Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:41, 13 October 2015

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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|Politicians|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politicians. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

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

Politicians

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 09:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Cheung Ying

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. JTtheOG (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Sha Tin District Council, weak keep One of the more significant mention [1]. Medal of Honour source is extremely weak [2], amounting only like "Ching did good at the DC, so here's a medal". Mostly it is just Ching invited for comment for various news events (eg. [3][4][5]) passing passing passingly listed passing in DC opponent interview passing. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any more than local notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found the same sources as User:Hisashiyarouin and would say they amount to a bare pass of WP:GNG. I think his inclusion on the 2007 Hong Kong honours list is of substantial importance - very few opposition politicians in Hong Kong get them. Local notability is still notability. Der yck C. 16:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 29 October 2015 (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. KTC (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shivshankar Kadadevarmath

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) – Added alt name Jim1138 (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individual is not notable. Non-notable acting career, jobs, and positions. Page seems more of a vanity entry with non-notable awards. Much of the page is unsourced and my attempts to locate sources mostly ineffective. Page was created and much of it edited by a SPA. Attempts to discuss issues with the article's creator have not gotten any response. Jim1138 (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient accomplishments; insufficient coverage. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Peterson

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

A mayor in a town in Oregon, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. Article is filled with her resume, references are few and largely primary. If not deleted, suggest merge with Salem, Oregon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure merging with Salem is appropriate if she's not notable. Since notability is not temporary, putting her info in the Salem article would be unencyclopedic. Possibly merge some info to her husband's article if appropriate, if it's not already in there. Valfontis (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is not the mayor of a small town in Oregon, she is the mayor of the capital city and second largest city of the state. Other current and former mayors of Oregon have their own articles, namely Kitty Piercy, Jim Torrey, Shane Bemis, all of which are or were mayors of cities the same size or smaller than Salem. Even Portland city commissioners like Steve Novick and Dan Saltzman have their own articles. I understand your deletion request for Lou Ogden, as he is the mayor of a city with less than 30,000 people, however Peterson, as mayor of a city with over 160,000, and as wife of a notable member of the Oregon Supreme Court, should stay, and according to Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES mayors of cities at at least a regional level (Oregon being the region here) are usually notable enough to warrant their own article. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember that notability is not inherited. Valfontis (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being mayor of any size town or city does not ensure, nor create, notability per Wikipedia guidlelines and policies. Just because there are other mayor articles in Wikipedia, that doesn't make this article acceptable. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Further, being the wife of a state Supreme Court justice means nothing, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. Peterson has received much local media coverage as well as out-of-state coverage as far away as Michigan. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mayor of a city of over 150,000 people and also the state capital. I think that meets the notability standards. Setting dogma aside (because dogma is invariably a terrible thing to base a decision on), in practice we do take note of the size and status of the city when we determine the notability of mayors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on my need to research and add more sources, I will change to "Keep" with more references. I think this barely passes WP:POLITICIAN, criterion 2: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." It's true that despite its size, Salem seems like a small town, and the mayor isn't particularly powerful in Salem, but that doesn't cancel out the fact that she passes our standards for notability. When talking about the "significant press coverage" it is necessary to then provide proof that there is such coverage here in the AfD, since it is lacking in the article. This is a bit difficult as Peterson has a rather common name, and because most online sources talk about her in her role as mayor, and not about her specifically, but not impossible. It may be helpful to search for her as "Anna M. Peterson" and also try to find sources for her activities previous to her stint as mayor. I've been able to add some info to her article with a little digging. It should be noted that per WP:POLOUTCOMES (which, of course, is not an official guideline) "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just 'Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville'. Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty (e.g. having previously held a more notable office)." Salem should be considered as having regional prominence, despite its rather provincial feel, due to its being the capital and having the 2nd (or 3rd) largest population in the state. I'm going to continue to research and improve the article. Valfontis (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2015 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Sowell

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

Non-notable. Every reference is either not independent, or a mere notice (or both). Nothing more would be expected, because none of her positions are notable by any reasonable standard. Vice-chairman of a state agency is not generally notable.

The previous afd was closed as keep only for a technical reason: the nom was a banned sock. I was previously threatened by a self-declared employee of her agency that I would be reported and all my articles deleted if I attempted to remove the article on her or any other employee of that agency [6] (that account was of course blocked some time ago) To be fair, it was someone else entirely who wrote the article. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing any obvious improvement here. Pinging user ElKevbo. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on searches to show it passes notability criteria. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fred DeLorey

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

Being a political candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. Neither does being a PMO staffer. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, barely verifies. Fails WP:NPOL, fails WP:BLPNOTE. Sources like Key players in the 2011 Conservative war room, a picture, and the two lines Candidate support and information for debates or interviews. DeLorey is the party's chief spokesman., doesn't support much. --Bejnar (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editor. Nothing on searches to show they meet WP:GNG, and they definitely don't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office don't qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot credibly demonstrate and properly source that he was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat. But this doesn't adequately demonstrate that he would already have been eligible for a Wikipedia article — essentially, it's a campaign brochure. That said, at this point the discussion will hit eligibility for closure on October 18 — but election day is the very next day, and as a Conservative running in a traditionally Conservative seat he is a strong contender to win. Accordingly, at this point I'd request that closure be deferred the additional day pending the election results, or if that isn't an option then the article be sandboxed in draft space so that a revised version can be moved back into place again if he actually does win. I'll revise this to a delete vote if he loses, obviously, and it would have been a more straightforward "delete as campaign brochure and then recreate if he wins" if there had been a longer lead time — but with just a 24 hour gap between closure and potential recreation, we may as well just wait out the extra day. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree, defer the deletion until after the election, notability status may change. FUNgus guy (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Userfication is fine, deferring not really. See WP:TOOSOON. The article still needs citation to multiple reliable sources. Having articles just becauyse they're candidates is a slippery slope, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Bejnar (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring closure for one or two more days past Day 7 is a thing that AFD does have the latitude to do in certain circumstances — and "the article has a high probability of having to be recreated again the very next day" is exactly the kind of circumstance where we have that latitude. And deferring it for one more day wouldn't even put it outside the normal range of AFD process, because it's fairly common for a discussion to linger into Day 8, 9 or 10 just because nobody even gets around to closing it until then. I'm not suggesting that he should get an extended deferral just for being a candidate — I'm pretty well known around here as one of the editors who's most actively involved in quashing that argument when it rears its head, and I explicitly said that (a) I would have said delete at literally any other time during the course of the campaign, and (b) I'll come back to support a delete if he isn't declared the winner tomorrow night — but given that the timing involved here means that the article might have to be recreated again literally tomorrow, it's not unreasonable to just hold off closure for one more day. Especially when even the nominator agreed with me. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not whether he'll be elected today. (Polls suggest he won't.) The problem is coverage and citation to multiple reliable sources in the article. Yes, MPs are traditionally notable under WP:NPOL, but as WP:N says No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. It may take sometime for that coverage to develop. --Bejnar (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for an elected MP, the article is automatically allowed to exist the moment their election has been declared by one reliable source. Once that declaration has been made, deletion is immediately off the table forever unless the result gets overturned on an automatic or judicial recount before he ever actually gets sworn into office, and whatever further time it takes for an extended volume of RS coverage to unfold is allowed to do that unfolding with the article already in place waiting for it. Being elected to the House of Commons is not a "merely because he exists" thing — it's a claim of notability that inherently lifts a person above "politician who exists", and directly into "politician who must have an article on Wikipedia regardless of how inadequate that article might be in the first few days, because the fact of being elected to the House of Commons has made him notable for more than just existing". And like I said, if he doesn't win I'll be the first to come back and revise my call to a delete instead (between my cheers of joy, because Central Nova is one of those "if the Conservatives lose that one they're burnt" ridings) — but it's worth being aware that the datestamp on that polling article is September 23, and a lot can change in a month. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David de Burgh Graham

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

Not notable as a political candidate (fails WP:NPOL). Doubtfully notable as a software-whatever and a trainspotter. FUNgus guy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable as a politician yet, but there aree significant independent sources on his software career and trainspotting (more for the former than the latter) presented in the article that establish his notability. His role in Internet Relay Chat is discussed in this news piece once featured on Linux.com [7], and there's an in-depth piece on him in the Linux Magazine [8]. Graham's trainspotting (S2E9) is discussed in a British Columbian educational television network on the other side of the country [9], and he is cited as an expert in a Globe and Mail article on new train developments [10]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this seems notable, acceptable and adequately sourced for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since he just won election as the new MP for Laurentides—Labelle (already mentioned on and linked from that page), he now qualifies as notable as a politician under item 1 of WP:NPOL, in addition to the above reasons from other aspects of his life. I can dig up some articles discussing his political candidacy if necessary (note some of them might be in French), but it's unambiguous that he has now been elected as a member of a national legislature. Pensezbien (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agreed, just elected as MP. Here's one source: Élections fédérales 2015: Majorité de 1 475 votes pour Graham Altenmaeren (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (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. Jenks24 (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Llewellyn

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

WP:BLP of a politician, notable primarily as the mayor of a small town with a population of just 600 and as an unsuccessful candidate for the leadership of a political party. Neither of these is a claim that gets a person over WP:NPOL — and while there is reliable source coverage here, it's all local and there isn't enough of it to get him over WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing much better here. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 16 October 2015 (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. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of salaries of heads of state and government

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

While the list would be interesting, it is mostly empty. There are some media articles on few select countries, but there does not seem to be a comprehensive list of state leader salaries and putting one together would be original research. Prod removed by original author without comment. Renata (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the list is indeed still empty at the moment (oct 2015), I disagree it should be removed. It is a quite important issue/article. As other comparison articles have proven, lists are often filled in quickly once the article becomes more popular. Info added isn't necessarily original research; as long as the data comes from respectable sources, this isn't an issue.

Redneck rick (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy until it can become a larger article. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the list does look empty, it's mostly because the creator aimed high with every nation out there. Most users going to this list will find what they're looking for. It certainly needs work (and I'll try to add a few myself), but not having enough entries is hardly grounds for deletion. It's notable, encyclopedic, relevant, and easily verified (salaries tend to be encoded in statute).--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an interesting list and should be on Wikipedia. It can be improved. But it may take time, we should keep this in mainspace so that other users and some random IPs can write about their nation once they get notice of this list. If we delete it then certainly there will be no such kind of list again ever, no one will create so big table again.--Human3015^TALK 21:37, 16 October 2015 (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Willey

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

A mayor in a town in Oregon, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. If not deleted, suggest merge with Hillsboro, Oregon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro has a population of 91K, so at least in theory Willey is a legitimate article topic. That said, the referencing here is was for the birds, resting exclusively on primary sources (PR profile on the city's website, a press release on the county's) with not one iota of reliable source coverage shown — and even a President of the United States would have to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch if their article was that poorly referenced. Accordingly, I'm willing to reverse myself if the article actually sees referencing improvement while this discussion is underway — but it's a delete if it still looks like this by closing time, albeit without prejudice against future recreation if somebody can do better. Update: the sourcing has now been significantly improved, so I'm officially flipping over to a keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having written articles on the last three or so mayors of Hillsboro, the sources are out there, and all the sources now appear to be what is needed. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's pretty borderline with respect to the POLITICIAN high bar, the size of Hillsboro being on the shy side of 100,000 which seems like a good benchmark for elected mayors, but the sourcing is decent. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (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. KTC (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Ogden

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

A mayor in a town in Oregon, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. If not deleted, suggest merge with Tualatin, Oregon. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment: I agree with you on this one. If a list of Tualatin's mayors is available I would suggest creating that list. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltown (26K) mayor, with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NPOL and little evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 30 October 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Amici

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

A mayor in an Italian town, individual appears to be non-notable per Wikipedia standards. Very little online that would prove notability. Other than being a mayor, no mentions whatsoever. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Head of state of a sovereign state. San Marino may be small, but he still easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino is not an "Italian town" — it's a sovereign independent state in its own right, and its Captains Regent are its national heads of state. So he's not a non-notable mayor; he's a notable equivalent to a president or prime minister of a country that has those offices. Some referencing improvement is still needed, absolutely, but WP:NPOL is satisfied here. Speedy keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said by Necrothesp and Bearcat, he isn't a mayor, rather the equivalent to a president. Captains-Regent of San Marino are the highest office in that country and are not equivalent to mayors (that instead would go to the heads of the nine municipalities of the sovereign state). All other Captains-Regent since 2003 (except for Nicola Renzi, who was recently installed) have their own articles. Mr.Bob.298 (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2015 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Małgorzata Tracz

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

Małgorzata Tracz is co-leader on non-parliamentarian party, which contains about 500 members. She is not notable politician (as for today) to have an article in Wikipedia. Her biography was also in the Polish Wikipedia, where was just deleted. Kmicic (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without afd2 template or listing in a daily log. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 01:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or simply redirect to party's article as I'm not familiar nor speaker of Polish politics but if this is not independently notable yet, moving to the group's article should suffice as well. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (but postpone decision until late October's elections). I see one regional source of some reliability ([11]), but as a politician, she and her party are pretty much a non-entity, and the sources are lacking. However, I'd suggest userfying rather than deleting, sooner or later she may be elected to the national parliament, and thus become notable. In fact, the elections are this weekend, so postponing the decision on this for a week or two may solve our problems (if she is elected, this should be kept immediately). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify Seems like an article that popped up for political reasons. I can't read the sources, but seeing as other editors have said they are weak, I would agree that this article should be deleted. I also believe that the article should be deleted as soon as consensus is found. Octobers Polish elections should have no bearing on the validity of an article even if there is a chance for the party to be elected. If it needs to be recovered in the future due to that party being nominated, so be it. Jcmcc (Talk) 15:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist per Piotrus' suggestion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poland's Green Party was part of a larger United Left coalition for the election just concluded. This alliance won no seats. --Finngall ^talk 22:29, 29 October 2015 (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 discussion closed as he won the election last night. Bearcat (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Lametti

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

Not notable as a political candidate, fails WP:NPOL, only other claim to fame is that he is a professor at McGill. FUNgus guy (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It looks like he's no mere professor, having had a career in ice hockey as well as a significant influence in his chosen academic field, and he appears to qualify under general notability standards. Were he just another mere political candidate, I would support deletion. That's not the case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing improvement is definitely needed here, but I think that being a legal professor at McGill University does constitute a potentially legitimate notability claim — and I'm not known around these parts as being particularly generous about what makes for enough preexisting notability for an unelected candidate to claim notability independently of the fact of their candidacy, either. That said, the sourcing for that part of the article is currently far too dependent on primary sources rather than reliable ones, so WP:GNG and/or our notability standards for academics and lawyers haven't been satisfied yet. Hockey doesn't help him, though, as he only ever played at the varsity level, which isn't something that gets a person over WP:ATHLETE in and of itself. Accordingly, my suggestion would be that we sandbox this in draft or user space, to allow the opportunity for referencing improvement on his legal/academic career. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:18, 19 October 2015 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Foster

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

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself; if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that they were already eligible for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to become eligible. No especially substantive claim of preexisting notability has been made here, however; it reads very much like the kind of "meet your candidate" backgrounder one might see on his own campaign website, and is sourced exclusively to coverage of the candidacy itself — but even the volume of coverage on that isn't adequate to claim that he passes WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I'm not seeing much better improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 02:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 26 October 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkadir Ali

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

WP:BLP, resting on one single news article and a primary source on his own website, of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for president of a country — but out of the 21 other candidates he ran against in that election, the only three who have articles are the winner, his predecessor whom he ousted, and one person who previously held another notable political office. Non-winning candidates do not get articles on that basis alone, but must be demonstrably notable for something else independent of their candidacy — but nothing like that has been demonstrated or sourced here. Delete unless enough reliable source coverage can be piled onto his past presidency of the Somali American Chamber of Commerce to get him over WP:GNG for that. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At Somali presidential election, 2012#Results, there is someone indicated as coming in 4th place in the election (which was an indirect election, where the voters were the members of parliament) under the name Abdiqadir Osoble Ali. I can understand that "Abdulkadir" could be a variant of "Abdiqadir", but if they are the same person, the spelling of his name should be standardized. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Abdiqadir Osoble Ali is someone else, see his fb page for example, https://www.facebook.com/AbdulkadirOsobleAli . Somali naming conventions don't have "Middle Names", they have Name-Father's Name-Grandfather's Name. --Soman (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless it can actually be improved as although I found some links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam, there wasn't much and the name mentioned above seems like someone else considering the different middle name. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 10 October 2015 (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) sst ✈ 04:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Rauner

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

Notability is not inherited; subject is not "incumbent" (never elected) and sole claim to notability is as the spouse of a notable individual. No content in article. Fails WP:GNG Scr★pIron^IV 15:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding plenty of third party sources ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). Granted, "First Lady" isn't an elected office, but it's nearly certain to attract some attention. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bruce Rauner in any case as she's going to be best known through him. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no issue with a redirect if there is actual content; however, the article does not say anything. If content is actually added from the sources provided by the Keep !votes, then there may be some value. As it stands, it is an empty article with inadequate sourcing, and a redirect and merge is useless, as there is nothing to merge. Scr★pIron^IV 14:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not inherited means that being related to someone notable does not automatically confer notability. Inclusion always depends on significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources cited in the expanded article, combined with those identified by Non-Dropframe (except the WBEZ one, which is just a passing mention) are compelling evidence that she meets WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2015 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nilmini Gunaratne Rubin

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

Unremarkable bureaucrat who fails to meet basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Note that, despite the claim in the article, the subject does not serve "on" the House Foreign Affairs Committee (that role is restricted to members of Congress). At best, she works "for" the Committee. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy if needed as although News, Books and browser instantly found links, there's not much for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 13 October 2015 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Hajjaj

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

Fail to pass notability guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN because he hasn't been elected to or held office. The closest he has come is an abortive run for mayor of Dhaka. He is a figure within the Jatiya party; does he meet WP:GNG? His political career can be summed up as:

February 2013: appointed special adviser to party leader
February 2014: appointed party spokesman
March 2015: in break with party, declared his independent candidacy for mayor of Dhaka
April 2015: pulled out of mayor's race
August 2015: reinstated as special adviser to party leader

Each event was covered by plenty of media, but generally in the form: "According to a press release ..." He's been on at least three political talk shows. They're in rapid-fire Bengali, so I can't evaluate whether they're significant coverage of him, or whether he's just acting as a mouthpiece for the party. Worldbruce (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has received ~~significant~~ some coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. He might be in the borderline of GNG. There is, however, a possibility that the article is created by editors with CoI. --nafSadh did say 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whilst the page has a promotional (probably COI) tone, I think minimum standards for notability are clearly met. Googling the name in Bangla gives plenty of hits, for example Prothom Alo (major daily national newspaper) has 954 article with him, including articles where his own campaign is covered as the main topic (for example http://www.prothom-alo.com/bangladesh/article/482671 ). --Soman (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work but they appear to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2015 (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) sst ✈ 03:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqul Islam Masud

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

Notable for only one event which fails the guideline. Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:MILL also. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject has received in-depth coverage from a variety of sources. To be frank, Ibrahim Husain Meraj it appears to me that you sort of have it out for any article regarding people associated with this Jamaat-e-Islami party. --Non-Dropframe _talk 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Non-Dropframe, one but all the references are from his arrest incident. As a politician, he is not notable and as a political party, Jamaat-e-Islami party is minor (may be 5-10% supporter). Shafiqul Islam Masud was the president of their student wings and now he is assistant secretary of the party, which is not enough to prove his notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Husain Meraj, at AfD, we not only consider the sources listed in the article but any other sources to be found also. Further, you've cited WP:BIO1E which states in part: "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So the question becomes if the event is significant. Even looking only at the sources in the article, the event received in-depth attention from many news sources. Finally, you didn't really address my concern that you may be targeting this group specifically. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not target this group. As far as my knowledge as a resident of Bangladesh, Mr Shafiqul Islam Masud, is not a notable politician. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom, per WP:1E; do not pass any WP:BIO. --nafSadh did say 14:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article emphasizes an event that began as arson and led to the charging, arrest, and alleged torture of Masud in custody. It has been suggested that he is notable only for this event and (as one of 154 Jamaat-Shibir men indicted for it)[18] that his role was minor enough that any article should be about the event, not him, per WP:ONEEVENT.

However, Masud was covered before the 24 December 2013 arson:

February 2013, Syed Zain Al-Mahmood wrote long articles, largely critical of Jamaat, in The Wall Street Journal and The Guardian. They quote Masud as the only pro-Jamaat voice.[19][20]
May 2013, the Dhaka Tribune reported that the government blamed senior leaders of Jamat, and specifically Masud, for violence.[21]
November 2013, the Dhaka Tribune quoted Masud saying "the entire 56,000 square miles of the country will be set on fire", if Jamaat doesn't get the verdict they want. [22]
HighBeam shows 32 mentions going back to 2010.

He clearly fails nearly all points of WP:POLITICIAN because he has never run for or held office. One point, however, is: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success."

The student wing of Jamaat is a major part of the party (the world's third most violent terrorist group, according to Wikipedia). Being the former president of it meets the spirit of this criterion for notability as a politician. Furthermore, Dhaka, as the capital and home of 7-10 percent of the country's population, meets the spirit of "major sub-national level" (politics in Bangladesh doesn't really take place at the divisional level, the step immediately below national). "Assistant secretary" of Jamaat's Dhaka organization doesn't sound very grand, but judging from the press coverage he is considered a significant leader of Jamaat. Worldbruce (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. He is notable for more than just his arrest. Also, judging from the press coverage, he is regarded as an important leader of Jamaat, which even if on the fringe (and now banned), is an established political party, which during most of Masud's career has held seats in the Parliament of Bangladesh and has been in an opposition alliance with the BNP.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and does not need to give a blow-by-blow (so to speak) account of Masud's detention. How many days remand was granted at each appearance is less important than mentioning what the charges are, and of course the eventual outcome. Secondary sources that reflect, analyze, and put in context would be good. Also, non-English sources should only be used where no English source is available to support the material. Worldbruce (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having been national president of Chhatra Shibir, which is a major organization in Bangladesh, is definately enough to pass notability criteria many times around. Here is a video from Cahhatra Shibir from 2006, around the time he served as president, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiUfQfyfMUg --Soman (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2015 (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. This has had three weeks now and while there is a slight numerical majority in favour of keeping there isn't a clear consensus. Michig (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rahim (scholar)

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

Fail to pass general notability. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is a notable scholar and politician in Bangladesh history. He has been studied widely in academia and has many notable books, as indicated in the article. I believe this nomination is invalid. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 03:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't this nomination flawed on procedural grounds? The prior decision was a keep.--JumpLike23 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad form to bring it back to AFD so soon, but not unusual to do so. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous AfD was "keep" based only on the assertion of a few eds. Sources here are just a few web pages. Is there anything more definitive that would demonstrate notability, because it appears to be lacking at the moment. Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't it have been better to seek the attention of someone from Bangladesh, like a scholar from that country or an expert on the topic before you nominated the article a 2nd time? This is going to be a difficult article to evaluate because 1) his name seems rather common in Bangladesh 2) academics are difficult even when they come from your own country! So my vote is...
Keep and get expert advice if expert says not notable, then delete. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, nom wasn't involved in the first discussion, and did wait six months for reliable sources to be found. Oh, and nom is from Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Examining the cited sources, we have: a self-published blog (marrf), a political party "supporters' forum", and a book with a scholarly appearance (although from a publisher that, as of the publication date had "recently been restructured to include a self-publishing division"). Whether the book is a reliable source or not, its sole contribution to the article is the sentence, "1974:Maulana Abdur Rahim, a senior leader of the provincial party before 1971, returns to Dhaka."

Are there other sources out there that establish notability? The first deletion discussion identified none. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, and JSTOR for this Abdur Rahim uncovered two positive matches and one possible one. [23] and [24] (which share an author, so are not independent of each other) each include one sentence about him:

"Maulana Abdur Rahim, who was the first ameer of Jamaat in the then East Pakistan, was the brain behind the unity."
"Taking advantage of this, Maulana Abdur Rahim, the first Jamaat ameer for East Pakistan, brought religion-based parties, including Jamaat, Nezam-e-Islam and Khelafat-i-Rabbani, under a common umbrella, Islamic Democratic League (IDL) on October 23, 1977."

[25] includes a "Maulana Abdur Rahim" in a list of war criminals. It is unclear whether it is the same person or not.

One or two independent, reliable, secondary sources with between them at most two sentences on the topic, does not prove that the subject has received significant coverage, so none of WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:ACADEMIC have been met. The article's original author has asserted in these deletion discussions that the subject is notable. No objection to userfication to let him continue looking for sources, but the article as it stands does not belong in mainspace. Worldbruce (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it seems Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk · contribs) is doing several ill-informed AfD. This should be a speedy closure. Yes, Maulana Abdur Rahim is the same person ('Mawlana' is a title, not a name). See for example "Moulana Abdur Rahim, the Naebe Ameer (vice chairman) of the All Pakistan Jamaat", "to revive the party, which led to a tug of war in its leadership — the opposing faction headed by Moulana Abdur Rahim", "Jamaat-i Islami Maulana Abdur Rahim, Ameer, East Pakistan Jamaat-i-Islami", etc. (Amer = Leader). --Soman (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed above demonstrate that Abdur Rahim was a leading political figure in Bangladesh in the 1970s. Unless people here read Bengali and have consulted relevant Bengali sources, I would question the claim there is no indication of notability. The provided sources are enough to show he is notable and justify a stub article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2015 (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. Consensus, though slim, was to keep after article's sourcing was improved. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui

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

Unfortunately this is another case where sources may not be easily accessible, if any exist, and without anything to confirm this information including after all this time, there's nothing to suggest keeping (We have different standards here so maybe Arabic Wiki can keep it where standards may not be as high and maybe someone can eventually improve it). This will need attention after all this time and definitely familiar attention if it is to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If we take the unreferenced article text at face value, he was a member of the Senate of the Kingdom of Libya, which would make him presumptively notable. But I cannot find any list of the members of the 1952 Libyan Parliament (especially the appointed upper house, to which this individual is claimed to belong). This is clearly an access and cultural bias issue; sources that list the members of the first Senate of the Kingdom of Libya must exist, but without access to them, our options are badly constrained. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman, below, did an excellent job of providing exactly the sources that I was unable to locate. At some point, there will have to be an editorial decision about what the WP:COMMONNAME transliteration of his name should be. Our article is currently titled Ahmed Rafiq Almhadoui, but uses Ahmed Rafiq al-Mahdawi in prose. The cited journal article below uses both Ahmed Refiq al Mahdevi and Ahmed Refik el-Mehdevi in its English abstract. That sort of thing didn't make sourcing easier... Regardless, that's an editorial issue, and not a concern for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. "Refik el-Mehdevi" is clearly a Turkish transliteration, al-Mahdawi would be closer to English practice. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. AfD is not the place to ask for a clean-up of an article. And the notability of the individual is easily confirmed. For example, there's a book published about in in 1991, by the title "The Great National Poet: Ahmed Rafiq Almahadoui". Another book was published in 1988, titled "Rafiq, Poet of the Fatherland: Studies on the Libyan Poet Ahmed Rafiq Almhadaoui and the Modern Literary Movement in Libya". Another book was published in 1968, titled "Ahmed Rafiq Almhadaoui, Libyan Poet in the Modern Era", and so forth. Here is a street named after him in Benghazi, https://books.google.com/books?id=lPaNiy3YisIC&pg=PA129 . Here an academic reference (with summary in English) for his status as national poet and Member of Parliament; http://ktp.isam.org.tr/pdfdrg/D01777/2005_22/2005_22_CEVIZN.pdf --Soman (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are based solely on the assumed inherent notability of the subject's political or administrative post, rather than on any discussion of the sources, which the nominator alleges (without opposition) to be insufficient. In the absence of a guideline assuming notability for an official of this rank, these "keep" opinions must be discounted because our relevant policies including WP:BLP and WP:V are quite clear that what articles - particularly about living people - can't do without are reliable sources. Sandstein 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subrahmanyam Vijay Kumar

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

very highly promotional article for mid-importance public servant.Extensive editing by COI and SPA editors--check the article history. None of his positions are minister , which would be notable, rather secretary to the ministry, which is a civil service and not a political position. Most of the references are his own writings; most of the rest are notices; some are straight PR. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Permanent Secretary is the top position in the civil service, not "mid-ranking" as claimed. Also, as repeatedly noted an article being promotional is not a reason for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking through the editors and their talk pages... even the IP address editors, I don't see where anyone would find COI or SPA. The contributors are often from around India and interested in India, but that doesn't indicate either COI or SPA: it makes sense. How does the article history show either COI or SPA? I'm baffled. Please explain. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AusLondoner, why do you think an article being promotional is not a reason for deletion? According to WP:Deletion policy, we can delete any article we think not suitable for the encycopedia, which in practice can only mean any reason that satisfies people at an AfD discussion. But it is much more specific than that: the specific policy is WP:PROMOTION, one of our fundamental policies, and much more critical than any guideline like WP:Notability. (as I see it the principal purpose of the notability guideline is to make sure we avoid content which could inherently only be promotional or directory.) To be sure, G11 is limited to articles exclusively promotional not capable of being fixed by normal editing; but this implies that deleting those of lesser degree need discussion, and AfD is the place. Agreed, that whether or not to delete something not so bad as to fall under G11 is a matter for decision article by article,and there can be valid different views on that. But if it does fall under WP:NOT, policy is that it ought to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very senior civil servants such as this gentleman are notable. Certainly not mid-ranking! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this qualifies as a Wikipedia article. ThisGuyIsGreat (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Nothing on searches helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 9 October 2015 (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.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Politicians==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ching Cheung Ying}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shivshankar_Kadadevarmath}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Peterson}}