beyond the routine.' It appears there are three sources for her initial notability as a student activist (at least two from 1994 and one from 2017), and there are several ways she has additional notability as a lawyer, because the 2017 source also finds her exceptional in the context of her women's rights activism and legal practice, and there are multiple independent and reliable sources that find her noteworthy as an expert, and multiple independent and reliable sources find her noteworthy for her participation in high-profile cases. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are multiple independent reliable sources, but the coverage is trivial and routine and not significant in all but one of those sources. They only prove her to be a reliable family lawyer, not a significant lawyer in her field (which would require analysis of her career in relation to her peers or within her field). Meer quotes don’t provide a significant claim to notability, nor does listing a host of professional activities that don’t provide the level of context required for notability in an encyclopedia. The Malaysian article does make a good claim to notability. If you are able to actually locate the 1994 article so we can read and evaluate the content, that would help us a long way into proving WP:SIGCOV. Just proving the existence of an article without actually getting to read and evaluate content (no matter where it’s location in the paper) is not enough.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And Vageshwari Deswal closed as keep, without ever having been a notable political figure. Geenakumari has also written legal commentary, and two links are included in the External links section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I also went through the previous AFD and found that the subject does not have enough sigcov. Being mentioned in some reliable sources does not make anyone notable. Even if we combine all the sources provided by Beccanyr and others (in previous AFD) to claim sigcov, it is not sufficient for sigcov. I also agree with the point shown by 4meter4 that wikipedia is not a CV.

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.
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 no consensus. Sandstein 10:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Bryce

Randy Bryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable perennial candidate who has ran for office 3 times but he hasn't won anything. He hasn't ran for office higher than US house, and I don't see any evidence of other notability. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep, his 2018 run received a huge amount of media attention Kingofthedead (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus that Shahid Buttar didn't have notability, and I would argue that his claim to notability is similar to Randy Bryce's as they both challenged the sitting speaker of the house and don't have much other notability. If you challenge the sitting speaker of the house you are bound to get some media attention, but that isn't enough notability for an article by itself unless you win. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shahid Buttar now redirects to the election in which he ran against Pelosi.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not familiar with the Buttar discussion but consensus was probably wrong there and it would be wrong to delete (or redirect) Bryce as well. Non-victory doesn't mean he's not a public figure who garners interest from a broad audience. — Mainly 20:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with the policy on candidates rather than victors, and while I disagree with it generally I especially disagree with it in the case of a person who has received so much scrutiny. — Mainly 20:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to meet GNG, a number of sources profiling him in detail. Eldumpo (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, but the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a WP:GNG-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always be exempted from NPOL, and NPOL itself would literally never apply to anybody at all anymore. Rather, to make a non-winning candidate for office notable enough for a Wikipedia article, said candidate needs to pass one of two tests: either (a) he already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, or (b) he can demonstrate a reason why his candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring significance (think Christine O'Donnell), such that even if the candidate loses the election and then never accomplishes another more notable thing again as long as he lives, people will still be looking for information about him in 2030 because of the sheer lasting importance of his candidacy itself. All coverage is incidental to only one of his three campaigns for office. The fact that there is almost no mention of his candidacy in any news, books, etc. all of three years later is indicative that it was not influential enough to pass the O'Donnell test.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 03:49, 3 April 2021 (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.
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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Osseiran

Mohamad Osseiran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally with 4 links, all dead, WP:BEFORE gave me absolutely 0 results, no sign of notability CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are countless ways in which the subject's name could be rendered in the Roman alphabet, so searches in it are unlikely to come up with anything. It needs someone who understand Arabic to search in that alphabet. I would point out that dead-linked sources were removed from the article (not by the nominator) before it was nominated here, although sources do not have to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I indeed forgot to search in arabic. I added some references but cannot say anything about if those sources are [[WP:RS]]. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep. Shia Mufti of Sidon isn’t a very important role so does not carry anything like inherent notability. There is a fair sprinkling of press coverage, some of it local and not all of it in much depth. He only has 252 followers on Facebook though, where he seems to post uncontroversial things about once a month. I think this is a WP:GNG pass however.Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2021 (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.
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. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Froelich

Tomasz Froelich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, given sources are at best passing mentions in terms of WP:RS and I have been unable to turn up anything better. Probably telling that both his Linkedin and Transfermarkt profile show up on the first page of his Google results. AngryHarpy‍talk 07:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 07:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍talk 07:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For some additional context, it is perhaps worth noting that while the German project does have an article on the current Young Alternative chairman, they don't have one on Froelich or any of the three other people he shares this position with. There have been some recent edits by the article creator in a clear attempt to address the notability concerns, but they don't add up to much. AngryHarpy‍talk 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have almost always deleted articles about youth leaders, from whatever continent. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2021 (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.
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 no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. This cannot be further relisted, and there is no realistic possibility for a consensus for deletion to develop, nor is it implausible that sources will be found with which to improve the article. Closed without prejudice to the initiation of a separate merge proposal, with the caveat that the subject could be merged into the article on the event, and then split out again in the future if additional content is found on the subject. BD2412 T 05:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joud el Bayeh

Joud el Bayeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Ehden massacre is certainly notable, and much of this article is about that event, after the subject”s death, rather than about him. The role of the subject in the lead up to the massacre is his only claim of notability, and I think WP:BLP1E applies to that. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is jimmy, I am the creator of this article from a while ago, this is a test, can anyone see this? I will be watching this discussion.Jimmypapas (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimmypapas: yes everyone can see your comment. If you want to explain why you think this subject is notable you can comment below. Mccapra (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thank you. I think a redirect as you’ve suggested would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politicians&oldid=1016323033"