Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:28, 28 April 2024

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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics.

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 speedy delete. Deleted by Hey man im josh: (WP:G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Cartoons2022) in violation of ban or block.) (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UK Independence Party leadership election

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

Lacking coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. This is a very minor party with no elected representatives and only a couple of thousand members. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, leaning on keep. WP:TOOSOON. Give it a bit more time and more sources and we can probably keep it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an argument for why an article should not exist... AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decidedly minor political event. TOOSOON applies to articles and not to nominations that come "too soon". The event is currently covered with two sentences in the UKIP article, and may be expanded to 9-10 sentences there. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, no reason to warrant its own article, any more than for leadership elections of the continuing SDP. Anything on this page can by covered on the UKIP page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico

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

Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 5 May 2024 (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt. All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“

I appreciate the fact, and am proud of it, that the attentions I am receiving are intended more for our country than for me personally.

”

— Ulysses S. Grant

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Military, Politics, United States of America, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you mentioned, by Dowdall, is self-published. That is, it was published by HistoryEye, and looking up HistoryEye on the Web [1], we find that it is "managed by Dublin-based genealogist, Denise Dowdall." According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, if material in a self-published source is worth citing, one is expected to find the same material in a more reliable source and cite it from there instead. This goes for all 11 of the citations of Dowdall in the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothat darkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources.

"Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach.

The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Smith and White mention Grant's horsemanship over twenty times in their biographies, often at length and at various points during his life. I'd certainly say it's not a trivial subject. Intothat darkness 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources. Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an American equestrian, I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents, and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians. Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians. Obversa (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As noted by User:Intothatdarkness, both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War, also ridden by Abraham Lincoln, was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Obversa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility. I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone else. Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDENT. Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough indents! Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

giddyup? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've mislaid my copy, but as additional source British military historian John Keegan discusses Grant's horsemanship in some detail in his 1987 book The Mask of Command ISBN 0-7126-6526-9 and compares it to that of the Duke of Wellington, another noted equestrian. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

"Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird" - Okay? We don't delete articles for being weird to readers born outside the US, as far as I know. This AfD reads as reflexive anti-nationalism. That isnt a bad impulse, but I believe it is misplaced here.

I don't personally care for his horsemanship, but I've read enough biographies of Grant to know that it's important to every biographer of this massive figure in American history. Calling it nationalistic drivel unworthy of an article by comparing it to horses - horses that have articles of their own (you linked Alexander's horse, and here's Washington's horse)- seems to negate your point. Myth or no, it is a notable subject covered by reliable secondary sources. Comparing it to North Korean leaders' alleged golf prowess is also off-base - because Grant was actually good at riding horses.

I can't find good cause to delete this article. Though I agree the article certainly needs clean up. Happy to contribute to a clean up. Carlp941 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We must bear in mind that a "nationalist" is someone who loves and is loyal to one's own country. This doesn't mean that there is a dislike for other countries. Calling someone a "nationalist", by using terms like "nationalist drivel", "myths", etc, reveals a hatred or contempt for a given country, and in that case this is not good. Now we have the same apparent tendency behind the complaint just made on the Grant Talk page, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (having already !voted). This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George H. W. Bush broccoli comments, a 2020 nomination which the community found to be ill-judged. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The writing isn't great, but the subject is notable -- which is what matters here. Grant's horsemanship is no mere myth, it's something his scholarly biographers all mention. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Refocus, Rewrite: The information is worthy of being an article. I would focus on Grant's use of the Union Calvary during the Civil War. Confederate Calvary under Van Dorn (Holly Springs) and Forrest, may have influenced Grant to use Union Calvary under Sheridan. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't have anything to do with Grant's use of cavalry. It's focused on his horsemanship, which isn't the same thing. Intothat darkness 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry has to do with soildiers on horses. Grant was a soildier and a General. He convinced Lincoln to appoint Sheridan, head of the Army of the Potomac Cavalry. After Forrest and Van Dorn attacked Grant in Mississippi, Grant learned the importance of having a strong cavalry. I respect your opinion. I understand what you are saying. Your point is taken. This was just a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying and respect your opinion as well (although Grant's larger fight was to get Sheridan appointed to command in the Shenandoah Valley, and Sherman was the one who developed an obsession with Forrest). But we already have some serious feuding going on the article's talk page. Trying to add cavalry in would in my view just make things worse. And for the record, Grant didn't champion cavalry in any major way after the war, nor do historians write much about his overall use of cavalry being visionary or exceptional. He understood cavalry, including its limitations, and was very good at using it in the wider strategic sense...as he was with all his forces. Intothat darkness 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Five Forks was a Union victory in April, 1865. Sheridan led the Union Cavalry. Grant's most humiliating defeat was at Holly Springs in 1862, when Confederate General Van Dorn and his Conferderate Cavalry sacked Holly Springs, Grant's Union supply depot. Grant believed cavalry should be under stong leadership. That is all I am saying. Aside from this, I am for keeping the article, but trimmed down and rewritten. I hope this issue can be resolved in the near future. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say at this point the article is clearly a Keep. But the campaign has now moved to the article talk page. Intothat darkness 14:53, 4 May 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [2] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [3] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [4] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [5] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [6] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [7] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [8] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [9] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [10] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [11] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [12] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [13] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [14] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [15] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [16] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [17] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [18] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [19] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [20] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [21] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [22] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [23] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [24] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [25] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [26] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [27] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [28] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [29] [30] [31] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[32] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[33] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[34] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zero^talk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creep^Talk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:

Ref 3 [35] - Haaretz
Ref 32 [36] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [37] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [38] - in Israel21c

--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added references (notability):

Ref 14 (current) [39] - The Times of Israel
Ref 36 (current) [40] - TechCrunch

-- Omer Toledano (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this. Pilaz (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am not convinced by any of the 'keep' arguments above. There's some vague waving at GNG by a number of participants (importantly, note, this does not include North8000, who has engaged in meaningful discussion regarding GNG to justify their position), but when asked to present sources that meet the GNG standard, I agree with scope_creep's analysis of any such sources presented in response. Beyond that, there are a number of straight votes (eg. היידן, Sofiblum) and other arguments to avoid that I'm sure will be discarded by an experienced closer (eg. "a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel", "A known activist and the article has enough references"). I also do not accept that being interviewed contributes to GNG (they are acceptable sources for information, yes, but do not contribute to assessing notability), and community consensus at deletion discussions in recent times has generally also found in this manner (WP:PRIMARY explicitly notes this consensus in a footnote). I agree with North8000 that this should be judged against GNG rather than NCORP, although I understand scope_creep's point that there is a strong mix of CORP about this article - but ultimately it is a biography and I agree with North8000 more on this. Daniel (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2024 (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. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Indian general election in South India

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

Practically a duplicate of the main election article. A general regional election article isn't needed as each state in South India has an article about the general election taking place in the respective state. Regional articles for India would only create more for the sake of more and would be more stats articles and wouldn't provide meaningful context. Articles about the election in each state and territory for the country is enough outside the main election article.

And the creator who contest the speedy deletion tag, states article like UK elections in England is a precenident type article. However, England is not a region in the UK. It is one of the countries part of the UK thus an article for each UK member country makes sense. Regions in England like Midlands, London, etc don't need articles for each general election result as that would be overkill. Articles like these would be overkill as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why this article is needed independently from the main article. Cortador (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already articles for each state in Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory, not sure why this is needed. Reywas92^Talk 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary fork of main article given we have 'by state' articles. Number 5 7 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article can kept as 2024 Indian general election may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. As this splits data for South India, which would make ease of navigation. As the election proceed there would be increase in length of 2024 Indian general election.

Pagers (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too long is generally considered about 8k words of readable prose. These 2 combined is barely half that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for this page when a page for 2024 elections by different states is on wikipedia Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory. This is simply an overkill. RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (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 Woke. Although clearly in some way notable, this term is not clearly separable from pejorative uses of 'woke' already discussed at our existing article and should be discussed there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke. There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term is very widely used by reliable sources, so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like "woke." Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. This is as forky as they come. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must of course mean WP:CFORK and not WP:FORK as FORK is defined in the first line of the link you made as Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia, no? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 02:39, 3 May 2024 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my own standards for lawyers. Yes he's been mentioned in two news articles, but that's not significant coverage. Many, perhaps thousands, of lawyers are involved in politics. He doesn't pass my standards for lawyers by a stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (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 speedy keep‎. SK2/SK4, sock nom. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkjutt Jammu

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

This article has many wrong and disputed information like IkkJutt Jammu is different organisation in Jammu And ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal is different from it. Both organisation have officially different different social accounts and websites.pls delete it. Nishalover — Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 22 April 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 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close, sockpuppetry and no valid rationale for deletion, same as last AFD by another sock of this master: see SPI for details. Wikishovel (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article suffice to meet the GNG. If nom's claims about the article's inaccuracies are correct then fixing them is a matter of ordinary editing. Take it to the talk page, not to AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Problem is, this article is with wrong redirection like Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal,Ankur Sharma (politician). Nishalover (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT. Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many organizations in the local language of Jammu that have the same name. The problem with this article is that this article is about political Party whose name is IkkJutt Jammu.Apart from this is an Ekjut Jammu Party whose name has been changed to Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal.

These two are different .But this article has redirected Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong.The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu.Delete the article if not

~~So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Competitive Technology

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

fails general notability guideline. every source in the article is primary. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Per @Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see. Fugabus (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable secondary sources and it does not even meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It doesn't fit for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heights and weights of US presidents

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failure to meet WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think height or weight are notable characteristics of US presidents. JIP | Talk 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of a list. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Roden

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

Autobiography of an individual who does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, as there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him. See source assessment below. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"NYS Assembly Bill Search"	Primary source			✘ No
"Opt-Out Organ Donation"	Primary source			✘ No
"The Ins and Outs of Organ Donation"		~ Blog from medical institution	Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"College Students Push for More Organ Donations"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"New York State Legislature Passes Living Donor Support Act"		Press release		✘ No
"Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"Youth Coalition For Organ Donation Strives to Save Lives"		Press release		✘ No
"TEDxTulane"	TEDx Talk by Roden			✘ No
"WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award"			Nomination for non-notable award	✘ No
"Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"Loyola team wins honorable mention in the global “Students Reinventing Cities” competition"	University press release			✘ No
"ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden"	Podcast with Roden			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Politics, and New York. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.

The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.

The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.

The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.

The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.

The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.

The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.

The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.

The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar. Evanroden1 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept. GraziePrego (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clear WP:AUTO FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2024 (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. There was consensus that this topic has received sustained, significant coverage in reliable sources. One delete !vote effectively called to WP:TNT the article because it "seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality", but no consensus developed for that option. The other delete !vote was a conclusory WP:JNN. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy

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

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality. samee converse 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [41]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked Samee at User talk:Samee#AFD contribution about the rationale behind their contribution. Thincat (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [42] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article isn't in the best condition with its over-focus on four particular women's participation rather rather than on summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event in general, I find the essay Deletion is not cleanup persuasive in this case. Deleting an article about a valid topic makes it more difficult to improve later, and even in this non-ideal state the article remains educational and of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the challenge once cleanup is completed (deemphasizing the sections on the four women), you are left with the one paragraph opening, containing only one reference. And much of that prose is unreferenced - (e.g. "many women contributed their opinions and leadership skills to the movement" and "Although women had substantial roles, they had different standpoints regarding the hunger strike movement"). While I agree this is the case, the expectation is that there would be general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event. But those sources do not seem to be there, even with a Google Scholar search. - Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a legitimate subject. Summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event would be fine and possible, but we should also include all specific women/examples as they are right now. No significant removals of text would be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2024 (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 Barlaston#Parish council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barlaston#Parish council. I agree with the nom in that it is not a notable entity and merging in entirety and then covering all future elections I think might be a bit WP:UNDUE. As it's already covered on the proposed target article, I think a straight redirect will suffice and is appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 May 2024 (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 Cursed soldiers. as a viable ATD since no further input appears to be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Justice (Poland)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [44], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. As the polish version of the article was also deleted, its evident that the organization is not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). Yes, pl wiki AfD failed to find sources. I will see if I can provide more commentary later (we have some sources here, that the nom did not review). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added a couple of citations, so at least the article isn't completely unreferenced now. The problem with secret underground organizations is that information about them is difficult to find (by design), but there seems to be more discussion of Freedom and Justice recent years. In fact, this journal article was published in 2021, probably after the Polish AfD discussion. There is also this 2022 article. These are brief mentions at best, but I don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now. (The key seems to be to search for both "Wolnosc i Sprawiedliwosc" and "WiN" together.) A possible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to Cursed soldiers where this group is mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (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 Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr. I see a rough consensus to Merge this article with the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martyr (politics)

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

Low quality article. Parent article Martyr already clarifies in the first sentence that the word may have a non-religious meaning. I propose a merge of this article to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr and/or Martyr#Revolutionary martyr. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Religion. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [45]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [46] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [47]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [48] [49]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is known as a bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Low quality article" is not a valid reason for deletion. Had you done a BEFORE, you might have seen titles such as Martyrs in the Making: Political Martyrdom in Late Medieval England, Politics of Death: The Cult of Nazi Martyrs, 1920-1939, Imre Nagy, Martyr of the Nation, or Heroes, Martyrs, and Political Messiahs in Revolutionary Cuba, 1946-1958. The article clearly fulfils GNG. --Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see no need to have separate articles for people martyred for religious reasons and people martyred for political reasons since the term still has the same meaning of persecution. The main martyr article still includes a number of political and other non-religious related examples, so if there's actually a distinction to be made, the split should be done more clearly. The book titles above can still be used in the main article. The main page has 30 times the viewers as this page, so why make readers go through another link for the full concept when length is not an issue? Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you that there should be a clearer split. Any mention of political martyrdom, including the Revolutionary martyr section, should be moved out of the Martyr article to this one, and just have a hatnote on the Martyr article pointing to this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - in sum, I don't see anything with the information, which is all factual and correct. The biggest problem is that it's sort of a fork. A lesser issue to finding appropriate sources, but simple internet searches would help. I will defer to others who might decide whether and where to merge this, or alternatively, to fix it. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Did you men to say you don't see anything wrong with the information? Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I don't see anything wrong with it. Typo. I'm leaning'merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per arguments above. The article seems to cite nothing to establish that 'political Martyrs' are an independent topic. Instead, it consists of a few examples that the article creators think the term applies to. This is particularly problematic when applied to contexts where events in non-English-speaking countries are being described, since as the martyr article notes, terms translated to 'martyr' may be applied much more broadly than is generally understood through normal English usage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, I'd have to suggest that there are obvious problems with neutrality involved. Generally speaking, people tend to be described as martyrs by those who share similar views - and Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting such subjectivity as if it was objective fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Political and Legal Education

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [50], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:22, 29 April 2024 (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. The sole Keep view did not provide any valid argument. But without quorum, this can only be treated as a contested PROD. Feel free to renominate in a month. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pinging @Mar4d: as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.

And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [51] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [52] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [53]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [54], [55], [56]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (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 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

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

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus, similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE. Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska: The standalone is not necessary and is not notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes. This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger. However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge Per WP:MERGEREASON, merging doesn't necessarily mean that this caucus isn't notable, just that there isn't enough to say about it to justify its own article. This caucus was essentially a non-event, and the "article" is mostly infoboxes, sidebars, and other template cruft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the tables were turned, and it was the other party's nominee who had this caucus result of being the only candidate and not garnering many votes, how would people be reacting? I assume good faith here, but let's be consistent with the candidates. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've merged from the other party as well, not all of us care about American politics in a partisan manner. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge We've been redirecting elections such as these which aren't quite notable enough for their own article - while there's obviously some coverage, there's not much to say and they basically violate WP:NOTNEWS and our event guidelines while being able to be covered adequately elsewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub. A trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article. Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries, but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses". 2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category. I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default, with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary. Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article and fall under WP:REDUNDANT. Hemmers (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

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

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 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 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmericaSpeaks

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (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 Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The keep votes have presented no reliable sources indicaticating notability and there is consensus that this is a subtopic that ought to be covered in the main article rather than forked. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical pro-Beijing camp

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and then delete and create-protect per WP:FORK and WP:SALT. I'm confused again why this was even created. It reads like a parody created by Terry Gilliam. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (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 Stowmarket#Governance as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowmarket Town Council

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (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 procedural close‎. This is a temporary close, as the consensus below is clearly not to retain the article; further, there is consensus to merge to Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. However, as that article does not yet exist, I cannot close as merge to that destination as a matter of historical precedent. Any interested editor is encouraged to create the target article, then merge this content, and replace this article with a redirect as per this AfD.

Note that if this merge and redirect isn't executed in the next couple of weeks, this procedural close should be replaced by a speedy deletion to execute the consensus below (ie. not retain the article). Such a deletion can be reversed immediately, should any editor wish to execute the above-described article creation, merge and redirect. Daniel (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Montgomery mayoral election

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

Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 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 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (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.

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Ivan Portnih

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

Fails WP:NPOL and there is literally no source to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical data, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Aslanov

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

Current sources in the article don't pass WP:GNG and I couldn't find sources through a WP:BEFORE which discussed him in-depth. Suonii180 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. Suonii180 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Li Keqiang

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

Only two Chinese supreme leaders (Mao & Jiang) have articles about their death, and his funeral was far less grand than these two. Even the death of Hu Yaobang (which triggered June 4th) don't has article about his death. Coddlebean (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Coddlebean (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coddlebean, which deletion criterion is met here? You used similar argumentation at the Early life of Mao Zedong AfD quite recently, and that article was speedily kept because you did not provide a rationale. Folly Mox (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Keadle

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP does not meet GNG for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Only elected office is hyper-local county commissioner which would not normally qualify as notable outwith exceptional circumstances.

Somewhat of a perennial candidate, but given that they generally failed to get past primaries (much less general elections) and lack the WP:SIGCOV that would be needed for a perennial candidate to be notable (c.f. Howling Laud Hope or Count Binface), I don't believe they're over the line.

Promo/Peacock in "Community and family" section implies originally written by someone associated with his campaigns. That can be fixed/rewritten, but he's not notable to start with.

A previous AfD in 2013 came to no consensus, seemingly based on currency/recency of elections. But 12 years later I don't see that any enduring notability has been demonstrated. Hemmers (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, North Carolina, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Menegatto

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

This page is really bad, it's presented as an actual biography of a politician/monarch when the country in question doesn't actually exist. It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Italy. Di (they-them) (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - there are a few fairly long media reports in addition to those on the page. There may also be more in non-English publications. On that basis, in my opinion the GNG is met. JMWt (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content from reliable secondary sources to Principality of Seborga. Insufficient independent coverage for a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject meets GNG (mostly established in non-English sources: [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66], although English sources also exist: [67][68][69]). Notability is not determined by the validity of her claims/titles/positions/offices. Many articles exist on pretenders and claimants to defunct and non-existant monarchies. The question is if Menegatto is has received significant media coverage, and the answer to that is yes. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Principality of Seborga. She is no more notable than her so-called predecessors, Giorgio and Marcello. Keivan.f^Talk 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per the user above. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I sincerely disagree with Di's and Celia Homeford's arguments, however I believe it indeed deserves a redirect as per the user above. Demagoras^talk 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States vice presidential firsts

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN, seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTTRIVIA as well. I'm not seeing any corresponding content at Vice President of the United States that would make retarget or merge appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and United States of America. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see an excuse of this WP:OR WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can always find weird, arbitrary firsts for just about anything, but there's no reason to dump them here. For example, Daniel D. Tompkins is the only vice president to have served two terms in the 1800s and first to die within a year of leaving office. First bald VP? First left-handed VP? First VP over 5' 10" tall? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Lists of firsts shows a lot of these types articles exist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts was kept, an argument made that the media covers that. So I searched for "First vice president to" [70] and found news coverage of various things. The media covers the first vice president to do anything. Individual things listed can be searched for as well. Any history book about a vice president, will mention what they were the first to do. Dream Focus 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just list things that a reliable source in the news media or a history book or a government website mentioned was a notable achievement. I added some references earlier, quote easy to find. Dream Focus 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Miller (West Virginia politician)

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

Non-notable former political candidate. No in-depth coverage outside of his gubernatorial campaign, no real claim to notability. All campaign-related coverage of him is fairly WP:ROTM stuff that you would expect of someone running for governor. Now that his campaign is over, I can't imagine very many people will be searching for him. I'd support a redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. His unsuccessful candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor is not all that notable, although his ownership of several automobile dealerships (not just Kia) has made his television ads rather ubiquitous (and somewhat amusing, IMO) throughout the region for a number of years. I doubt that there is enough coverage in the news besides his political candidacy to demonstrate notability, however. I'm not certain of this, and would be perfectly satisfied if anyone can produce additional evidence of notability. But just owning the dealerships and having thrown his hat into the ring for the Republican nomination (in a particularly nasty campaign season in West Virginia) does not seem like enough. P Aculeius (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: as a West Virginia resident myself, I can attest to the fact that Chris Miller has not gained hardly any notably even in his own state; let alone on a scale sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I would support deleting and adding a redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D114:AF19:31D6:322B (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Labbée

AfDs for this article:

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

City councillors are not presumptively notable based on WP:NPOL, they have to be notable for other things or pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO. This subject fails all. Sources presented and from WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE coverages/WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources and cannot be used to establish GNG because there's no WP:SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not notable, sourcing is mostly to Twitter and the same local stories used last time. Endorsing the Liberal leader isn't notable, the harassment isn't terribly notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have added categories to the article as it entirely had none categories and its sources were only X posts. I tried to look for more sources online but all I could find are very few. Thesudburystar here: https://www.thesudburystar.com/opinion/columnists/if-i-had-strong-mayor-powers-i-would-make-greater-sudburys-bureaucrats-accountable-labbe is just a piece of opinion that is just more of a campaign like and fails GNG, including this: https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/plenty-of-candidates-in-ward-7-8-and-9 . The Villagereport here: https://www.villagereport.ca/village-picks/sudbury-councillor-has-faced-online-threats-since-she-was-elected-8817219 is just about her reacting to harassment at her home. I failed to find sources that explain deep about the subject. However, if someone manages to find other extra sources, I may change my vote.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sudbury still is not a city whose city councillors get an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing as city councillors — the bar that a Sudbury city councillor would have to clear to get a Wikipedia article is not "she exists", but "she has received such an unusually high depth and range and volume of more than purely local coverage that she could credibly claim to be one of the most uniquely significant city councillors in the entire country". But this article isn't showing that at all.
I would also note that there's some reason to suspect conflict of interest here, given that this is the second attempt to create an article about Natalie Labbée within the past year, while there have been no attempts that I know of to create an article about any other current or recent Sudbury city councillor but her (not even the one I had under active "watchlist the redlink in case somebody tries it" surveillance for a few weeks this past winter, whom I bet at least Oaktree can guess but I won't name lest I inspire somebody to try it.) And it also now warrants mention that I submitted an SPI request on the creators of the first and second versions of this article, which has already resulted in both of them (and another username who's also been playing FAFO games on our articles about other Sudbury politicians, such as mayors and MPPs) being sockblocked. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Zanuriman Nuar Paras Khan

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

I don't see how this meets WP:NPOL. He doesn't appear to actually have national/state-wide office, and is rather just a member of his party's youth division. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:BASIC. C F A 💬 00:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[71][72][73][74][75] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [76], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Foster III

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

Members of the San Diego City Council or of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors are not presumptively notable based on WP:NPOL. They have to pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO. This subject lacks in all, the sources presented in the article and from WP:BEFORE can not be used to the establish notability of this subject based on GNG. Sources are either lacking in independence or mostly in significant coverage of the subject. Most are WP:ROUTINE coverages which provide nothing but an announcement of Foster winning the seat or what have we, while some are result sheets, etc. Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be deleted as WP:ONEEVENT - all we have is that he ran for a local office and won. The only personal details are from non-independent sources (his campaign web site). Everything else is routine local election stuff, and those articles are quite short with little information about him. Lamona (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Cherneha

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

This article says nothing other than the subject being a mayor, which fails WP:NPOL because mayors are not presumptively notable if they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG which is where this subject is lacking. Did not occupy any office that would help them pass any of WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage in reliable sources that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But neither the content nor the sourcing here are up to the level of what's required. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was usually prone to keep, however I would not be surprised if it's going to be redirected to list of mayors of Odesa because he is listed as a mayor of Odesa there. After all, he was listed in the Russian wikipedia where he was the mayor of Odesa. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor O'Callaghan (businessman)

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. He received some attention from national outlets right when he announced his campaign in August of last year, but that's to be expected of any candidate in a competitive House race. From what I can see, he's received zero national news coverage since September 2023. All of the articles cited on the page are campaign-related, and I can't find any non-campaign-related coverage of him on Google from any time, so I don't think he meets GNG. Very much reminiscent of Kellen Curry, another 2024 congressional candidate who got national news attention right when he launched and promptly faded from view. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Ireland, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support either redirect or outright deleteing, as even with the bit of coverage he has received more recently (he appears to be running a generally more negative campaign rel. to the other 5 in the race) I don't believe he meets notability standards. Buggie111 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting criminal notability; simply being a political candidate isn't notable. Can be re-created if he wins the political seat, otherwise, not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Weak keep: I support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. That being said, while he doesn't meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate, it's possible he meets WP:BASIC. What makes this different from other cases, in my opinion, is that the candidature coverage is not WP:MILL. He's received a significant amount of coverage that specifically goes into detail about his career before running for office. For example, this Bloomberg article and this MSNBC article. C F A 💬 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the national coverage of him isn't run of the mill, but the problem is that the only non-ROTM coverage he ever received came right when he announced his campaign. As I said in the nomination, he's received no national attention since September 2023. It seems like he made a splash right when he announced because he's running in a competitive congressional race, but I don't think that translates to lasting notability. If he loses this race, will anyone be searching his name in 5-10 years? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I made this article...I lost my login for AZVoter so I'll go in my thought process here. Conor has the most cash on hand out of any candidate other than the incumbent in this race. He is polling alright and has four endorsements from people in the US house of reps. So he definitely is getting national recognition. But you are correct, if he loses he will probably be irrelevant. The negative campaigning is something I wanted to add but this was my first article so I did not really know what to write about. JustMadeThis4Discussion (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Raising money and getting a couple endorsements from members of Congress is not what I meant by "national attention" (we're talking about news coverage here) and does not establish notability. See WP:NPOL. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar

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

I believe this is similar to Sanjog Waghere. A WP:BEFORE search on Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar has a lot of reliable sources, but they all focus on his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election, making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG/NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I searched for coverage about the subject other then the candidacy, but I can’t found any. These sources are because of his candidacy. WP:BLP1E simply apply here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. But I found someone who is saying “I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability.” Here. GrabUp - Talk 09:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidacy in general election is not notable. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as doctor and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Guntur Lok Sabha constituency#General Election 2024, mostly on WP:NOTPROMO grounds. Otherwise keep. I do not think the grounds for deletion raised above are policy-based. (1) NPOL avoids extending a presumption of notability to candidates, but recognizes that they are still notable if they meet the GNG. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that GNG-compliant sourcing is available. (2) The question is therefore whether BLP1E applies. But BLP1E does not apply, because a candidate in a general election for a national legislature is not someone who otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. As WP:LOWPROFILE reminds us, [p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. (3) The remaining question, although not raised above, would be whether BIO1E applies. IMO it would be questionable to interpret "one event" in BIO1E/BLP1E so broadly as to encompass an entire election campaign; that would go well beyond any ordinary or on-wiki understanding of "one event". In any event, if BIO1E does apply, it counsels us to redirect to our coverage of the event, not to delete the page outright. -- Visviva (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sparks

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. I can't find any in-depth, indepdenent sources aside from this image.ie article. Clear friend a ^💬 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable person, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NPOL doesn't apply (and, even if it did, wouldn't be met). WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are also not met (apart from the single image.ie article, the only sources - which deal with the subject as a primary topic - are the same less-than-independent "job announcement / press release" materials we see in the article). I might be wrong, but it seems to me that WP:G5 could also potentially apply here. Guliolopez (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ruiz II

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

Chiefs of staff do not count as a political office for purposes of NPOL, and it doesn't seem like there is sufficient coverage to meet the standards of WP:BASIC unfortunately. Deprod by Clearfrienda, not sure which sources they were referring to, perhaps the AP? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In cases where there is some substantial coverage I usually object with PRODs in case there's a chance they can be kept. In this case, there's this local 12news.com article and this ktar.com article which both go WP:INDEPTH. There are some less-significant mentions in this NYT article, this kold.com article, and this azcentral.com article. I'd lean towards delete but it's a close call. Clear friend a ^💬 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alter

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

Fails WP:NPOL, council members are not inherently notable. There’s not enough sources that are independent, reliable and significantly covers the subject to warrant a standalone entry. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical or PRs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources cited are routine coverage. Doesn't seem like he's done anything that would warrant a page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources here are routine accounts of council meetings. The one source I found that is substantially about him is pretty negative. I see no notabiity. Lamona (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Carter

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This article says nothing other than the subject is a mayor which fails NPOL. The sources are obvious WP:ROUTINE coverages and do not count towards GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I don't agree with lacking WP:GNG rather particular about WP:NPOL which the article slightly meets. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's either a subject meets a notability guideline, or it doesn't, there's nothing like "slightly meets" or "almost meets" or whatever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Merrill

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

Fails WP:NPOL as he was defeated in the run for a seat in South Dakota State Senate. WP:GNG is not passable as the sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:ROUTINE and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being the Chairman of a political party is not enough to bear notability per WP:NPOL. However, good redirecting to the party will be good also. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minimal coverage for the city position, simply standing as a candidate isn't notable enough for here. Not meeting notability, I can't find anything beyond confirmation of the city position. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't meet WP:NPOL. Unverifiable contents. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hernández-Mats

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

Prod declined. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. She is a teacher and a leader in a local union who was chosen as a major party's nominee for governor's runningmate in 2022. It appears that the Miami Herald wrote up one in-depth piece on her during the campaign and there are other WP:ROUTINE articles relating to the election and the Crist ticket that do not cover her in significant depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage about her as a union leader. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. I reviewed the available coverage and it's either of the Crist campaign or it's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the United Teachers of Dade, quoting her incidentally to her role as president in the process of coverage focusing on other issues (such as the decertification vote or COVID-19). Redirecting connects this page with what most people may be searching for related to her, and it makes it easier to resurrect the page in the future should she be the subject of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article, as of this comment, contains reliable sources for more than just her selection as lieutenant governor candidate in 2022. GNG is satisfied. Zsinj^Talk 23:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional remarks: Arguments for redirect citing the loss of an election do not take into account the published sources that aren’t dated in the fall of 2022. The Axios, WPLG, and CBS Miami sources have sigcov (she isn’t only mentioned once in passing), are independent, and reliable, and they aren’t even related to the election. Then, when you add the numerous articles pertaining to the election, even if the election itself is every four years, she is the main topic and the sources are national, independent, and reliable.

I will respect the consensus, but would really appreciate being educated on the lack of notability given the cited sources. Zsinj^Talk 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those three you mention are independent, yes, but I don't think they are significant coverage. This Axios piece mentions her only in passing. The WPLG source about the arrest is also not in depth. CBS Miami, one is a video I haven't watched, this one is about the union, not her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate the reply and clarification. This one was curious to me and I enjoy the opportunity to refine my understanding of sigcov. Zsinj^Talk 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that only WPLG could even be considered as sigcov, and that's a stretch given how brief the coverage is. The rest are providing significant coverage of the union she leads, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from the union. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS Miami video is sigcov in my opinion as it’s 10 minutes in duration and she’s one of two primary focuses. Am I misunderstanding the format as it impacts her notability? I have no question about inheriting notability, just seeing sigcov in multiple sources and curious how that isn’t enough for notability. Zsinj^Talk 12:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for Deletion, to Keep and to Redirect so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's some non-campaign-related coverage of her cited here, but I don't think it's enough to argue she meets GNG. It really just comes down to whether or not you think being interviewed by local news outlets a few times proves that someone is notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate that loses a statewide election in the United States. I agree with Dclemens1971 and Muboshgu about the state of the existing coverage as not meeting our expectations under GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election: Per se. Most of the article centers here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Hirschel

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject currently doesn’t pass NPOL as city councilor, and is only contesting for a seat in the EU Parliament. Sources were insufficient to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could potentially redirect to Pirate Party Germany and add a mention there, but I can't see any coverage meeting BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tagesspiegel and SWP sources are sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 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) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nevada and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all for giggles, but here are two articles I found with considerable info about him: Vice, Business Insider. Lamona (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: President of the Republic of Molossia, a self-proclaimed micronation that is not formally recognised by any world government. I don't have to talk too much. Primarily doesnt meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Should I be missing WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:54, 31 May 2024 (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.

Brad Chambers

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State secretary of commerce is a notable position; we have enough for at least a basic article, maybe needs a rewrite, but the individual would meet political notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [77] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [78] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Struck TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not appear to be presumptively notable under WP:NPOL; cabinet level positions are the widely agreed threshold (see detailed discussion here for state-level executive branch NPOL thresholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer), however, Commerce does not appear to be part of the current Governor's Cabinet in Indiana. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: and @TulsaPoliticsFan: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [79]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'll strike my keep vote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @TulsaPoliticsFan in fairness to the GF responses to my contributions, see developments below. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [80]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AHoosierPolitico Agreed, the Governor's cabinet includes a seat for a representative from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. According to the article you've linked, which includes the headline "Lathrop elevated to cabinet", it is Ann Lathrop, Chief Strategy Officer, that took the cabinet position; so the President/CEO of the IEDC does not necessarily appear to automatically take the seat. From that article, there's nothing explicit that indicates Brad Chambers previously held the Cabinet seat. I have no problem accepting an NPOL pass if there's sourcing that explicitly shows Brad Chambers held a cabinet seat. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Perhaps I should have referenced a different article, as Governor Holcomb's decision to appoint Lathrop to his cabinet, in addition to Rosenberg as secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Ecomomic Development Corporation, was unique. As the state's new release on the appointment notes, "Lathrop will join Rosenberg on Gov. Holcomb’s cabinet." [81] For sourcing that he held a cabinet-level position, see this article. [82] "Chambers signed a two-year contract with the state when he accepted the cabinet-level position in June 2021." Best, AHoosierPolitico (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the extra sourcing, that's enough for an NPOL pass for me. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with an NPOL pass is that it necessarily assumes there will be GNG coverage, which is almost always true. Problem is there's not - he's basically just covered by his failed gubernatorial run. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer I disagree. If you search "Brad Chambers" during the timeframe that coincides with his tenure (July 2021 - August 2023), you will find consistent coverage in Indiana media. The article itself talks about some of what earned him coverage: the Regional Economic Acceleration and Development Initiative, the LEAP District, the Indiana Global Economic Summit, record-breaking committed capital investment, first-ever electric vehicle battery facility investments (Samsung SDI/Stellantis and Samsung SD/GM), etc.
Keep (edit conflict) Actually I'd say this is a GNG pass, per NEXIST. Indepth, SIGCOV reliable sources, for example: Brad Chambers' company received 'bailout' from Indy after missing loan repayment deadline (Indy Star, April 25, 2024), Former Indiana Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers joins the crowded Republican race for governor (AP News, August 18, 2023), Chambers loans his gubernatorial campaign another $2 million (NWI Times, March 24, 2024), GOP Ind. governor hopeful donates to both parties (The Indianapolis Star August 29, 2023), Fishers Mayor: Brad Chambers is leader Indiana needs (Indianapolis Star, April 4, 2024). We need to be mindful about misapplying WP:ROUTINE; our job is ~~not to judge editorial content, our job is~~ to assess whether content is indepth and reliabale, not judge editorial decision making. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps not notable per WP POL. I'm the author of the page. Feel free to delete or keep it. I have no objections. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - arguably the post of Presidential Regional Delegate is enough to pass NPOL. The post has its own article in Spanish wikipedia, Delegado presidencial regional de Ñuble [es], Delegado presidencial regional de Chile [es]. --Soman (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:

Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.

Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family

Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.

Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him

tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.

Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.

Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.

texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him

Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:

Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.

As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Korniychuk

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	1. "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	2. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the position of the head of the Pervomayska district state administration of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	3. ^ "About the appointment of A. Korniychuk as the Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	4. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the post of Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	6. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	7. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

// Timothy :: talk 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject would pass WP:NPOL as a member of the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, but this needs a source. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the archived source here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close as Draft: Based on the response from the author here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs, I request an uninvolved editor close this as Draft to give the author time to work on sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't BLP concerns apply to the drafts too? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Yes BLP still applies to drafts, no it is not anywhere near as rigorous as what mainspace requires. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as I found the source here as he should pass W:NPOL through an archived source. Ivan Milenin (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the above source does name Korniychuk (with the Russian spelling, Корнейчук Анатолий Васильевич, not currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article) and thus meets WP:NPOL, although coverage in sources is nevertheless lacking. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this now pass NPOL via the source Ivan found? Is NPOL the right criteria here (nominator indicates GNG and NBIO)? Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

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

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.

And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?

I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.

Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite, Jr.

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

Not meeting WP:NBASIC, and tagged since February 2024 for notability, missing multiple independent sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician, and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline. This article should be deleted. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has held national office, as Native American tribes are sovereign per U.S. law. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any citations that go in depth and demonstrate significant press coverage, beyond a mere mention of his name? In order to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. ~~Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe.~~ TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian

Law Library of the Native American Rights Fund have copies of these docs. Here is an example showing Horace was Vice Chairman in 1974. https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/constitution/tunica-biloxie/index.html AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite Jr held multiple offices within the Tunica Biloxi Tribal Government. He is also one of the four signers of their original legal documents filed with the State of Louisiana. The Tunica Tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law and treaty. I have no idea why PigeonChickenFish is trying to deny or diminish this Native American's contribution to his tribe and his nation. I have noticed a pattern with PigeonChickenFish regarding multiple Native Americans and their tribes in Louisiana. You can review PigeonChickenFish changes to those articles. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AvoyellesCajun please no personal attacks, see WP:CIV. Also an AfD is not a denial of an entire Native American tribe, the issue here was notability. Lots of claims are made in the article with no sources or poor sources. When I tried to find the missing sources, I found none. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you extensively edited the article today, I am not seeing reliable sources still. Is anyone able to find more? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to state 13 citations to include those from newspapers, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US government to include the Bureau of Indian Affairs are reliable?

Please explain how these are not valid sources per Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia accepts all of these as valid sources.

If you continue to violate wikipedia policies, I will file a complaint. You have not presented a single source or valid argument in accordance with the policies for removing this article. 47.189.34.40 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It has 13 citations to include newspapers, news stations, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is the overseeing federal agency for Native American Tribes. All of the citations are reliable, verifiable, and meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The editor responsible for recommending this article be deleted, PigeonChickenFish has failed to provide any argument, source, citation, etc to delete the page.

Arguments without a valid reason with a verifiable source is not allowed.

Since there has not been a single counter citation or reason to delete the article of this Native American leader and politician, the discussion should be ended and the article remain. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. PigeonChickenFish, why are you stating that newspapers, state records, and the records from the US Bureau of Indian Affair are not independent. What is independent to you? Wikipedia views those sources are independent. Geez. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn’t meet WP:NBASIC, which is still required. A passing mention does not amount to notability. Stop attacking me, this is not personal. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He can and should be mentioned on the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana's article but every member of every tribal council doesn't merit an article unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG. Most citations only mention his name in passing, including in his wife's obituary. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL has not been understood to include tribal council members in the United States. Failing NPOL means that we need to look a the sourcing to see if the subject meets GNG, and it does not appear that there are sufficient sources. --Enos733 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 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/2024 UK Independence Party leadership election}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marxist–Leninist_Centre_in_Mexico}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Horsemanship_of_Ulysses_S._Grant}}

Revision as of 15:28, 28 April 2024

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates