Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:28, 6 April 2021

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Politics. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} 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 Politics. 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

Scan for Politics AfDs

'Scan for politicians AfDs'

'Scan for politics Prods'

'Scan for politicians Prods'

'Scan for politics and government template TfDs'

Related deletion sorting

Politics

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

(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]

Delete: The subject has never been elected into any legislative bodies thus failing NPOL. In that case he must pass general GNG criteria. As I can see, there are no sources giving him enough significant coverage. I dont know whether there are any sources in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person fails WP:NPOL but has been covered in mainstream media as social activist. Riteboke (talk) 08:14, 14 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]

Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:39, 2 May 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. Without prejudice against recreation as a disambiguation page Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of government

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

This article contains no useful information at all, is unsourced, and doesn't help the reader understand the topic. I would suggest converting this to a disambiguation, as there are many more specific articles on this topic. Crazy Boy 826 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This an overly broad and vague topic. The "See Also" section is a coat rack of criticisms of various ideologies and constitutional structures. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is simply too broad to be an article. "Criticism of X" would only seem to work if it's narrowed to a specific field or a specific work. There are hundreds of governments, none of which are identical such that the inclusion of any particular "criticism" would simply be an arbitrary selection. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No useful information Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to qualify for a wiki article. Pilean (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a possibility to recreate as a disambig. page or a list. This could serve as a disambig. page, but it does not provide proper disambig. This might be also a list, but it is not properly constructed as a list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems very vague, is remarkably short, and only describes its own name - mainly because the very topic is too vague. I agree with My very best wishes' (potential) suggestion of a disambiguation page. Forvana 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment per nom Rajuiu (talk) 14:46, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mättö

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because he was also murdered by the Lapua Movement, but was otherwise unnotable:

Delete Both 'Erik Mättö' the related article 'Yrjö_Holm'. As the Nom points out, subjects fail WP:VICTIM I looked at the other language article & second subject other language page and do not see anything else that might meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable murder victim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 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 keep. The consensus across the two AfD discussions seems to be that this election is notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Missouri State Auditor election

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

CRYSTAL and opinion pieces used as statements of fact. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being brought up again? It was already decided to be kept. Kirby1706 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first TAG was a PROD. This is an AfD – a different mechanism where the community will decide the article's fate, either deletion or some other solution. Reason(s) is stated above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first PROD was contested and the the article was immediately nominated for AfD. There was never a 2nd PROD. Kirby1706 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge I removed the low-quality kitchen sink speculative source but this is otherwise consistent with other 2022 election articles. Rather strange that Missouri has auditor elections in midterm years but all of the other five statewise positions are in presidential years, but this could be merged to a future 2022 Missouri elections. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of CRYSTAL (it's well established that articles on the next elections are perfectly acceptable), but because we simply don't need articles like this. The election of the state auditor should be covered in the (to-be-created) 2022 Missouri elections (and I am aware that an article on the 2018 election exists – this should be merged with the respective equivalent). Number 5 7 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that this would also apply to the 2014 and 2010 election. Kirby1706 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Crystal" is due to the speculative (unconfirmed, opinion-piece referenced) listing of possible candidates, which makes up the entire article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There isn't much information right now since the election isn't until 2022 and the open Senate seat is getting more attention (as noted in the first AfD). There has been an article for each Auditor election since 2010 (4 total elections including this one). There are also pages for other statewide elections that don't get as much attention: Treasury, Secretary of State, etc. So overall I think the article was created too soon but will likely be recreated once the election day gets closer if deleted. Kirby1706 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which literally has a point on exactly this. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2024 U.S. presidential election and 2028 Summer Olympics."

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raving Loony Green Giant Party

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. This article does not prove notability as required by GNG, politics and organisation policies. Sentences in this article such as " who disagreed with the split and stood as a joint candidate with the OMRLP – the candidate also wished to highlight the duplicity of a number of individuals that were holding clandestine membership of each and waiting to see which "Loony" faction came out on top" sound like someone has been using this article against WP:BLOG amongst others. No evidence of notable achievement before or after elections, and no evidence of notable results in elections. doktorb _words^deeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article as nominated didn't provide good evidence of notability, but there was a lot of media attention in the early 1990s, and I've reworked it using three articles from reliable sources, two of which provide substantial coverage of the party, so it now passes the GNG. Warofdreams talk 22:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the updates by Warofdreams keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the updates by Warofdreams. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Brown Wanamaker

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

Individual related to famous people fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources are available apart from a one-paragraph New York Times death announcement. KidAd • SPEAK 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now first x to do y is getting to absurd levels. Her first x is not just enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 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. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

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

Non-notable or not-yet-notable journalist. After discussions with the page’s creator, who has done extensive research, we were unable to identify significant coverage in secondary RS beyond a single source (Yahoo). This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now the entry relies almost entirely on primary sources and does not meet wiki notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion of sources can be found at Talk:Isaac Saul. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage actually about Saul to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert: since I'm still not a very experienced editor, and this was my first major article, do you mind explaining why this is? I thought that in particular three of the sources that I included justified this for publication:

And then, there are the sources for his career in Ultimate on top of that. Do you mind explaining why you don't think it's ready? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:19, 7 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) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishing notability for journalists is fundamentally difficult because news organizations don't want them to be the story. It looks like we have two qualifying sources ([1] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [2]). ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically the notability requirement is for secondary sources tho no? (I’m speaking just of what I understand consensus to be—and actually that’s what that essay says—but I guess I’d have to think over what I think the ideal policy would be on primary sources of this type.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Innisfree987, Per WP:INTERVIEW: commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material ~Kvng (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - My apologies, I thought you meant the interview itself was a substantial introduction (to Saul). I take it you were talking about what prefaces it. Agree for sure about regarding that as secondary but have to disagree that it’s substantial—it’s just a few sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that he's notable (yet, perhaps?) The Yahoo piece is pretty minor and afaict, has no byline and the interview isn't enough to satisfy independence of the source, nor coverage of him. TAXIDICAE💰 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to add that I found a new source covering the election fraud Twitter thread that does not include an interview: https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/us-elections-2020-journalists-mega-thread-debunking-trump-campaigns-fraud-claim-is-viral-read-here. Also, here's another interview that I found (I know that these aren't considered high-quality sources on their own, but there are a lot of him, and every one of them includes a blurb before the interview itself): https://braverangels.org/tangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnortangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnor/. Does this help at all? Also, isn't the Forbes source stronger than the Yahoo one anyway? Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough secondary coverage independent from him either in this AfD or in the article to sustain an article on WP:GNG grounds, for instance the sources include his writings for Huffpost, personal interviews, and a Forbes piece (which doesn't contribute to notability due to the consensus on Forbes and self-publication.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks borderline after 2 relists, hoping for more people to take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli7309, I see no one has replied about those additional sources, so my two cents: despite the header, the Free Press source is really about Trump and only has a passing mention of Saul. Prose before interviews can be helpful as Kvng was saying, but for AfD purposes we’re looking for material that’s gone through an editorial process, fact-checking, etc. and to me it’s not clear the podcast blurbs fit the bill. So for me these don’t change much, as far as giving us more to go on that’s not Saul’s own writing/commentary, but I appreciate your looking for more sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 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. Consensus is to delete. This is not a bar against recreation if their is increased coverage in the lead-up/during/after the election they are involved in. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. See Patriotic Socialist Party, Miss Great Britain Party and Scottish Family Party for precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as of right. This article has sources, but no evidence of GNG, ORG and general achievement. Content of article has issues of tone, content, and sourcing. Political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections, and party has no evidence of notable coverage for campaigns expected of a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another step on the nominator's campaign to have every article on a small political party removed from Wikipedia. In the interest of balance, please list also the AfDs you have proposed that were declined. Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until after the May elections. Notability seems to be borderline at the minute, but I think it is in the interest of democracy that the article is kept during the election period, especially as they are standing candidates on most of the Scottish Parliament's regional lists. We can then take into account the party's results and media coverage in the election when deciding whether or not they are notable. If the article is deemed non-notable, I would suggest redirecting to List of political parties in the United Kingdom to preserve the page's history. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am swayed by some of the opinions below. It is unlikely that this party will garner any significant coverage before the election, seeing as the campaign has been ongoing for two weeks already and there is nothing so far. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate that this article be deleted. It is my view that, if the decision was taken on the other List parties mentioned by Doktorbuk, then this party certainly does not pass the threshold - there is no evidence at all that it has any remote presence on the political scene. The individual named as the sole member of the party may, himself, justify a page about his own political activity, but it is not appropriate for a whole wikipedia page to cover this party. There are hundreds of other list parties with bigger followings that do not make the cut. I disagree that the issue should be kicked until after 6 May 2021.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO - I do not think it is correct that this party are standing candidates in multiple lists, my understanding was that the individual himself was contesting one Glasgow seat. It is not a party with members and individuals elected to stand on the list. My understanding is that the Party is the man himself.

I have checked all of the statements of persons nominated and they say that the party is standing on six out of the eight regional lists. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that is correct I missed it when I looked because I did not check each list (82.2.100.98). It is not a one-man party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a complicated one. For a party standing in an in progress election they are currently attracting very little coverage. In the past there has been some coverage, but historically they have been a bit of a one man band and it might be argued that an article on Alistair McConnachie is more appropriate. I can see the argument for leaving until the end of this election, but I have doubts that this will make a difference in the long term. Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Considering that there is a moderate chance of increased notability in the leadup and aftermath of the upcoming election, it doesn't make sense to delete this article until after the election - then, whether or not Independent Green Voice is notable will become more black and white. Wait until after the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:GNG. It's not even borderline. Arguments based on the proximity of the elections do not appear to me to have any basis in policy. What we have is a party so minor that secondary reliable sources are not talking about it. What RS coverage we do have is more about Alistair McConnachie than about the party, so my second choice would be to re-name the article Alistair McConnachie. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The party fails WP:GNG today. We are considering this article today. Should it become notable in the future the article may be restored, provided with delete without prejudice to future re-creation Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The article is basically just an acknowledgement that "this party exists". — Czello 14:36, 11 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. Fork with no meaningful history to merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Tucker Carlson

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

Here we have an article full of opinions of a well-known pundit, who generates plenty of news coverage--but we already have a biography, and the question here is whether every opinion of his that is noted in the press needs to be gathered into a big heap that acquires encyclopedic notability only by virtue of weight. My opinion is no, this is not what we are supposed to do; it's not unlike the series of Person X on Twitter, where the community decided in the end that, and I paraphrase, not everything that is verified acquires stand-alone notability. I don't like the slippery slope argument very much, but it applies here: if this goes, then it goes for just about every single person who gets on TV or on social media, and there is no encyclopedic benefit to it. Take the important ones (secondary sources and editorial judgment should suffice), stick them (back) in his biography, and be done with it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the article was copied from Tucker_Carlson. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete duplicative of Tucker Carlson#Commentary so I fail to see why a separate redundant page is needed. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this doesn't need to be merged, the content copied over from Tucker Carlson was never removed in the first place. Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, it's fine for his biography to have a bulky section dedicated to his political views, having political views is quite literally his job, this is what he's notable for. I don't see the need to split the section off into another article, it's perfectly fine as it is at Tucker Carlson. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I LOLed reading this. Very good point. What next Religious views of Pope Francis or Religious vies of Russell M. Nelson, or maybe Doctrinal views of Russell M. Nelson. Such articles do not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The political views of America's most popular news/talk show host are worthy of a lot of coverage here, but this could all be condensed onto his own page, which is clearly preferable.SatoshiSoul (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete: This fact can be added to the main Carlson article; otherwise it is entirely duplicative. Llll5032 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is absolutely no reason to have this at all seperate from the article on Tucker Carlson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete As mentioned, almost all of this article is already mentioned on Tucker Carlson's page. No reason for his 'political views' to have their own page. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK (ironically). If Carlson's ideas or views were unusual or all over the place, a separate article would be useful. Rather, his views tend strongly to be consistent, run of the mill for today's Republicans, and to the right of center. So it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 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 merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants. The merge has already been done with Special:Diff/1015044401/1015066390 and Special:Diff/1017179990/1017738985. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Pandur

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

The article does not describe its subject, instead, it seems to justify Portugal's purchase of the Pandur II. The Portuguese version of the Pandur II does not justify such an article, it is not different enough from the base model. In addition to that, the base article already describes the subject – in its current state, this article is nothing but opinion promotion and fails to comply with Wikipedia's point-of-view forks policy. Therefore, I propose "Portuguese Pandur" for deletion; improving this article is not possible. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Pandur II - Portuguese variants. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted content that violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy ([3]), and put the most important aspects of the Portuguese Pandur's problems into the Pandur II article ([4]). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants: there is significant WP:OVERLAP as this is essentially a slight variant of the base. Only the essential details need to be merged (e.g. not the lengthy and only partially-referenced timeline). — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants per MarkH21. Riteboke (talk) 08:25, 14 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libcom.org

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization and web site that has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination). I haven't seen the deleted article, so am not tagging G5, but probable G5. Also close to A7. Naïve Google search finds two pages of hits on the organization's own web presence, which shows that it exists, then finds a reference to it in Reddit. Duh. No mention of anything since 2015, when the AFD was closed. One of the references is their own web site, and the second one says nothing about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the second one does have nontrivial coverage of libcom. The ref bokk (a 2018 collection) contains an article "Rethinking networked solidarity" by Sky Croeser which says "The main focus of this research is on Libcom (discussed in more details below), a non-corporate site." Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For further context (from a cursory read) the Sky Croeser chapter in Social Media Materialities and Protest (Routledge) goes into depth exploring the extent to which Libcom can be considered a social media site, as well as the dynamics within Libcom between contributors / forum participants and the Libcom collective/administrators, and tries to assess the extent to which Libcom "facilitates solidarity efforts" more widely in comparison to standard forms of social media (specifically Facebook) using debates around the struggles in Kurdish Syria as an example. LittleDwangs (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There comes a point when recreation of such content can no longer be seen as an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of this project. BD2412 T 04:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never saw the actual article since it was deleted, but I read the 2nd AFD. No one provided any sources of coverage. I attempted to change that and also what policies apply here. I kept the article short, anticipating an AFD, so I’ll make my case. Libcom.org is an important website amongst anarchists and academics and is reflected in academic literature with 3,500+ mentions in Google Scholar. More importantly, I've enclosed a chapter by Croeser, that extensively examines the usage/online behaviours of users on Libcom.org across 14 page chapter.

I would argue this passes WP:BASIC and WP:WEBCRIT as it has a demonstrable influence in the field of anarchism, including academia, and multiple independent citations. Shushugah (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you see 3.500 mentions of libcom in google scholar. Instead I see libcom.org merely indicated as a publisher, i.e., nothing about libcom itself. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear we're in agreement. And numbers themselves don't formulate the basis of anything. I was stating that Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE, but clearly people then and now were not convinced, so I am attempting to provide more coverage. For the vast majority of Anarchist academics, they're more than happy to host/write on Libcom.org, even writing about Libcom.org on there, but I empathize why this is not independent for English Wikipedia.

Because Libcom.org itself is a host/website, searching for articles about Libcom has proved challenging, but not impossible. For others curious, I've searched in google "libcom.org website -site:libcom.org" to filter out Libcom.org posts themselves. Shushugah (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. no multiple independent coverage. See my comments elsewhere. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and lacks independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
Keep This is absolutely dumb. Probably the most well known long running anarchist website online. SP00KYtalk 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as dumb as you think. And the goal of this discussion is precisely to prove that you are right or wrong. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah mate, it's an absoloute joke. Libcom, easily one of the biggest anarchist spaces on the internet and a major repository for anarchists works in the english language and i bet 'dollars to doughnuts' you could not find a serious anarchist academic that does not see it as such, and it should be deleted? And yet even most marginal random anarchist writers get pages at times just because they were in a newspaper? Let us not be so dishonest to each other, there is not 'proving' anything because policy can be wielded to suit any position you people want it to.. I've read enough of these painful things already to see this, so.. What is the actual downsides to having this page? SP00KYtalk 08:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding with some more sources: Ephemeral Journal paper on Music and Anarchism, writes a short paragraph reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org [5], Zones of Proletarian Development refers to LibCom as "A more comprehensive list of autonomous libertarian activities which resist 'intrusive intervention' can be found on the excellent Libertarian Communist website https://libcom.org" [6], combined with the most extensive source (14 pages by Sky Croeser) at "Rethinking networked solidarity" makes this AFD from past ones, where at best LibCom had cursory reference/mention (which I've mentioned as well). This would not pass WP:GNG, but does pass WP:WEB Shushugah (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org - not about libcom, also very weak WP:NWEB (trivial: no analysis of content in general, reviewing 163 posts - a footnote that summarizes the content of a thread about music ). Zones of Proletarian Development - libcom is mentioned in passing as a publisher, no substantial info. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is in danger in falling into a perennial confusion between importance and notablility (per WP rules). For comparison: some time ago I have have learned that certain plant manufactured over 90% of some kind of important resin (dont remember which, say polyurethane) in Europe. Clearly, an important one. But searching high and low, I could not find any info about it beyond name and location. It was not even part of a public company. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Libcom.org is a frustrating website to find suitable sources for - in part because its articles, archived materials, and (occasionally) forums are used so widely in citations in journals, books and websites, meaning results discussing Libcom itself are drowned out by Libcom citations. Similarly the site is mentioned in 524 English Wikipedia articles. There are some more passing mentions, such as in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism where Libcom is described as "a hub for libertarian communist ideas" (Chapter 5) or in this journal article where in an overview of contemporary British anarchism Franks and Kinna (both leading British anarchist academics) list it as "Libcom.org : primary resource for UK anarchists : lively forums, news, blogs, information and support and an extensive library". There's are also a number of articles slagging off Libcom, such as this one published in The Brooklyn Rail. LittleDwangs (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

frustrating website to find suitable sources -- yep; see my comment above. Everybody uses, but nobody cares. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an influential website for a wide segment of the far-left, I am surprised that there isn't more in-depth coverage of libcom.org itself. However, after examining the above sources posted above, it is clear that there are enough to write a WP:BASIC article on the topic.--User:Namiba 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is some coverage of the website, like Sky Croeser's chapter and The Brooklyn Rail article. However, I think it's more important to see how the website is treated as a publication by those in the relevant subject area—similar to WP:JOURNALCRIT—and in this area we can see with a search on Proquest in The Wikipedia Library or JSTOR or with a Google News search (tag with "-site:libcom.org") that there are dozens to hundreds of meaningful citations in respectable works to libcom.org as a source. I'm not really sure what sort of WP:BEFORE search yielded only a primary source and a Reddit post. — Bilorv (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe the basics for establishing notability have been met for what is a significant and widely cited anarchist website (possibly the most significant anarchist website out there?). Definitely don't salt as the sole issue has been the difficulty identifying sufficient suitable sources to meet the notability criteria, and that the article is otherwise suitable for Wikipedia. Over time additional sources will likely appear. LittleDwangs (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilorv's points + UCS; other than marxists.org there's few other sources internationally in English that match the ubiquity of libcom.org with regards to left politics/history in general. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilorv, I find the analogy to WP:JOURNALCRIT to be appropriate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:10, 11 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:

(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]

Draftify I propose that the article be moved to draft space so that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red can incubate it. Vikram Vincent 17:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Addressing some of the points made in the previous AFD:

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]

Delete No significant accomplishments, achievements, or media attention. Just looks like a short resume which states basic facts. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:14, 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]
- Kolma8 The close of the last AFD was 11:31, 7 March 2020. A whole year has passed with no improvement. Vikram Vincent 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok then... 20 days + 1 year. I thought I was just partaking in this AfD. I guess it was something similar. Thanks for clarifying. Kolma8 (talk) 20:08, 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:

T'puram is Kerala's divorce capital too, News18, 2012

[...] “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:

Alimony to women is not a welfare scheme but a right: Activists, The Indian Express, 2010

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:

മെക്‌സിക്കന്‍ അപാരതയുടെ കാലത്ത് 'മുന്‍ എസ്എഫ്‌ഐക്കാരി ഗീനാ കുമാരി'യ്ക്കു പറയാനുള്ളത്, K G Biju, Narada News, 2017

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 WP:HEY has not been satisfied even with the current set of improvements. It is just a set of minor comments and minor professional and political positions. Taking all the sources into consideration we do not have WP:SIGCOV This does not clear WP:GNG yet. Vikram Vincent 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is important to point out that both Shuchi Anand and Sindhu Joy AFDs were closed as delete though they both had a higher level of sourcing. This bio does not anywhere close. Vikram Vincent 04:00, 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.

Draftify: As per Beccanyr's request.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmorwiki I'd request you to change !vote to draftify. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Done Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject of article fails to meet GNG criteria. No SIGCOV is present either. --RaviC (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support a draftify, as I believe its possible that more significant coverage could be located and assessed (per Beccaynr's identification of that 1994 article) as a possible source. With one excellent reference already in evidence, I'm hopeful that editors may be able to locate, read, and document additional sources that support WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like to support draftify because I believe that Beccaynr will do their best to rescue this article like they always do. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per User:Beccanyr's request. VocalIndia (talk) 05:38, 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 no consensus on WP:GNG after two relists. Number-wise, keep is at a slight advantage. Argument-wise, delete is slightly stronger.

To any future AfDs: Since nobody has mentioned it explicitly, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP may be relevant here. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK European Union Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Sources on this article only prove the party exists, not that they are notable, or have achieved anything notable. Previous AfD included valid delete votes and observations which have not been countered by subsequent editing. No notable election results. No evidence of notability prior to or following one single, unsuccessful election candidate. Fails GNG and ORG, and fails WP politics/politicians guideines too. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: minor political party with no electoral representation. Fails to satisfy GNG criteria. The party also seems to be inactive, having not contested an election since June 2019. --RaviC (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with all the comments above. A party that only stood in one by-election (where it polled a tiny total - 25 votes or 0.07 of those cast) is not going to be notable based on that alone. There is no sign of anything else that would make it notable such as extensive coverage. If it had run in other by-elections or fielded candidates at the 2019 United Kingdom general election, then there might be a case. However I wonder if more details about it from this page could be added to the 2019 Peterborough by-election article. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The party stood in the European elections and got >33000 votes. It did not only stand in one by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG as it is the primary subject of articles from the Evening Standard and the New European, and is mentioned non-trivially in the i and BBC News as well. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the BBC one shows notability as it covers every by-election candidate in Peterborough including, independents, and standing at one by-election is not grounds for notability. I take the point about the other coverage, though that is in the context of the the European Election that the party contested, where it polled a negligible total (and only contested three electoral regions). Also other newspapers do not seem to have picked up on it. Thus to my mind it lacks sustained coverage and can be dealt with in the articles relating to the two elections it fought. That said if evidence of additional coverage can be found, then I would be happy to look again. Dunarc (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary subject coverage by two reliable sources and ancillary mentions in other reliable sources means it passes WP:GNG. Melmann 11:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this party may be minor but it is notable due to what's happened with the UK and the EU --K. Peake 08:04, 21 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 List of freedom indices. There seems to be consensus against a stand-alone article, but less than solid support for outright deletion. I am therefore redirecting this, with any content possibly worth merging still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaxRange

AfDs for this article:

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

The MaxRange data set was created by Max Rånge and Mikael Sandberg. All literature available about the dataset was created by one or both of these contributors. There does not appear to be any evidence that third parties have evaluated or made any significant use of this data. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar shows that some other researchers have cited this work, although not in large numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have received the required secondary coverage, possibly (likely?) promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freedom indexes are a thing, and MaxRange is one of them. It is not as well-known as some of the others, but it has been cited in studies published in peer-reviewed journals. I created the article a few years back, when I was reading about freedom and democracy, and looking at indexes, out of personal interest -- I have no affiliation with the project, and no interest in how it fares. --Tsavage (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Dunny29 (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comment from confirmed sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or selectively Merge) to List of freedom indices, where this is included. Of course, this presumes the inclusion criteria for that page would allow this to remain without a stand-alone article. Certainly we need independent sourcing for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not a !vote, but if the entire contents of this article were merged into the listing for this subject at List of freedom indices (the possible merge target proposed by Rhododendrites above), that would not be particularly out of line with the existing contents of that article. BD2412 T 05:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS found for this one. Riteboke (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus against a standalone article. however, discussion about whether content should be kept in some way (redirect/merge) seems more open and so relisting a third time to see if consensus on that question can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added content with reliable secondary source citations (peer-reviewed academic journals). --Tsavage (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This seems to border on WP:OR but looks like a useful article to have for people interested in quantitative political science. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have many indices such as the Human Development Index (HDI), among others, but would MaxRange count as a WP:NEOLOGISM? Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:08, 21 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.

Politicians

Ammad Quraishi

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

No indication of notability. Being on a school board is not a prominent political position, even if he was the youngest. Article had previously been speedy deleted, both under this title and Ammad Uddin Quraishi. ... discospinster _talk 05:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Television, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no. Fails WP:NPOL; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, being on a school board is not notable. Even so, much of the article describes what the whole board did, with no indication of whether he contributed to those activities.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational. Mekomo (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to Draft - Article reaches both general notability guidelines as established by Wikipedia standards as well as subject specific guidelines for a politician. A school board position in New Jersey is a state level office , thus reaching notability under subnational politician rules. Since an individual or role not accorded presumed notability may still reach notability thresholds through the general notability guidelines, it is important of note that the individual was the youngest muslim elected to public office in the United States (relevant see: Bushra Amiwala). It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous".

Sources cited are reliable, secondary sources of significant press coverage, which has primarily appeared in print or on regional air (TV/radio), and has since been archived. BernieBruh (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, being the youngest identity to hold an office in the US is pretty significant. LahrenFan21 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Simons (politician) and Jaylen Smith (politician) and others were 18yo when elected mayors of their municipalities, so not really a first here. Djflem (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, mentioning Simons and Smith does give credibility to the WP:NPOL element as well as the WP:SIGCOV element. Simons coverage is local media, and Smith's mayoral election in a municipality 1/22nd the size of Quraishi's still holds notability. Smith of course benefits from national coverage, esp in relation to joining Clinton and Harris at events of course. LahrenFan21 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LahrenFan21 having contributed nothing to Wikipedia outside of Ammad Quraishi and BernieBruh having contributed nothing to Wikipedia outside of adding Ammad Qurashi to things before authoring the Ammad Qurashi article we are discussing. Neat. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Local school board office holders and coverage of those positions is considered WP:ROUTINE historically at AFD; and dismissed under WP:NOTNEWS. We would need to see media coverage outside of the local area to prove notability for Quraishi, and that just isn't the case in this instance.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @4meter4 While I do agree that school board office holders are typically considered WP:ROUTINE, as it was notable for Amiwala when published in 2019, it is notable that Quraishi holds a national title in that role. I understand your point on the sourcing of more media coverage, and am working accessing archived national news sources to attach to this article. BernieBruh (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National title? There's no such thing as a national title for a local school board member. If you mean the claim that he is youngest muslim to be elected in the United States, I don't think that claim is something that is provable. For one, we don't typically go around collecting data on the religions (or ages) of school board members or any other minor elected office holder nationally, and two proving that claim would require analyzing the religions of every school board member and minor elected office holder who has ever held office historically in every city, township, and bureau with elected offices nationally. Somebody could been elected as an auditor in a small town who was younger and muslim thirty years ago, and it probably would have passed without fanfare. In other words, its a highly speculative claim, and the sourcing itself doesn't appear to support the claim under our policy at Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the poor choice of words. Appreciate you pointing that out. But yes, referring to the claim of being the youngest muslim to be elected in the United States. It's true that data on religions or ages aren't gone around to be collected, but the latter is public information via filing data and reports. The former can generally be deduced if not reported. I agree with you that someone could have been elected to another position who was younger (than 18) and longer ago, which would then need to be reflected. I disagree that it's a highly speculative claim, but can concede that the sourcing can be stronger on noting that superlative. There is an archived story in a national publication that I'm working to source that had made note of it. Regardless, I still think it makes sense to Keep the article live (not just because I worked on it), but to add a tag to get more source material or citations. BernieBruh (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual's already-thin claim to notability is not supported by any reliable sources then it is inappropriate to publish it. Putting the article in draft will give the opportunity to find archived sources, and I originally did that, but you re-published it anyway. ... discospinster _talk 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the guidance you left on my talk page about moving the page back when ready for publication, though now I see I should have opted for "submit for review" option instead, so my apologies on that front. My understanding that the notability claim was supported by a reliable source, being The Record (in circulation since 1895). But I'll still work on attaching additional sources. Thanks, BernieBruh (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Record article only states that he's running, not that he's the youngest Muslim to be on a school board. ... discospinster _talk 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can deduce people's religions based on what? Their names? Where they live? People of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) live all over the world and have many kinds of names. See if you can guess the religion of the person based on their name in this list: Ammar al-Basri, Peter Finch, Jermaine Jackson, Vinnie Paz, John Walker Lindh, Abdulahad AbdulNour, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Keith Ellison, Leda Rafanelli, Gabriele Torsello, Rita Habib, Robert Dickson Crane, Shotaro Noda, Ryoji Aikawa, Masayoshi Ōhira, Tani Yutaka. Also where has there ever been a collection of the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database? The answer: No where. To run for office in a town the official process varies from state to state. Depending on the state one lives in, one files to run for local office at sometimes the township level and in other places it might be administrated by the county or at the state level. While their might be a record of the names of past office holders at local level in a state document; typically the age of that person isn't recorded except on the filing document which is generally held in the archives of the township or the county. While there is the freedom of information act, figuring out even where to look to get the ages of past people in elected office would be very challenging; particularly for people elected prior to the internet era in a small town (of which there are more than 19,000 in the United States). That would require physically going down to the township building and digging through old election filing forms. Some of those might have been thrown out after a period of time, lost, or destroyed. Others locked away in a dusty file cabinet that no one has looked at in decades. The point is, in no way did someone actually compile all that data and definitively come to a conclusion on this claim. It's simple guesswork, which is meaningless.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, generally speaking/on average, yes we can deduce most people's religions based on their name or country of origin. (My family has a very stereotypically Jewish name, for example, and it doesn't make us any less Jewish.) There are many Wikipedia articles detailing names associated with religions or identities. Quraishi, some names in Arabic-language surnames, Jewish surnames to name a few. That doesn't negate your point about people of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) having many kinds of names, but cherry picking a few (including converts) to make the point is counterproductive. Regardless, a source cited in the article makes reference to the fact that Quraishi is Muslim. I'll be sure to cite it where appropriate. And sure there may not be a collection of all the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database, but that isn't how we do research or source and present materials. Otherwise, there's no place for sites like Wikipedia on the internet. Contributors find sources and information and add or update articles as those sources are sought or are discovered, since there isn't a universal database containing all of the information. If that's the standard by which we're to source information, then we need to scrap this entire site. I do agree with you that it's not easy to source info and figuring out where to look to get some information is very challenging, but not impossible. Plus, even if someone didn't compile all that data and definitively come to the conclusion, a reasonable inference can be drawn, and titles can change hands over the years as someone else comes along, or uncovers a source that reveals new information. Best BernieBruh (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how Wikipedia works. We have rules regarding WP:Verifiability. We also have rules regarding WP:No original research. Inference does not meet the standard of our verifiability rules, and making inferences as you suggest is a form of WP:OR which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy . Another one of those rules is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is an extraordinary claim, and it therefore requires extraordinary sourcing which means a minimum of three high quality references that are clearly independent of the subject (which excludes local media). So far there are zero sources that I would consider meet the standard we need to verify this extraordinary claim. In short we can't make this claim on wikipedia. And FYI, research of the kind I described above is what an academic or a journalist from a reputable publication would do before making the claim your making. That would be the standard of sourcing needed to publish that fact in a reputable journal or newspaper. Reliable publishers don't present guesswork as facts, and if they are guessing they say so up front by saying is "possibly" or "maybe". If I were to make that claim about Quraishi definitively being the youngest musilim American ever elected before an IRB board at my university while trying to get a journal article published I would get scoffed at with "how can you prove that?" questions. It wouldn't fly. And it doesn't fly here. Not without stronger evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No COI on the Quraishi article, but a potential COI on the Amiwala one, on which I've refrained from edits and additions. BernieBruh (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a school board does not pass WP:NPOL, and the entirely expected existence of purely local coverage of the school board's activities is not sufficient to claim that a school board trustee has passed WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy NPOL. We're writing history here, not news — our job isn't to maintain an article about every individual person that somebody in Bergen County, New Jersey might have read about in their local newspaper yesterday, it's to maintain articles about people who will have national and/or international significance that will endure into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s. School board trustees, however, almost never have anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cockeram

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

Does not pass GNG. All mentions appear to be passing mentions and no SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Like nom I am only able to find passing metions, no significant coverage. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support all reasons given above. Mekomo (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was blanked by the author, who also attempted to blank the entire log. Subject does not seem to be immediately notable, though I'm not sure if the article is significantly different from the version deleted in 2019. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for why this article should now be removed, is because Taylor is a mayor of a city with a population with 50,000. Also, the article is well sourced about M. Taylor. Lastly I added edits on how he made national news on two occasions, which wasn’t the case back in 2019. So it seems like he has significant credibility on becoming an article for Wikipedia. Raspberry505 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Shattuck

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while losing candidates get articles only if they can establish that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or they can show credible reasons why their candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this makes no other notability claim at all besides an unsuccessful candidacy, and is referenced only to the bare minimum verification that he existed rather than anything that would make his candidacy permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doing a quick WP:BEFORE, Shattuck was indicted for election fraud after the 1914 election (which he lost), but died before trial. Not sure a six year mayor who failed to rig a congressional election is notable, but it is vaguely interesting and has some expansion potential. I'll add what I found to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was indicted, so there was probable cause of election fraud. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Singh

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, I disagree. Based on this alone, we have an elected politician passing WP:NPOL and a pass the popcorn moment, to boot. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my mistake, someone completely changed this article which was earlier about a minister of Bihar. Even I have edited it before. See current version, I have restored the orginal version. The version I nominated for delition was about a non notable politician of the same name. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense to rewrite the article to be about the elected politician??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, we need to get present one deleted. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was about an elected representative and minister in Government of Bihar, Santosh Kumar Singh means this person File:Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with minister Santosh Kumar Singh (cropped).jpg. However, a new user changed it to current version and made it an article about a non notable politician of the same name, File:Son of Shri Prem Shankar Singh.jpg this person is an officeholder of a small regional political party and not elected to any constitutional post, even a local body. Therefore, I nominated it for delition.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - The article was hijacked and turned into a biography of a non notable individual. Clearly passes WP:NPOL and @Adamantine123: should at least check the revision history before nominating, these nominations are a waste of time for the community. Dympies (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz has reverted it into non notable version. It was me who added the picture of Santosh Singh the labour minister, which helped me to identify later that it was highjacked. You should also mention that it is not notable in present form. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misrepresent Liz's edit here, she only reverted your disruptive revert which removed the afd template while the discussion was still going on. As per the latest revision the subject is clearly notable having been elected to a legislative body [7]. Dympies (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirantara Ganesh

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

I don’t see significant coverage of the subject in the cited sources and those I searched; hence, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the subject is not an elected MLA or MP and therefore fails to meet WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Politicians, and Karnataka. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't have too much editing knowledge or anything. But I came across this article. This guy is a very famous social worker. Damn famous. I'm not sure whether this has to stay. But he's every famous. Wholeddadawgsout (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wholeddadawgsout: Being Damn famous does not inherently make a person notable per our guidelines. Please read WP:NOTABILITY. GrabUp - Talk 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. However, I’d like to clarify a few points. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable and independent mainstream sources. These sources discuss the subject in depth, not just passing mentions.

Additionally, while the subject is not an MLA or MP, notability on Wikipedia isn’t limited to holding public office. The article doesn’t contain any promotional content or unverifiable claims; it simply presents factual information based on reliable sources.

I believe the page meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and provides valuable information. I’d appreciate reconsidering the deletion Anandrajkumar0000 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anandrajkumar0000: Please provide those significant coverages here so others can evaluate them. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:MILL - every three weeks, I served two 12- hour shifts as an EMT and also ran for village trustee, in beautiful New Paltz, New York. That doesn’t make me notable, and neither is this doctor/political party jumper/ social worker / damn famous guy notable. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Suharto

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

Already in the main article of Suharto features the all the awards and honors that is featured in this separate article of the list of awards and honors he received. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORK. He was the grand Poobah and dictator of his country, so of course he was going to get every single medal awarded by his country, and even a few from his friends and supporters. This list borders on Propaganda and hagiography. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pendleton

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

Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault

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

WP:NOTNEWS, followup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia). No evidence that (or reason why) this protest will have more sustained, enduring notability than the countless other protests happening every day and being reported on in news articles. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comment about the Trump articles in general. Based on Category:Trump family and subcategories therein, I suspect AFD will have numerous Trump-related articles up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article seems properly sourced. I would also support a merge to some relevant article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe an article like sculptures of Donald Trump could make sense? Clearly there is a lot of coverage on the numerous works of art (both positive and negative) which depict Trump. And while the individual pieces might be problematic from a NOTNEWS standpoint, the overall subject of Trump in art almost certainly has encyclopedic value.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Public art depicting Donald Trump," perhaps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeewa Hulangamuwa

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

Only a local councillor, does not qualify under WP:NPOL. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: local politician and insurance person that never married, this is not a notable individual. Wiki is not a necrology for people that have passed away; this appears to be another working person, not much different than anyone else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NPOLITICIAN - just a local government elected member/local businessman - no distinguished achievements. Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added more information. Intlctzn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Alan Peterson

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

Fails WP:NBLP. Uses Ballotpedia almost entirely as a singular source, and what information isn't sourced to it uses thegreenpapers.com, which appears to be no more useful in providing notability than Ballotpedia. Google returns no news articles, sans a couple providing voting results (although I can't even find him on these) SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rationale. The sources used are not reliable to pass notability guidelines. Search result failed to turn up any useful failing WP:GNG. A mere announcement of a presidential run does not bring notability by default. Mekomo (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet up Artiste notability guide as stated above, weavil words and promotional statements are flying around the article too. Tesleemah (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total spam, utter failure of WP:GNG on top of that. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article claims nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing for it, but the article contains absolutely no GNG-worthy reliable sourcing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proposed deletion and none of the subsequent edits have addressed my concerns about WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrish Tyagi

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

Being related to a notable person does not establish notability on Wikipedia. The subject clearly fails to meet both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm only seeing WP:ROUTINE coverage. Ratekreel (talk) 10:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with just passing mention. I can not find any substantial and significant achievement worthy of notice by the subject to warrant a page on. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because notability is not inherited from his dad, Trump or political party. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. It's a great photo, though. -The Gnome (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

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

This clearly fails WP:NPOL, as the subject has not won any elections to prominent positions like MP, MLA, or MLC. Additionally, it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Holding a position as Chief National Spokesperson of a party does not satisfy Wikipedia's general guidelines for notability. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Bihar. Baqi:) (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a party spokesman, unless it’s of a one-party or dominant-party system, is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails wp:GNG and Wp:NPOL. Zuck28 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullipedia (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Douglas

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

WP:BLP of an unelected candidate, not adequately demonstrated as passing the conditions for the permanent notability of unelected candidates. As always, the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates get articles only if either (a) they can demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is effectively just the usual campaign brochure referenced to the usual smattering of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in every district can always show, which is not enough to render his unsuccessful election campaign more notable than other unsuccessful election campaigns all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We appreciate Mr. Douglas' willingness to stand for election, but as mentioned, standing for election and failing does not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Redirect to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37 per below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37, which is a common outcome for unsuccessful candidates who are up-and-coming. He was endorsed by Maxwell Frost and gained some coverage. He’s certainly someone to watch. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Florida House of Representatives election#District 37, as a usual and appropriate outcome for a losing candidate for the US House (per WP:POLOUTCOMES). --Enos733 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

Non notable Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much! He isn't a former mayor but also politician featured in lot of Bigg press News. He was the Mayor of Golapganj which was indeed featured in various bigg news like The Business Standard and The daily star although Aminul Islam Rabel was not featured primarily but as Mayor of Golapgonj. And first finish the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Golapganj Therealbey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it is not ready for the main space. If he is noteworthy, you will certainly be able to find information about him to write an article that is not just an infobox. In that case, move to Draft, improve, and ask for a review. If there is nothing else, delete without delay. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't written that doesn't mean ge isn't important! there is much info about him on internet but not written in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Possible redirect to Nana Kwame Bediako where subject is already mentioned. I wouldn't object to adding a few words to characterise Kriese there. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is too dependent on primary sourcing, and not nearly enough on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources, to claim that he would pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pass WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage LefterDalaka (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna al Politico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our sources do not have to be in English. They do, however, have to be substantive, meaning that they have to contain detailed coverage and analysis about him doing something noteworthy, and it isn't enough that sources can be found which just happen to have his name in them. For instance, an article "about" public opinion polling on his popularity or unpopularity does not support notability, and a very short blurb about him commenting on something that happened to somebody else does not support notability. He has to be the subject (not the speaker) of a reasonably long and detailed (not a short blurb) piece of coverage and analysis about him (not just featuring him giving a soundbite comment about somebody else) before that source starts to support notability, and even then there have to be several sources of that high calibre (not just one) before he's cleared the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[8] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 <!-- Don't list Politicians here -->
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mir Junaid}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_government}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Mättö}}

Revision as of 15:28, 6 April 2021

Politics

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates