Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 17: Line 17:
<!-- Don't list Politicians here -->
<!-- Don't list Politicians here -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump derangement syndrome}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_Don't_Speak_for_Me}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_Don't_Speak_for_Me}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LGBT_rights_in_Western_Sahara}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LGBT_rights_in_Western_Sahara}}

Revision as of 11:39, 7 July 2019

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

Scan for politicians AfDs
Scan for politics Prods
Scan for politicians Prods
Scan for politics and government template TfDs

Related deletion sorting


Politics

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

The result was keep. If there are BLP or NPOV problems, they should be discussed and addressed through editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump derangement syndrome

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

Appears to be a opinion article and non encyclopedic and also might be a BLP violation and also a NOTOPINION violation Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Speak for Me

You Don't Speak for Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can barely find any RS coverage of this organization (besides from groups like the ADL and SPLC that systematically collect hate groups, whether they are notable or not), and literally nothing about this organization in the last 10 years or so. The complete lack of RS coverage shows that there is nothing notable about this organization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • first you claim "complete lack of RS coverage", so I run a simple search and add many reputable new stories form papers that include The Washington Post and The Arizona Republic. Now you claim that it should be merged because it was active only briefly. Frankly, I think that you simply DISLIKE this organizations political stance and are a POV editor who goes around deleting articles you DO NOT LIKE by making false assertions such as "I can barely find any RS coverage" when it is crystal clear that you didn't even try. A.Jacobin (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that editors have been warring over this page for years, and that there may well be reliable sources that were deleted. And also, I promise find/make time later in the week to improve the article, although I BELIEVE that the sourcing and edits that I did earlier this week make it a WP:GNG.A.Jacobin (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but ALL of the articles and books that I have added to the article address this particular organization. More sources here: [2] A.Jacobin (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but having a group of latinos who do astroturf for FAIR doesn't convey independent notability. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights in Western Sahara

LGBT rights in Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, non-exhaustive list of policies, guidelines and essays (in particular WP:ATA) that may be relevant here:

  • Reason this article should be speedily deleted: this article practically has no content other than links. A total violation of WP:A3
  • Reason this article should not be speedily deleted: this is an important topic, and should have an article. It has existed since 11 January 2009 Someone could step in and improve it.
  • Reason this article should not be referred to WP:AFD: "Articles for Deletion is not cleanup".
  • Reason this article should be be referred to WP:AFD: maybe "LGBT rights in Western Sahara" could be a good stand-alone article, or could be a good WP:REDIRECT to (which page?).

Discuss. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a disambiguation page. This is a stand alone article which should be addressing the subject but says nothing about LGBT rights in the Western Sahara. Instead, the reader is directed to LGBT right in other countries e.g. Morocco and LGBT rights in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. There is already a navbox which the reader is quite capable of using to visit those articles. This particularly article serves no purpose. There is practically nothing about the subject. I put a speedy deletion tag on it but it was removed. Either delete it or WP:DRAFTIFY it. We cannot even merge it to another relevant article because there is nothing there to begin with. Also, see the talk page.Tamsier (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not as a dab page (which it isn't), but as a navigational tool. It's a weird situation, with two countries each controlling parts of the territory, so this is preferable to copying info from their respective LGBT rights articles. A3 doesn't apply, since it refers to external links, not internal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what remains is sourced in Equaldex, which is not an WP:RS since it appears to be user-generated content and lacks an editorial team. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2019 (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 was that the journal is notable (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Review of Books

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

The journal is not on its own notable. Currently, the article only has one secondary reliable source. Any notable well-sourced content about the journal can be merged with the article Claremont Institute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. When dealing with a periodical with this kind of impact, it's always a better idea to improve the page. IN Depth criticism of Claremont abounds.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Deletion is not cleanup. This article is notable, but just needs to be tagged and fixed properly. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN . I especially want to thank User:Snooganssnoogans for failing to run a WP:BEFORE bringing this page to AfD. If he had done, I wold have a far more boring morning. When I spotted Claremont Review of Books on the "Politics" deletion list, I recognized it as a significant conservative book review, and argued "keep." Then Mang's provoked me to wonder whether, despite the fact that I had heard of it, it really could support a page. And so I had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours making a deep dive into the unfamiliar waters of a bunch of serious intellectuals who live on an improbably Straussian island on the left coast. I don't come to Wikipedia to take deep dives into arguments that are part of the air we east coast intellectuals breath, I know what Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, and Naomi Wolfe are thinking. What I love about Wikipedia, and the reason I keep editing, is that it prods me into doing stuff like investing the time to figure out what makes a Claremonster tick.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets

AfDs for this article:
List of United States Progressive Party presidential tickets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The relevant tickets are covered at List of United States major third party and independent presidential tickets. Additionally, the article covers three separate parties and their conflation as the "Progressive Party" risks confusing readers.

Delete as nominator Orser67 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2019 (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 History of Xinjiang. Well, the nominating statement is a bit vague (claims of something being an "attack page" need to be substantiated a bit more, "does not cover its actual subject" aside from being disputed does not necessarily merit) but some clearer arguments have crystallized out in the discussion. The delete argument is basically that it's a page created to attack a subject, using misused/cherrypicked sources and despite the existence of an other article - History of Xinjiang - on a similar topic (WP:POVFORK). On the keep side, I see arguments that there are sources that discuss the topic in detail and some differences in opinion about whether they are actually adequate, as well as the point that ordinarily when a page has problematic content it is cleaned up rather than deleted. There has been some discussion on the last point about whether WP:ATTACK or WP:DYNAMITE are reasons for deletion. There is also some discussion of topic bans, sinophobia and the like which doesn't really help assessing the status of the discussion. On the basis of headcount, I see 11 delete or redirect arguments - which I am counting together as both propose getting rid of the page and some endorse either outcome - and 5 keeps plus one struck sockpuppet vote.

On balance, it seems like what this boils down to is that the topic may be noteworthy - detailed discussion about sources was a bit sparse at first and later swamped by accusations - but the article in its present shape is quite poor - the attack claim appears to be based on reasoned arguments - I see Geo Swan's contestation but it is by itself rather vague (and too heavily dependent on comparisons to other pages). The deletion policy does allow for the deletion of attack pages and also of POV forks. The headcount barely favours removal of the article. On the other hand, the question of whether the topic may merit a page is unsettled.

Ultimately, this is a redirect case, as a) redirecting has been suggested and endorsed by some !voters, with the history page implicitly mentioned, b) to meet the scope of the deletion argument as the argument that the page in its current state violates key policies and guidelines is well supported and c) to leave the content available in case someone wants to fix the article's problems and in case the sources turn out to be usable (that is, to meet some of the concerns of the keep arguments). That would probably need more discussion, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Han–Uyghur intermarriage

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

Article does not cover its ostensible subject and is basically an attack page. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of deletion discussions related to Central Asia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel like this article abuses its sources and stretches them to make a political point, while perhaps this should be a page in the future as it stands I say blow it up and start over. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to starting a new article with the same title, or redirect - This is a potential subject if suitable references could be found, but as it stands this is just an attack piece and should be deleted per WP:DYNAMITE. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This from a leading member of the so-called "Article Rescue Squadron" who didn't raise a finger when this happened... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of appealing to "violence" because they refer to WP:DYNAMITE is silly, and as is pointed out above, hypocritical. Sure, WP:DYNAMITE is just an essay, but WP:ATTACK is policy and there's a not-un-reasonable argument that this should have been speedied under G10. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G10 would not be applicable. For one thing, it requires that the material be unsourced whereas this article has lots of sources. These demonstrate that there's a topic here, per WP:GNG. If there are neutrality issues, per WP:NPOV, then the correct action is to amend and improve the article per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. High explosives are not appropriate for this. Andrew D. (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" - note the "or" following the semicolon. The presence of sourcing in an attack page does not make it not an attack, if it exists "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject". No-one can read this and not think it was written with the intent of disparaging Uighurs. Moreover there is no version in the edit history that can be reverted to that is not also an attack page. G10 reasonably applies. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject here is "Han–Uyghur intermarriage". The page does not attack this as a concept; it relates some history of the matter. It's rather half-baked because it's an early version which seems to have been interrupted. For example, it tries to relate some statistics which seem to be based on the work of a respectable academic. The relevant policies here are WP:CENSOR and WP:IMPERFECT, not WP:ATTACK. Non-policies such as WP:DYNAMITE are quite unreasonable. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Context matters... Check out what the creator has done to this page... [3] This is one in a series of attack pages with a very clear and racist focus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture Andrew Davidson defended another virulently anti-Chinese article whose basic gist was that all the generally accepted Chinese influence on Japanese civilization actually came from Korea. It wouldn't surprise me if he had never, in a decade of AFD !voting, supported the deletion of a sinophobic attack page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not understanding the nomination because, at first reading, the page seems to contain lots of information about the ostensible topic. The edit history indicates that this is a spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable. As it's an early start on a cleanup, then it would be silly and disruptive to start again so soon. In any case, merger back into the parent would be preferable to deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that none of the references is actually WP:SIGCOV of the topic per se. Instead the content of this article appears to be cherry-picked quotes from larger works which simply mention Uighur-Han marriage in passing. It's basically a big collection of WP:OR, with the quotations always selected so as to reflect badly on Uighur people. FOARP (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. For example, the Bride and prejudice source is clearly WP:SIGCOV. Other sources seem to cover the topic as part of wider coverage of Han-Uyghur relations and they are WP:SIGCOV too. And there are plenty more sources out there to expand and improve the topic such as Chinese authorities offer cash to promote interethnic marriages. The topic is clearly not original and claims that it's an attack page seem to be reaching too. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what you said above: The edit history indicates that this is a spinoff from History of Xinjiang which is tagged as too long and so that's reasonable -- this argument doesn't make sense, since the corresponding section of the Xinjiang history article could not be reasonably shortened based on the existence of this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This a curious article. It has enough sources to suggest it is a real topic.
The history of it needs to relocated and restated.
The reasons for it are presented as fact. Indeed, the admixing of ethnographic data suggests that there is some 'valid reason' for ethnic, racist, religious and sexist policies. The tone is seemingly dispassionate. Rather like citing the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a justification for the Nazi holocaust. I think the tone is clearly objectionable, and tends toward being a Polemic. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - badly written articles, on notable topics, are supposed to be re-written, not deleted.

    Occasionally, after a long process where good faith contributors have tried, and failed, to agree on a compromise wording, it is then appropriate to call for deletion. But our nominator, Adoring nanny, jumped immediately to calling for deletion without even attempting to voice their concern on the talk page.

    When the nomination says this article is "basically an attack page" I am afraid we are seeing a failure on the part of nominator - either a failure of imagination, or a failure of neutrality. Look at this google search for Uyghur and "forced marraige". RS report on legal and human rights experts describing the phenomenon of Uyghur women being forced to marry Han men as a crisis, as a kind of genocide. Geo Swan (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your arguments policy based and refrain from personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Geo Swan just made an inaccurate and highly sinophobic remark on my talk page.[5] I suspect if this disruption continues Geo Swan may be going the way of this article's creator. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody here disagrees that this article could not be notable, just the same as any other attack page attacking a notable subject. However, this is clearly an attack page, without any previous point in its edit history which we could revert to that is not an attack page. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hijiri88 called my comments "sinophobic". This discussion is not going to be improved if I respond in kind, so I won't. I will point out that there is no topic that can't be written about from a neutral point of view, if good faith contributors make enough effort to actually listen to one another.

    Reliable sources claim China's policy towards the Uyghurs (and the Tibetans) constitutes massive breaches of International Human Rights standards, could be a form of genocide.

    Here are a couple of thought experiments. (1) If the apartheit system remained in practice in South Africa, what restrictions would we place on those trying to right about the daily human rights breaches of the apartheit system? (2) If the US Civil War had not been fought, and the USA still allowed slavery, what coverage would we allow to abolitionists?

    I'd like to think we would honor NPOV and RS, and allow contributors to cover the views of those who voiced challenges to those systems, so long as they used the neutral voice, and substantiated everything they wrote about with good authoritative references.

    My call on everyone to recognize that RS describe a Chinese policy to force or coerce Uyghur women to marry Han men is not "sinophobic". Geo Swan (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is blatantly obvious why we describe this as an attack page. The very first line of it was a description of an incident from 1947 in which "Muslim women who married Han Chinese men were assaulted, seized, and kidnapped by hordes of (Uyghur) Muslims", then moves on to a discussion of how "the Uyghur population branded such women as milliy munapiq (ethnic scum), threatening and coercing them in accompanying their Han partners in moving to Taiwan". It then talks about how "A 28 year old mixed race woman named Amy whose father was Han and whose mother was Uyghur was interviewed by The Atlantic and she spoke of being estranged from Uyghurs and viewed Uyghur men's appearances negatively" etc. etc. etc. Over and over negative points about Uighurs are cherry-picked from larger works and presented as things worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It's ultimately just a WP:COATRACK for an attack on Uighurs. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: While I am certainly not willing to support your claim that this isn't an attack page, given the somewhat toxic sinophobia you expressed on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you didn't make groundless claims like "[Hijiri88] called this an attack page". My redirect argument is based on the page being a POVFORK, and I have not spoken of "attack pages" at any point in this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hijiri88, this is the second time you characterized my comments as "sinophobia" or "sinophobic". As I noted above, I don't think this discussion will be improved if I were to respond in kind. I encourage you to respond to the substantive parts of the arguments your corresondents make, not to your personal opinions on their character or motives. In particular I compared our choices of how to cover the reliable sources that describe China have policies, like forced marriage of Uyghur woman as oppressive to how we should cover slavery in the USA, or Apartheit in South Africa. Coverage of the USA's history of slavery, or South Africa's history of Apartheit, is only US-phobic or South Africa-phobic, if we deviate from the neutral voice. If we had deviated from the neutral voice the policy approved choice is editing, not deletion.
  • I was careless in my check of who did or didn't call this an attack page. You didn't. So I struck your name. Now please reply with substantive non-accusatory arguments. Geo Swan (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FOARP, I am sorry, I explicitly requested no claims of obviousness, because, on an international project, nothing is obvious.
  • You have been around here for a long time, correct? So have I. And during my time here I experienced something I would be surprised if you hadn't. Eventually we will all start to work on neutral coverage of a topic, only to find we personally disagree with the key conclusions of every reliable source. I suggest that, when we find ourselves in that situation, we have just two policy compliant choices. (1) pinch our nose and faithfully quote, summarize and paraphrase what the RS say, in spite of our personal disagreement, or; (2) sit that one out, refrain from working on articles where our personal conclusions differ from what the RS say. In over ten thousand of my edits I pinched my nose and did my best to be faithful to the conclusions of RS I personally disagreed with.

    Why shouldn't I expect my fellow contributors, why shouldn't I expect you, to live up to the same standards?

    In your comment above did you mean to leave the impression that you just don't want a wikipedia article to cover the RS that document China's policies on the Uyghurs? Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the findings of a reliable source. They are single datapoints cropped from multiple reliable sources so as to provide a false impression: that Uighurs are backward and evil. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joanne N. Smith Finley (2013). The Art of Symbolic Resistance: Uyghur Identities and Uyghur-Han Relations in Contemporary Xinjiang. BRILL. p. 17. ISBN 9789004256781. Retrieved 2019-07-11. The first, known as the Qumul Rebellion, occurred in 1931 when the predatory behaviour of a Chinese military commander towards a local Uyghur woman resulted in his assassination and a series of uprisings against the Chinese warlord administration in Urumchi.
  • CJ Werleman (2019-05-17). "Why is the world sitting idly by as China persecutes Uighur Muslims?". Middle East Eye. Retrieved 2019-07-11. There have been accounts of systematic torture, rape, forced sterilisation programmes, forced marriages of Uighur women to Han Chinese men, forced adoptions of Uighur children to Han Chinese families, public executions, and even evidence pointing to the harvesting of live organs.
  • "Dozens of mosques, major shrines 'razed' in China's Xinjiang". Al Jazeera. 2019-05-07. Retrieved 2019-07-11. 'Credible and corroborated reports and testimony point to evidence authorities are deploying the whole gamut of repressive measures to carry out what can only be described as cultural genocide, including the establishment of a network of concentration camps; accounts of torture, forced marriage, and adoption and sterilisation programmes,' he told Al Jazeera.
  • David Brophy (2010). "The Qumul rebels' appeal to Outer Mongolia" (PDF). Turcica. Retrieved 2019-07-11. The immediate catalyst for it was outrage at the forced marriage of a local girl to a Chinese lieutenant, but discontent among Turkic-speaking Muslims had been growing since Jin's abolition of the local wang (king) administration in 1930, the immediate effects of which were the imposition of new taxes, and an influx of poor Chinese immigrants.
  • Kate Lyons (2018-12-07). "Uighur leaders warn China's actions could be 'precursors to genocide'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2019-07-11. Greve said government action needed to be taken in response to the repression of Uighurs, which included forcible separation of children from their parents, reports of forced marriage between Uighurs and Han Chinese, and the banning of Uighur language and culture.
@Geo Swan: You have made a patently false claim about me, e.g. "none of these individuals has made any effort to explain why they classify this as an attack page” and I call on you to retract it. You will see that I gave two specific reasons as well as a rationale for why it should be deleted even though the underlying topic may be notable. Nor did I explicitly label it an attack page in my original comment, although I do in fact believe it to be so. My clarification to another editor does charicterize it as an attack page, but again it offers clear reasons for such a label, e.g. overwhelming racism. You are free to argue your corner but show other editors a modicum of respect. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATTACK, WP:POVFORK and WP:COAT. This page is ostensibly about a social phenomenon, but in reality is just a coatrack to try and smear Uighur populations by cherry-picking articles to shed them in the worst possible light. There is also nothing to indicate that the ostensible topic (intermarriage between these groups) is, itself, notable enough for a stand-alone article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I suppose there might be some basis for a page on Han-Uighur relations in general in the references, but History of Xinjiang has that covered pretty well already. FOARP (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2019 (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 is no doubt the topic is well documented and sourced, the question of contention is if this topic is a subset of another, and should therefore be merged into the broader topic. Consensus is that it is separate, in that the "target" of the "milkshaking" is a specific group within a specific context, and therefore the topic should be treated independently. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshaking

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

Blatant example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS - this article is a WP:COATRACK for Conservative fantasies of concrete milksakes and other silliness. WP:DYNAMITE applies, with anything of worth being easily transferred to Antifascism. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Yes, this is a relatively recent cultural phenomenon but it has already received plentiful coverage in independent, reliable sources. See the following: 1 2 3 4. This is a cultural phenomenon that has now received ~3 months of coverage in reliable sources and as such is an easy pass for WP:GNG. Moreover, a redirect to antifascism is not at all appropriate because not all of the people who have been milkshaked are indisputably fascist. WP:DYNAMITE does not apply because this article is eminently savable. Page quality issues should be addressed on the article's talk page as AFD is not cleanup The nominator appears to be an American who has only heard of milkshaking because of the recent events in the United States, and is ignoring the existence of the phenomenon in the United Kingdom for a number of months before it made it across the pond. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - is this a distinct phenomena from Pieing? (is there a political/semantic significance for this being a milkshake? Or to particular flavors?). Perhaps this could be merged/redirected over there? Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it is a distinct phenomenon, both due to the separation of the popularity of these phenomenon in time (pieing had it's heyday in the 1990's-2000's, the latest incident mentioned on the page about Pieing is from 2011) and due to obvious difference that a milkshake is not a pie. "Milkshaking" does not belong under "pieing" because it does not involve a pie and is not "the act of throwing a pie at a person" (i.e., the definition of "pieing" given on that page). FOARP (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How are either "pieing" or "milkshaking" distinct phenomena from just generally throwing food at someone? Whether it's pies, milkshakes, eggs, rotten tomatoes, or fettuccine carbonara. Changing the food item doesn't change the nature of the act.--Khajidha (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict)WP:LASTING exists for a reason. The second somebody throws some other novel foodstuff at a fascist the entire media landscape is going to forget about milkshaking; it's a meme, virtually the antithesis of a lasting and encyclopedically relevant phenomenon. And it's not particularly distinct from pieing as an overall phenomenon, in response to Icewhiz's question. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTING says: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect", this phenomenon has already been around for ~3 months and is still receiving coverage, hence it is an easy pass for WP:LASTING. FOARP (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • ETA The nominator is not an american and I would ask that FOARP avoid making assumptions about me without even bothering to check my userpage where I lay out most of these sorts of questions about myself in painstaking detail. I am perfectly aware of the Nigel Farage milkshake incident and laughed on Twitter about it like everybody else; but what's appropriate for an afternoon of schadenfreude on Twitter is generally not appropriate for an exhaustive article on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my error. In my defence, your original nom only mentioned the American side of the story, and the proposal to redirect to Antifascism was odd because it is only in the US that antifa have used this. Only referring to the (much more recent) American side of the story when discussing a British phenomenon that is now some months old is likely to lead people to think that that is where you come from. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has been around for a few months, it's not exactly the fad that the nominator is trying to make it seem. Has garnered plenty of coverage in the media, ever since the (probably) first incident of its kind, in early May.[1]. It's distinct from Pieing through its narrow focus. While pieing generally targeted authority focus, it didn't have a the political focus that milkshaking has through its targeting of far-right political actors. And more importantly, the page is useful. Because it is such a talked about phenomenon, many people will want to read about it, its history and purpose, and Wikipedia should provide the means to do so, rather than sending users away with nothing. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very much a WP:RECENTISM issue. The concept of throwing food at people as a form of protest is much, much older than this. And there is nothing to indicate this is a specific topic, rather than just another form of throwing a pie, eggs or other messy food at someone to indicate displeasure. At best, any relevant content could be merged into Protest or another relevant topic, but there's nothing to indicate this has enough legs to stand on as an independent article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when Paul Crowther threw a milkshake over Nigel Farage, he was obviously following a trend; Wikipedia provides a useful resource for people wanting to know "why a milkshake, specifically?". [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.210.135 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Parveen, Nazia (2 May 2019). "Tommy Robinson doused in milkshake for second time in two days". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 July 2019.
  • Keep - Notable and encyclopedic. Cheerio042 (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's received significant coverage, just look at the ref list. Anne drew (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the reason provided for the AfD. WP:RECENTISM allows for a flurry of coverage on a topic without WP:LASTING notability. Today it's milkshakes. But in ten weeks, when somebody tosses a plate of fettuccine carbonara all over Nigel Farage, the media isn't going to give two shits about milkshakes anymore. That's what makes it inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's ephemera. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:TNT does not apply, references are solid. Something may be deleted, but not the whole article. This practice is certainly more violent than average; has anyone ever put cement in a pie or in an egg? wumbolo ^^^ 13:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The strength of the RS on this topic convinces me – this article is "drowning" in Tier 1 WP:RSP from around the world (e.g. Washington Post, NYT, The Guardian, The Independent) that has the topic in the title, and are clear WP:SIGCOV pieces. I don't see a case of WP:TNT – it needs to be unambiguous for TNT to prevail at AfD given WP:NOTCLEANUP. Arguments around WP:RECENTISM are not compelling enough given the strength of interest from quality RS around the world in the topic, and that the use of "Milkshaking" shows no sign of stopping. I think a reader would expect to find a Wikpedia article on this highly notable topic (would love to see a "list" of notable Milkshaking events in this article). Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Egging is the act of throwing eggs at people or property" - clearly Milkshaking does not fit this definition. Morevoer, as pointed out above, these phenomena are related to different times (Milkshaking is a 2019 phenonmenon) and different targets (egging targets all politicians, whilst Milkshaking so far only targets the far right). FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, being different foods is ttivial. A section titled "similar attacks" could cover mklkshaking, pieung, etc. And there is no reason to expect all milkshake attacks to remain gocused on the far right. Throwing food at someone to show displeasure is way older than this. Even some of the sources in this article state that the use of milkshakes is probably due to the ease of carrying them into the area without drawing the attention that a carton of eggs would, demonstrating yhat this is the same phenomenon. --Khajidha (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this may be a WAX-y argument, but we already have separate pages on Pieing, Egging, Toilet papering, Shoe-throwing, Green-paint-ing - so why not Milkshaking? And just which of the many articles dealing with throwing things at politicians is the ur-article to which everything else should be redirected/merged? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is an especially poor argument when you haven't established that your opponent agrees that the other stuff should exist. At least as far as the food-throwing goes, it makes much more sense to have a central Throwing food as a protest page than to subdivide it down by food type. I mean, what if one of these "milk-shaking" incidents was revealed to have actually used a frapuccino. Or a Wendy's frosty. Would you separate them out from here? --Khajidha (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "go with the sources", and the sources treat this as a distinct, new phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ink, glitter, eggs, milkshakes are not "non harmful". E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the advantages of merging all of these into a single page. A page documenting the rise and fall of fads for throwing everything from rotten tomatoes to shoes, glitter, and sticky milkshakes at people as a form of physically aggressive protest might be worth writing. But a merging all of these pages into one would be so large a topic that it woudl inevitibly violate WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, we really need some basis in reliable sources for believing that these are all the same phenomenon. But this is not what the sources say - instead they treat this as a new, specifically targeted cultural phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the article itself: "Philosopher Benjamin Franks suggested that the use of particular foodstuffs in political protest had historically been a practical matter, noting that whilst "nowadays, carrying raw eggs to a nationalist meeting would require some backstory to justify it if challenged by the police", until recently carrying a milkshake would not have aroused the same suspicion." and "He also highlighted the history of using "small and harmless projectiles" like eggs to being a sense of theatricality to political campaigning in Britain, holding that acts of milkshaking did not exceed this level of controversy." --Khajidha (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Störm already closed this AfD as keep; cf. also here. ——SerialNumber54129 14:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I am not quite certain why this is listed at discussions about food, I am certain that the fuss over milkshake throwing has been a very big political deal in recent years.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More relevant than ever. Loganmac (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have distinct articles on other forms of throwing ostensibly harmless foodstuffs at politicians as a form of political protest and activism. This one is novel both in the fact that the projectile is unique, and that the targets are specifically white nationalists (which, as far as I've understood, is the reason that milkshakes are the projectile of choice). I wouldn't object to the various articles being merged into a common topic, but that needs to be an all-or-nothing approach with a broad consensus, not a merger of one or two out of the lot. If the notable topic is being used as a coatrack, then fix it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article meets WP:GNG. - Jacobz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject fails notability guidelines,in particular WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. Just Chilling (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elishama Rosemary Ideh

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

A tad WP:TOOSOON I'm afraid, coverage currently appears to be limited to routine campaign-trail coverage that primarily encompasses Ideh's campaign promises, as told by her ([7]), unreliable who's who entries and self-reported biographies ([8], [9]), and an op-ed supporting her candidacy ([10]). Additionally, the claim that she is the only female candidate appears to be outdated. If she gets far enough along in the election to generate significant independent coverage, then we can create an article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 2 July 2019 (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. As to whether to keep or merge. But there's consensus to not delete. Sandstein 18:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Klemp

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

Notable for only one event. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep seems a good option.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is quite a lot to add about her, some of which can be translated from the articles in the other Wikipedias, but there are also many other sources. She has received major and ongoing coverage in the media, even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards. Notability criteria for an article about her, not only about the main event or the organization, are clearly given per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why? Is she more special than the 20 other people that are in the same situation? I have the idea that she is the best suited for public relations and therefo pushed forward in a media offensive now the crew members really can be convicted for human trafficking. In all that information about Pia Klemp there actually is no new data about the trial that has been going on since 2017.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making many assumptions we really should not make - "pushed forward"? "media offensive"? This sounds way too much of a conspiration theory to me.
Trying to answer your question, I don't know if there are 20 other people in the same situation, but it is a strawman argument, anyway - we don't have 20 other articles about those other people, and even if we had, this is irrelevant in a deletion discussion. The only argument that counts is notability - which can be either demonstrated by a fulfilled catalog of criteria or not. If we want an article about Pia Klemp, but she does not meet our notability criteria, we won't have an article. Likewise, if someone does not want an article about her, but she meets the notability criteria, we will have an article about her no matter what (given that someone will write one).
And if there would be 20 other people meeting our notability criteria, we can have 20 articles about them. The number of articles is don't care, because WP:NOTPAPER. What counts is notability. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: I read the german wikipedia entry and there's not much more, most of it revolves around the incident. I didn't check the other languages so maybe I missed something. -- Luk talk 13:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the German Wikipedia, something that everyone should have done before casting a vote in this discussion, but unfortunately very few actually did.
Although I did not plan to work on the article and have no time for it right now, I have meanwhile added some stuff from the German WP to clearly demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (awards, feature-length films). There would be a lot more to add to the actual biography, but this will have to wait until later.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like: "On 4 April 2019 Westdeutscher Rundfunk broadcast an 8-minute documentary about Klemp." WDR is a regional German channel, 8 minutes documentary. That is one of the most notable things about her? -- AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Westdeutscher Rundfunk (WDR) is, by number of employees, the second-largest public-service broadcaster in Europe after the BBC, and the largest supplier within the German ARD network. In addition to national TV and radio productions, they produce one regional TV and six radio channels for the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia. WDR is among Germany's top sources for independent quality journalism. To get their time is a clear sign of a huge public interest in the topic indicating notability. Also, this is only one out of several broadcasts I listed after searching for a few minutes, there are more...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator of the English version of the article; saving the lives of a thousand people and being arrested and tried for it is more than one event. Whether she ends up being convicted or not will be yet another event, so this AfD seems quite overeager -- Kendrick7talk 15:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain why this isn't multiple events? -- Kendrick7talk 01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kendrick7: How am I supposed to make that argument when I have no idea what the second event even is? SportingFlyer T·C 02:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do above, they are saying that committing a crime, being caught for the crime, being tried for the crime, and being sentenced for the crime are all separate events. Rather then being part of the same event (in effect), WP:PERP may be worth a read.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe saving people from drowning is a crime. Is that not plain on its face? -- Kendrick7talk 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if that is ALL she did that might be a valid point. But her "notability" all stems form the same incident, her recuse of those people, her bringing them to Italy, her arrest her trail are all the same event, not separate ones.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of her until coming across this AfD, but WP:BLP1E doesn't hinge on whether something's a crime - she performed an action and was charged for that action, which would make the crime and trial part of the same event, even if the crime isn't a crime. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but as the original claim included such things as being arrested and charged it seemed it was best to address the issue as a crime. I could of course just as easily described wining a race or writing a book.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While it might be true that you didn't hear about her until this AfD (nobody can be aware of everything), she has been (and still is!) in the news since 2013 (that is, even long before the Iuventa event in 2017). There are hundreds of top reliable sources showing an ongoing and lasting public interest clearly indicating notability per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and even WP:ANYBIO.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) (updated after having found even more evidence of a much earlier news coverage.)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, the nominator now also nominated this article for deletion without waiting for (and possibly learn from) the outcome of the ongoing AfD of the closely related Carola Rackete article (by the same nominator). This is really bad style in a collaborative project. Please be more careful and do your homework WP:BEFORE nominating articles about notable subjects for deletion, as otherwise the time and energy of contributing editors is unnecessarily bound into avoidable discussions.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous, this is a clear WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a case of WP:BLP1E at all. It might be a case of WP:BIO1E, but with the given media coverage deep and lasting, the subject is relevant for our encyclopedia to have an article about her. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
wp:other is only an essay, but does reflect the fact that many do not think that because one article is notable that means that all similar topics must be notable. The Atlantic is water, so is my pond, but only one is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must be getting me all wrong. I never said that we should have an article about her because we have an article about Carola Rackete, but because the topic Pia Klemp meets our notability criteria.
Also, I was not complaining about you nominating two unrelated articles in a row in general, but that you nominated two closely related articles in succession in a way indicating that you were not aware of the Pia Klemp article before and therefore would not have raised the AfD on the Pia Klemp article if I would not have added a link to that article to the Carola Rackete article. While this is not "forbidden" per se, it is bad style to do so before waiting for the outcome of your first AfD nomination, and because your had already been advised to do your homework WP:BEFORE. That behaviour is typical for agenda-driven people who just want to get rid of articles on certain topics as soon as possible instead of being interested in other opinions, learn a few bits every time, and work collaboratively on building an encyclopedia.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And this is the last time I am going to reply to you, if you are just going to resort to emotive arguments about agendas and bias then I am not going to bother to respond. I do not think this person (or the other) are notable, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that our opinions are irrelevant in an AfD for as long as they are not based on guidelines. The question is not if you (or I) think the subject is notable, but if the criteria for notability in the guideline are fulfilled or not.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiaspaul I am not saying these things don't happen. But the funny thing here is, Jugend Rettet was on AfD a few years ago. Would consider that political too?--AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this happens and this causes huge damage to the project - not only wasting time in otherwise unnecessary discussions which could better be spent on article work (guess what, I was working on various other topics, but now am here to "keep" an article about a notable topic from being accidently deleted because of ignorance), but also in the destruction of the work of other editors, causing them to burn out, and many other editors seeing this never even trying to contribute substantially to the project. Yes, we do need to weed out junk topics, but we also must be careful to not delete notable topics.
Regarding your question, I haven't checked that old Jugend Rettet AfD being politically motivated or not. If it was and if that can be proved, the nominator should be sanctioned for it, because we must maintain a neutral point of view when working on the project.
However, I don't think that old nomination is related to these two nominations, so it is don't care here.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I wrote Jugend Rettet by the way. My objection against the Pia Klemp article was more that the original text was not neutral. To use an ugly word: fan based. My humble opinion. I am having the same discussion in the German WP. To me it seems that people that do not like Salvini are now writing articles on ship captains that are in the news as a political statement. Soon you will have a proliferation of articles of any person getting in the news because someone wants to endorse the defiance of the NGOs against Salvini. Where does it stop? Nevertheless against a neutral lemma about Pia Klemp I would not have any objections.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, AntonHogervorst, I wrote this article and have no idea who Salvini is. I wrote it to reflect the sources I had at hand; feel free to add others reflecting your point of view. The more the merrier I say. -- Kendrick7talk 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I believe you! Okay, if you only look at the information Pia Klemp is giving herself in interviews, you probably would get to something like that. I am following this issue for a few years. And to me it seems that the NGO now has started a media offensive. It makes a good head line too: captain being convicted for 20 years for saving drowning persons. But that is not the whole story. The investigations started in 2016 (well before Salvini actually) and the lawsuit in 2017. The actual conviction is getting closer, and now in 2019 NGO presents one example as their spokes person. But that spokes person is not that important (About 20 other people in the same situation), and the Italian side of the story is missed. By the way, there is one funny thing here. The lemma Jugend Rettet was actually on AfD two years ago.--AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted and I appreciate you lending your knowledge here. Are you saying Klemp wasn't actually the captain of the ship at the time the ship was seized? Or that there are 20 other ship's captains involved in the same trial? Or just that her whole crew is also on trial? Maybe there should be one main article about this, but none of my sources went into enough depth to make that obvious. I didn't even know who Carola Rackete, another captain caught up in apparently the same sweep, was until yesterday and I doubt there are 18 more articles out there. These two seem to be the notable individuals on trial so far, and I think they both stand fine alone without needed to be merged into articles about their respective employers. -- Kendrick7talk 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kendrick7 Sorry for the late answer. I was preparing a job interview and helping my daughter with her study et cetera. The information is unfortunately for you in a few non English sources in the Jugend Rettet lemma. Basically it is like this that in juli/august 2018 about 20 people were informed that the Italians were starting procedures that would eventually lead to a trial. These are members of Jugend Rettet, but also members of other organizations.(Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières.) At the moment of the source they were 20. The sources are presently number 14, 15 and 16 in the lemma: "Migranti: Juventa, 20 avvisi di garanzia - Sicilia", "Mittelmeer: Italien ermittelt gegen Flüchtlingsretter" and "Italië stelt strafrechtelijk onderzoek in naar bemanning Duits reddingsschip". I am Dutch, I am fluent in English, German and Spanish. And because of the latter I can also easily read Italian. -- AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this really sounds too much of a conspiration theory to me. There are kind of "waves" in media coverage, but that's just normal.
However, if you think the "Italian side" is missing, feel free to add it. The way the German WP covers the various views on Carola Rackete might give you some clues how to do it and still maintain a neutral point of view - and thereby doing a service to our readers. We may like it or not, but their view should be described as well, so that our readers can draw their own opinion by comparing the different views. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Valid arguments must be based on our notability guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO. However, agenda-driven editing is not allowed, therefore a possible political motivation is not irrelevant to know when the offered opinions or behaviour are not backed up by guidelines, as they should.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We also have wp:agf. As many have said, we did not even hear about her until this (or in my case another) AFD, and have no views on the politics.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I would not assume good faith (in the sense that I believe you think you are doing the right thing), I would not have reminded you of WP:BEFORE.
AGF works both ways. You stated that you did not know anything about the topic before you nominated the article for deletion. There is nothing wrong with not knowing anything about her, but there is a lot wrong with filing an article for AfD without knowing anything about it! It is mandantory to research a topic before nominating it. You even have been kindly reminded before the second nomination. But instead of being interested in the outcome of the first nomination (after all, your judgement could have been wrong, and it turned out that it actually was) and the opinions of the other editors, you somehow felt that you had a better judgement on notability than those working on the article (and knowing something about the topic) and so you filed the second AfD. Not a critical question on the talk page, not a notability/refimprove/merge tag, but you went straight to AfD. Did you put any trust in the integrity, competence and judgement of those who contributed to the article?
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here from Google after seeing the petition circulated on social media to research the situation before signing the petition. It doesn't mention Jugend Rettet, the petition, signed by 345,000+ people, talks about Pia. I was surprised to see the page flagged for deletion and feel it should be kept and where possible expanded. - Victoria, anon user, 4/7/2019
That's a strawman - we are discussing the notability of Pia Klemp, not that of potential articles about the awards she received. The provided sources just prove the fact that she did receive these awards, and for this purpose, primary sources are perfectly fine as are passing mentionings (per WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:BASIC).
Further, providing nice sources is something for a normal article improvement process, not something to establish or deny notability at AfD. This is explicitly ruled out in WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST, both part of the relevant notability guideline.
In either case, the sources were just taken from the German WP (where they are found to be good enough). There are more sources, including secondary or even tertiary ones, which can be used to prove that information as well.
Now, having verified that she received these awards, what is relevant for our discussion here is WP:ANYBIO #1. Both awards are certainly not Nobel prizes, but they can't be ignored either (and for one of them we even have an article in the German WP), and there are two of them. And WP:ANYBIO works in addition to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, which already establish notability, anyway.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy I spent five minutes of my weekend to search for and add a bunch of additional secondary and tertiary sources discussing her awards. I just wonder why you did not find these sources...
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiaspaul even your own words ..even films have been produced about her, and she has received awards "films" aren't in the article so that's factually incorrect, primary sources don't count for notability per policy, and the awards seem minor. 1E dominates, so I stand by my !vote. You should be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON and let others comment. Widefox; talk 01:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind if I reply still - this is really meant as a constructive exchange of arguments based on our guidelines and the weighting of the various criteria at hands.
Although over here "films" are not restricted to movies but include TV productions, thanks for improving my wording, I really appreciate it.
You are also right about primary sources and notability, but the notability of Pia Klemp does not depend on the notability of awards she received, and primary sources are fine to prove simple facts. The sources do have an influence on the weight we can put on WP:ANYBIO, though. I take your point that it is debatable how "huge" these awards are - this is ultimately up to individual interpretation. At least I have meanwhile found and added secondary sources describing these awards as "renowned" and "famous", but there are certainly more important awards.
I cannot, however, at all agree with you regarding 1E and have added a bunch of sources demonstrating her media coverage since 2013 (when she was still working for Sea Shepherd), that is, long before the Iuventa event in 2017. There is also media coverage of her various missions with Sea-Watch 3 in 2018, and some other activities. The original article stub did not include all these details, but that's exactly why we are required to research a topic before voting at AfD because of WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. To me, this evidence makes it impossible to see this as a 1E bio and I can't follow you there, but I will accept that you have a different opinion. Thanks.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely missing my point - being interviewed on TV or radio are primary (non-independent) sources, the assertion of notability comes from recent news hence why and how this fails WP:N per BLP1E as several !votes state. Eliminate what doesn't count and that's it BLP1E. it fails to meet any of WP:ANYBIO 1. awards not "well-known and significant" 2. "enduring historical record" not obvious, more NOTNEWS 3. No. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had never heard of this person until a link to the article was added to a navbox that I watch. The article could do with some cleanup to make it more neutral and could be expanded with other content, but AfD is not for cleanup. A look through the 22 references in the article convinces me that she does meet WP:GNG and that BLP1E does not apply. This is not about one event, it is about a series of events that have all come to a head and appears to be an issue that will go on for some time. The delete/merge comments above don't convince me that either of those options is applicable so I believe the article should be kept and hopefully improved. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have brought forward most of my argumentation further above already, so I will only summarize it here:
We have seen major coverage of Pia Klemp in hundreds of secondary (sometimes even tertiary) WP:RS internationally. The public interest in her activities seems to have started in 2013, and it is ongoing and growing up to the present. The coverage is not centered around a single event (Iuventa) only, but includes earlier and later events with other ships and organizations as well, it is not even limited to "ship related" stuff only. This very clearly establishes notability per all criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and at the same time it rules out the idea of merging into another topic per WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E.
In addition, she has written two novels, has been featured as sole or major participant in at least four TV productions, she received two human rights awards, a song was written about her, a petition was started (with more than 350,000 participants), and more. I therefore also see several criteria of WP:ANYBIO fulfilled. Finally, Wikipedians in other languages have created articles about here as well - while the different language entities have slightly different rules, this might still give us another clue on her encyclopedic relevance.
The original stub article did not reveal all this and therefore might have (although should not have) misled some earlier voters to see this as a 1E bio to be merged into another topic. To me, this is an obvious case for having a full blown article about her, and the more I research the topic the more evidence I find supporting this.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria of ANYBIO are fulfilled? all 1. 2. 3. are not by my judgement above, so can you reason per policy, especially as you've asserted it several times and asserted others have not linked their !vote to policy, which I don't believe you've reasoned per your own dismissal of others, which I find unconvincing. You've said above ANYBIO 1. is not obviously fulfilled. Widefox; talk 23:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO is an additional test which can indicate notability even if WP:GNG or WP:BASIC would not be fulfilled, which however they are. WP:ANYBIO reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards, and in there #1 reads The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, which I see as being fulfilled. I agree that neither of these awards is in the Nobel price region, but there's more between heaven and earth than 0 and 1, and what can be regarded as "well-known" and "significant" is ultimately a matter of perspective. One clue on significance is that the German WP has an article on one of these awards. Another clue can be descriptions in secondary sources describing them as "renowned" or "famous". Also, Klemp received two awards, not only one. Summing this all up, I see the criterium more than fulfilled as a whole.
WP:ANYBIO #2 reads The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. If you think about what could be a "widely recognized contribution" or "enduring record" in the field of sea rescueing, having saved thousands of lifes is quite an achievement I would think (well, even regardless of field). We have an abundant amount of sources discussing this, so it is obviously widely recognized and also seen as important by many. Therefore, I see this criterium fulfilled as well.
WP:ANYBIO #3 is obviously not fulfilled, but doesn't need to be for WP:ANYBIO to be fulfilled in general (any of, not all of).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. n not well known awards are not "a well-known and significant award or honor" . It really is that simple, especially when n=2.
2. "enduring historical record" - how exactly can that be asserted as it's current news?! See WP:10YT. Widefox; talk 19:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ad 1) The guideline is clearly meant in a cumulative way, otherwise there would be no point to allow counting award nominations (that is, not even received awards) as well. Also per guideline, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Further, as already discussed, perceived importance of awards is relative - there are people who know them well enough to write articles (outside and inside of WP) about them, and who do find them significant as well. So, applying a multiplicative zero here rather than a cumulative sum is trying to make a point by interpreting the guideline by letter with force, not by its spirit.
Ad 2) By looking at the past. What is recorded as historically enduring differs somewhat between cultures and times, but not fundamentally. Acts of saving lifes, if public, are (and have been) remembered in most any civilization. Sometimes it takes a while to be recognized, like in the Paul Grüninger case, sometimes it is recognized immediately. Either way, most of the events are at least a year old from 2018, with some even going back to 2013. Even though there are also some new "news", as a whole this is not "breaking news" any more - we meanwhile even have tertiary sources discussing other sources or putting past events into context and perspective of time as well. This is obviously lasting relevance. If we couldn't start writing about such topics now, we couldn't address most recent events in Wikipedia at all.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Many more details and source added (from primary to tertiary). It turned out there are many more TV and radio features than originally assumed (and even one true cinema film, although this one is Iuventa-centered only). There are meanwhile also books devoting paragraphs or chapters to Klemp.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2019 (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement

Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor political party. G11 and G12'd in the past. No significant coverage other than its founding. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what do you expect a two month old crowdfunded political party to do? they already explained in why they wont run for elections [1][2][3][4]
I do not know why you have nominated the page for deletion, Talk:Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement @Kautilya3: concurs. Mhveinvp (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ashiqsrinagar, Peerzada (2019-05-07). "Low turnout in Anantnag LS constituency: Political parties call for "introspection"". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  2. ^ "Ex-babu, former engineer forge new front in run-up to Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  3. ^ Observer, Kashmir News (2019-03-23). "Shah Faesal's party to stay away from LS polls". The Kashmir Pulse. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  4. ^ "PUF united voice of J&K people: Shah Faesal". Greater Kashmir. 2019-06-23. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

References

  1. ^ New Front, Old Frontier, Kashmir Life, 26 June 2019.
  2. ^ Hakeem Irfan Rashid, People's United Front: Another agenda and another alliance in Kashmir, Economic Times, 19 June 2019.
  • Comment: Mhveinvp Kautilya3 The issue is that in the provided sources, which are all routine coverage, the party is only subject to passing mentions in the articles listed, and not even mentioned directly in a few of the sources. If it's a recently started party, as you claim, then perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)
    • The two sources I have provided above do represent significant coverage as needed for WP:GNG. It is clear that this party represents a significant development in Jammu and Kashmir as practically every national newspaper has covered them. Some of the press has also carried out detailed analyses of their agenda.[1][2] The party is set to contest the next Assembly elections and frankly it is silly to quibble over whether its page should exist or not. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Analysis of Vision Document – Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement, Epilogue, 19 March 2019.
  2. ^ PUF’s DNA, Read The 45 Point CMP, Kashmir Life, 18 June 2019.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone says SRK’s Red chillies. But Red chillies is notable. 106.66.180.36 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OSE--DBigXrayᗙ 07:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2019 (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) Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Yeo

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

A local councillor and failed parliamentary candidate does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Not enough significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party is probably enough for notability, but she has also served as its chair and as president of a fairly major trade union. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of these roles offer inherent notability.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chair of the Labour NEC is not a trivial post. Moreover there is more than adequate media coverage over the years. Atchom (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the preamble to WP:N states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In this case I think that the significant posts that this person has held means that in any real-world sense she is notable and, if necessary, she should be one of the "occasional exceptions". Just Chilling (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:17, 7 July 2019 (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. North America1000 06:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia's Friends International Meeting

Estonia's Friends International Meeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of details from primary sources about this conference, but no secondary sources that suggest it is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (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. Sources have not been shown that enable the page to meet WP:GNG and I read 'delete' as the consensus. However, the term is defined in the lead of Congress Working Committee and I see a redirect there as being useful. I acknowledge, in saying that, that the term may need to be disambiguated but that is for future editorial consideration. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge. Just Chilling (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working President

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

Quoting back same rationale that was given before: Unsourced since 11 14 years and doesn't seem much a notable post either. Nor does it seem different from President of the Indian National Congress as of now. I considered boldly redirecting. But such a generic title would be wrongly redirected there. Hence proposing deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll lend this an actual !vote this time around! An unsourced dictionary definition, willing to change my !vote if sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is (or was) a real post in the Mrs Gandhi/Rajiv Gandhi era, verified in book sources [11][12][13]. Admittedly, this was not a powerful post – it seems to have been created mostly to put a democratic gloss on the autocratic behaviour of the Gandhis. Sources have discussed it in that context, but not in great depth. However, there is currently a proposal to bring back the post [14]. It is also worth noting that the "Working President" seems to be a common post in other parties in Indian politics TRS, Karnataka congress, BJP. SpinningSpark 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you rightly said, the post was maybe ceremonial/titular just for the sake of keeping up with democratic idea with little power vested in it. As regards to your statement that such post exists in other Indian parties too; i would like to state that this conclusion is not completely right. "Karnataka Congress" is nothing but state unit of Indian National Congress. What we come to know from that reference of yours is perhaps the "Working president" is a state-level position too. In context with BJP's Nadda being called "working president" please note that this is the first time this very month they have come up with such position. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources provided, I think WP:V is satisfied but not much else. None of the sources really go into detail about the position. SportingFlyer T·C 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to suggest a merger with Congress Working Committee, as this article says a bit more about the Working President than that article does - but the three sources which SpinningSpark found suggest that what the article says about "the Working President often being a person of great influence within the organisational structure of the party rather than of great political popularity" is not actually correct (eg Nehru to the Nineties: "The so-called "Working President" of the party .. was never consulted.") While there may be other sources, those 3 are passing mentions, not discussions of the role, so I don't think they meet WP:GNG. The Congress Working Committee article could use some more references, so perhaps these sources could be added to that article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2019 (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 International Workers' Association#IWA today. This is a tough one. There's a rough consensus that it is TOOSOON for this to have an article. On the other hand, there are strong arguments to PRESERVE the info. I am therefore redirecting this to International Workers' Association#IWA today, as the ICL and its origins are mentioned there. That this is an article about a competing organization seems less relevant to me. Given the article's history, I will also protect the page, any admin can change the redirect or restore the article upon motivated request. Any content worth merging elsewhere will still be available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Labor

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

This has twice been turned into a redirect (by User:Czar and User:Elmidae), but then recreated by an anonymous user. It does not contain any independent, reliable sources. I've looked for such sources in attempt to improve the article, but came to the conclusion that there is just one: this article in a Spanish newspaper. That's clearly not enough to establish notability. I'm undecided on whether this should be deleted outright or turned into a redirect (either to International Workers' Association or to syndicalism, as both of those articles briefly describe the ICL). Carabinieri (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

oops
  • Redirect to Contemporary anarchism, where it is covered in greatest depth. For independent notability, I think what I wrote on the talk page three months ago still holds: Echoing what was written a decade ago, I check back on this article every few months and find no reliable, secondary source with which to write an encyclopedia article. If such sources exist, they're inaccessible to me. (The other language Wikipedias don't have comparable sources either.) Even the Time article, which is a bit of a joke, only refers to the specific "Third International Congress of Anarchist Federations", not a persistent "International". In any event, the article appears overblown without secondary sourcing to back it up. czar 04:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yes indeed. Looks like that redirect (similar title) was undone at the same time this was nominated and I was pinged for both. Thanks czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge to International Workers' Association#IWA today, its most prominent related mention. re: redirect target, as a split from the IWA, I think ICL has a closer relation with that topic than with "syndicalism" as a whole.
As my edit summary went in March, this topic continues to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Right now, secondary source coverage doesn't do more than confirm its existence. Ping me if you find additional offline and non-English sources? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Alarichall's added sources do not add enough information to justify a separate article, so their merger to the aforementioned target will suffice. czar 17:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been existence for only a year so is probably WP:TOOSOON. However, the participation of the long established and highly notable IWW, as well as other notable organisations, should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I think the previous attempts at redirecting to the IWA article were not constructive since that article does not cover the membership of the ICL in any detail. There is an element of WP:PRESERVE that comes into this. SpinningSpark 11:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes it is, that's exactly the issue. The information that the notable IWW and other notable organisations have joined a newly formed federation is certainly information the belongs on Wikpedia, regardless of whether the said federation is notable enough for its own article. That is precisely what PRESERVE is all about, and precisely what that redirect failed to do. SpinningSpark 18:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and that guideline explicitly discusses merges and redirects. SpinningSpark 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is that the articles on the member organizations should mention that they joined the ICL? If so, I certainly agree.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should also be collected all in one place as well as scattered across multiple articles. SpinningSpark 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable sources that assert the noteworthiness of the subject or its collection of member organizations? czar 23:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to meet GNG if the information is not on a dedicated page. I raised PRESERVE in connection with redirecting, not in connection with the substantive page. SpinningSpark 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spinningspark, maybe I'm just a little slow, but I'm still not exactly sure what outcome you're pushing for. Merging? If so, to what article?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pushing for the Wikipedia policy of PRESERVEing encyclopaedic information. Whether that is done as a merge, and to which article, is a secondary issue, but International Workers' Association is a suitable target since that is where they have split from. If the response to that is it would be WP:UNDUE weight in that article, then I am at keep. We can't have good information falling between two stools like that. This would be a classic case of applying WP:IAR in those circumstances. SpinningSpark 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to the source found by Carabinieri, I've found a couple of other respectable mentions. They're not very substantial, so I don't think they'd save this article from being merged, but I hope that they can stay with the material as useful references if a merge happens. Alarichall (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Redirecting or merging to the IWA article makes no sense as they're rival organisations, and if the IWC doesn't become notable then it shouldn't have WP:UNDUE weight in the IWA article. If it gets coverage, recreate it, but until then, there's nothing worth saving. Triptothecottage (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.




Politicians

Ali Palh

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

There is insufficient in-depth coverage of this individual to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. This individual has never won a provincial or national election. The page's author holds the view that election candidates are inherently notable, regardless of whether they win. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, Politics, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources are secondary as per WP:GNG, the article is start class and is barely in-depth after the changes, are you still arguing for it to be deleted despite it no longer including primary sources and only containing news reports as sources? Also he isn’t just a candidate, he is the General Secretary of Pakistan’s largest political party and the CEO of a human rights organization. Titan2456 (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is the provincial general secretary of his political party, nominated by his colleague Asad Umar. It raises the question: how many provincial general secretaries of any Pakistani political party, who have never been elected to public office, currently have Wikipedia articles? Although, this point may not hold much significance. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Article does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG even though they are elected as local official

Per this clause under Notability for politician and judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Tesleemah (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: While I have concerns that the nominator is a POV pusher and has a biased agenda, is doing their best to attack anything related to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. However, I have to agree with their nomination in this case, as this BLP doesn't meet NPOLITICIAN and clearly doesn't come close to passing the GNG, either. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sunder Sharan

Shyam Sunder Sharan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shyam Sunder Sharan

Politician who acts as a spokesperson for a political party in the state of Bihar, and does not satisfy political notability or general notability. The subject is not a member of a national or state legislature and so does not satisfy political notability. Review of the references shows that only the first of them is possibly significant coverage in an independent source. The others are a press release, and two statements issued by the subject as spokesperson for the party, so that they are not independent.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 news4nation.com Report on meeting with national finance minister Yes? Yes Yes? Yes
2 www.insiderlive.in Press release about his naming as spokesperson No Yes Yes? No
3 www.etvbharat.com Appears to be a press release about upcoming election No Not about the subject, who is only acting as a spokesperson Yes? No
4 news4nation.com An announcement by the subject about the election No Not about the subject, who is a spokesperson Yes? No


The originator created both a draft and an article, which were identical. The draft has been redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, the redirection of the draft to the article should be reverted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this clause under Notability for politician and judges "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Tesleemah (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat)

Mohiuddin Ahmed (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio was primarily written by J1477 (talk · contribs), who has a COI with this person, even if they won’t easily admit it. The editor has been promoting Laura Mohiuddin, daughter of Mohiuddin Ahmed, since they joined Wikipedia. I reviewed the sources cited in this bio and found that most are either primary, like government websites, or based on columns and interviews. Given that Laura is an SEO expert according to her LinkedIn profile as well a freelance journalist, I wouldn’t be surprised if she sought paid press coverage for her father to secure a WP bio. Diplomats aren’t inherently notable, and this one is no exception; they need to meet GNG, which clearly isn’t the case here. The BLP reads like promotional and contains WP:OR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated Keep comment by J1477 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep Mohiuddin Ahmed’s notability extends far beyond his role as a "second secretary." He made significant contributions during and after the Bangladesh Liberation War, establishing himself as a freedom fighter, senior diplomat, and key figure in the country's development.

1. Crucial Role in the Bangladesh Liberation War: Mohiuddin Ahmed was the first Bengali diplomat in Europe to publicly declare his allegiance to the provisional government of Bangladesh. His defection at Trafalgar Square in August 1971, during the "Stop Genocide: Recognise Bangladesh" rally, was a pivotal moment in mobilizing international support for the Liberation War. This act also encouraged other Bengali diplomats to follow suit, a crucial step in building the international recognition Bangladesh needed during its struggle for independence.[1][2][3]

2. Post-War Diplomatic Career: After the war, Ahmed continued to serve Bangladesh in several significant roles, including as Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Principal of the Foreign Service Academy. His postings in New York, Geneva, Jakarta, and Jeddah allowed him to represent Bangladesh in important global forums, further strengthening the country’s international standing.[4]

3. Contributions as a Public Intellectual: Besides his diplomatic career, Mohiuddin Ahmed was a prominent intellectual figure in Bangladesh. He wrote over 1,500 columns on topics such as economic development and foreign policy. [5]

4. Recognition of His Legacy: His contributions have been widely recognized by government officials, colleagues, and the media. His involvement in the Trafalgar Square rally, his senior diplomatic postings make him an essential figure in both Bangladesh’s history and its intellectual landscape.[6]

5. Service as an Ambassador: Mohiuddin Ahmed also served as an ambassador for Bangladesh, holding various senior diplomatic posts across key global locations such as New York, Geneva, Jakarta, and Jeddah. His ambassadorial roles reinforced Bangladesh's international relationships and bolstered its position on the global stage. His leadership extended to critical discussions at the United Nations and other international forums, where he advocated for Bangladesh’s interests in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.[7][8]

6. Leadership in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: In addition to his ambassadorial roles, Ahmed played a significant part in Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he rose to the position of Secretary. His role as Principal of the Foreign Service Academy further highlights his contributions to training and guiding the next generation of Bangladeshi diplomats, ensuring a lasting legacy within the country’s diplomatic service.[9]

7. Honors and Tributes: Mohiuddin Ahmed's contributions have been widely recognized by leading figures, including Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen, who described him as a "patriot and courageous diplomat." His critical involvement during Bangladesh's formative years in the international arena is reflected in the widespread mourning of his passing, further underscoring his notability.[10]

Given these significant contributions during the Liberation War, his diplomatic achievements, and his work as a public intellectual, Mohiuddin Ahmed meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). His legacy has left a deep impact on Bangladesh’s diplomatic and intellectual history, meriting his inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1477 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


This user has a transparent conflict of interest in relation to this subject and their vote should be disregarded (see relevant discussion at COIN, here [15]) Axad12 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • J1477, I think you have been cautioned previously by me and others to avoid such long AI-generated statements. Anyhow, I’m still not convinced by your keep argument and the sources you cited are not enough to establish the GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the post shows up as 100% AI generated at gptzero.me. Another reason (apart from the COI) for it to be struck from the record as AI generators don't get a vote at AfD. Fortunately for Wikipedia (and humanity generally) only humans are allowed to vote. Axad12 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Saqib and Edwardx. Axad12 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment - I've blocked J1477 due to unresolved COI concerns that they were further aggravating by engaging in canvassing around this AfD. However, I do think that the bibliography that they have suggested be considered here does merit a more thorough response from editors advocating deletion, as it includes several obituaries and other articles with biographical information published in major Bangladesh newspapers, all in English, which suggests that additional coverage may exist in Bengali as well. signed, Rosguill talk 17:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill, I thought the main issue here was notability rather than verifiability. However, regarding canvassing / forum shopping, is it correct that the user gets blocked for that activity but that the canvassing etc posts on relatively high traffic forums get to remain in place?
    It surprises me that a COI/promo user can attempt to recruit large numbers of uninvolved users to do their bidding, who will then continue the user's COI/promo work by proxy after the user has been blocked if the relevant posts are not deleted. Axad12 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty typical for such posts to be clerked away by other editors, which is what I was expecting to happen. Either way, I doubt anyone will be effectively canvassed through the remaining posts now that J1477 has been blocked, especially given that Saqib has also placed disclaimer comments following the canvass comments. The block was primarily because it seemed like this pattern of disruption was likely to continue and escalate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and they fail the politician notability guidelines, too

Tesleemah (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Mohiuddin Ahmed: That spirit of Trafalgar Square". Dhaka Tribune.
  2. ^ bdnews24.com. "Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80". Mohiuddin Ahmed, first diplomat in Europe to pledge allegiance to Bangladesh in 1971, dies aged 80. Retrieved 2024-10-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.
  4. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". New Age.
  5. ^ "Remembering our freedom-fighter diplomats". The Financial Express. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
  6. ^ "Ex-secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed dies". Dhaka Tribune.
  7. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.
  8. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  9. ^ "Ex-Secretary Mohiuddin Ahmed no more". The Business Standard.
  10. ^ "Eminent diplomat Mohiuddin Ahmed passes away". BSS News. Retrieved 2024-10-16.

Aurélien Lechevallier

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This article is almost entirely based on one primary source. A search for sources found routine coverage of ambassador activities but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Osborn

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

Though well-sourced to WP:RS, this entire BLP hits both WP:BLP1E and WP:ROUTINE. Thirty-three (33) of the 34 article citations relate to, or originate directly due to, the BLP's political candidacy. My WP:BEFORE is unable to discover unrelated coverage.
In cases like this we have, historically, followed the guidance of WP:POLOUTCOMES: "[candidates] ... are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls"

  • ROUTINE: Campaign coverage for a candidate for public office is, by definition and through the way we usually apply this in similar cases, ROUTINE and where an article is formed exclusively with ROUTINE coverage, it fails WP:N. In cases of political candidates with BLPs, we always require WP:SIGCOV to be demonstrated through non-campaign related coverage or by application of WP:SNG
  • BLP1E: We must also address the question: "If this person loses his election, will he still meet our WP:N threshold?" With the only sources about him campaign related, he clearly also fails the BLP1E threshold.

Because this is an otherwise well-formed article, it may also be worth considering Draftiying it for a month (if he wins his election he would obviously meet the SNG criteria), but I'll leave it to someone else to suggest that if they feel this BLP is a redeemable case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC); edited 00:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy KEEP Osborn gained national reputation as union leader; a better BEFORE would have revealed that, and a better count of the references would have revealed that it's not 33 of 34 about Senate run, as claimed. His candidacy is anything but routine, so not BLP1E. Coverage of his candidacy is anything but routine, extensive significant IN DEPTH in NATIONAL/INTL press (as noted in nomination). Djflem (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His candidacy is anything but routine" That's not what WP:ROUTINE means. Chetsford (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COVERAGE of the candidacy is anything but routine (just as candidacy is anything s anything but routine) It is INDEPTH and SIGNIFICANT in NYTimes, Guardian, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, USA Today, The Nation, Washington Post plus more, but a REF BOMB isn't needed here.Djflem (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, yeah, that's not what ROUTINE means here. We generally use it to mean coverage that would be customary and expected. All political candidates are the subject of coverage related to their candidacy. We routinely delete these articles if they haven't received any other coverage other than coverage arising out of their candidacy. See WP:POLOUTCOMES for an explanation, and examples, of this. Chetsford (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not routine campaign coverage: it is not customary, it is exceptional, if not extraordinary. Djflem (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you clarify the policy basis of your !vote? I may not be familiar with a policy that allows us to retain not notable BLPs in mainspace if there's an election scheduled in the USA. Does this policy apply just to USA elections or are there other countries it applies to, as well? Chetsford (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but I see some potential in this subject and cannot reject the possibility that it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon. That's why I said we should wait. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I cannot reject WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS type of events that have resulted in the creation of this article, but" There's not really a "but" if you accept this as a case of unexceptional BLP1E. BLP1E is a policy. "it will undoubtedly meet WP:GNG soon" I see. Can you clarify the policy that allows us to uniquely keep this non-notable article in mainspace instead of Draftifying it like we do all other articles that might meet GNG in the future, but don't currently? Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC); edited 08:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Weak Keep) ... not BLP1E due to the Kellogg's strike and the election ... I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date. Also I disagree that the election coverage is routine, independent candidates don't generally get this much attention. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: You said "I think this article needs more work and then after people have had the time to add more sources related to the strike, this could be revisited at a later date"; did you mean to !vote Draftify? Chetsford (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or did you mean keep, as you ivoted, since its not BLP1E based on prominence in Kellogg's strike, since candidacy coverage is not routine, and since AFD is not clean up? Djflem (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford:@Djflem: I don't think it needs to be moved to draftspace. It's a complete article, but needs more sources showing the extent of his involvement with the strike. I believe there is a template someone can add saying it needs more sources. Still voting keep. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable American labor leader who passes general notable guideline requirements WP:GNG. The subject has significant coverage WP:SIGCOV that is in depth and from different national publications indicating that he is an important labor leader. He has received major coverage now due to two events. Passes all requirements for being a notable labor leader per WP:BIO. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is not only known for his senate bid, seeing as there was an article about him during his labor strike [16]. I also disagree with your argument that there is only routine campaign coverage. Some of the coverage is routine, yes, but a full-length, independent article like [17] is significant. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leaving aside WP:NEXIST and the RS coverage that predates the Senate run that satisfies notability as a union leader (eg [18], [19] [20]), I have to echo the comments from XOR'easter. There's actually more damage to Wikipedia's reputation by deleting subjects engaged in high-profile politcal campaigns than leaving a possibly unnotable candidate undeleted until after the election and then conducting a notability discussion. FWIW, I do not think there is a clear community consensus around the application of ROUTINE to elections - it really depends on context and the guideline itself does not contain the word election. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a political campaign is not one event for the purposes of WP:BLP1E, the RS cover several events, not just him becoming a candidate. Barack Obama is notable despite the article entirely being about the event of "being a politician", just like this individual is notable despite the article being entirely about the event of "being a candidate". POLOUTCOMES only states that candidates don't have presumptive notability, not that they are presumed non-notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes we need to stop obsessing over specific rules and just take a step back to realize how ridiculous these AfD requests can be RyanAl6 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep– WP:NPOV supersedes other rules. Wikipedia is widely used as a news and information source; to remove an article on a candidate in such a major election would fundamentally mean a bias in Wikipedia's content as accessed by people during the election. If Osborn loses it's a different matter and redirecting can then be considered depending on long-term historic notability. But first and foremost we need to be aware of our duty to provide neutral encyclopedic coverage, and this includes coverage of ongoing elections.

This problem of partisan AfD nominations during ongoing elections has been going on for a long time now. Happened with the 2020 US Senate election in Iowa too. I would support the creation of a guideline that proposed deletion/redirection of candidates in elections with significant media coverage should always wait until after the election in question to stop this sort of AfD happening again and again in future. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. An independent candidate presenting a strong challenge to an incumbent candidate for national office in a state the incumbent's party has historically won by significant margins is quite notable. If the challenger loses, I agree the article should be redirected to the election page. With that in mind, I would like to propose the Ross_Perot page be redirected to the 1992_United_States_presidential_election page. Other than running for President, the man was very non-notable. 100.8.239.119 (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vem Miller

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

WP:BLP1E and an overall lack of coverage aside from the Trump event. SirMemeGod  20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Security incidents involving Donald Trump#2024 incident at Coachella rally instead? Ss0jse (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge discussion can also take place in Talk:Security incidents involving Donald Trump#Cochella suspect. Ss0jse (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarwan Kumar Bheel

Sarwan Kumar Bheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially draftified this BLP, which was created by IOmParkashSarwanBheel, who clearly has a AUTOBIO/COI based on their username. The BLP is PROMO and contains WP:OR. Later, they submitted the draft for review and after I failed the AFC review, the creator unilaterally moved the BLP to the main namespace. It clearly fails the GNG as well NPOLITICIAN. Additionally, it remains PROMO, contains WP:OR, and has COI/AUTOBIO issues. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that this article is totally based on reality, If this article is against the policies then you may. IOmParkashSarwanBheel (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I appreciate your feedback and want to address the concerns you've raised.
Conflict of Interest (COI)/Autobiography: While I understand the concern regarding my username and the potential perception of a conflict of interest, I assure you that my intention was to highlight the notable contributions of Advocate Sarwan Kumar Bheel. I have attempted to adhere to Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality, but I recognize that my proximity to the subject may have influenced my initial approach. I am open to collaborating with other editors to ensure the article maintains a neutral point of view.
Notability (GNG and NPOLITICIAN): I have revised the article to focus on factual details and removed promotional language, aligning it with the general notability guideline (GNG). However, I understand that the notability of the subject must be supported by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If the sources currently included are insufficient, I would be grateful for guidance or assistance in identifying additional references that better demonstrate the subject's notability.
Original Research (WP) and Promotional Tone: I have worked on removing original research and subjective language from the article, striving for a more balanced and encyclopedic tone. I understand that it might still require further adjustments, and I am open to your suggestions on specific areas that need improvement.
Article Move to Main Namespace: Moving the draft to the main namespace after the AFC review was not intended to circumvent the process but rather to seek further feedback. If this action was inappropriate, I apologize, and I am willing to work within the proper review process to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.
I am committed to improving the article in line with Wikipedia’s policies and appreciate your guidance. If there are any specific revisions or additional sources you would recommend, I am more than willing to make those changes.
Thank you once again for your feedback, and I look forward to your response. IOmParkashSarwanBheel (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IOmParkashSarwanBheel, If you hadn't unilaterally moved the draft to the main namespace, I would have definitely helped you fix the issues. However, since you did, I had no choice but to take it to AfD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olufemi Ajadi Oguntoyinbo

Olufemi Ajadi Oguntoyinbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:NPOL. The awards received are not notable and there are routine news coverages that do not qualify for WP:GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is notable because he contested for Governorship Elections in Ogun State under NNPP, and I included secondary sources to back it up. Johnvictor82 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnvictor82 Thank you very much for creating this article and I really appreciate the efforts you have put into it. However, contesting for a gubernatorial post does not pass the Notability guidelines for Politicians. Please, go through the General Notability Guidelines and Specific Notability Guidelines of Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @User:Johnvictor82, Notability is not automatically granted by candidacy, simply running for political office, even a significant one, does not inherently establish notability according to WP:POLITICIAN, tbh, a quick check and I can’t find a significant public recognition outside of the candidacy, maybe you can point me there. B.Korlah (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Parviz Hekmatjoo

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

Bio of a Tudeh activist, lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sheehy (businessman)


Tim Sheehy (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is actually a second AFD. The outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Sheehy (American politician) was a strong consensus to redirect, with two "delete"s and no "keep"s. This new article was created as a redirect to the same target [21], on the grounds that in the Timothy Sheehy disambiguation page he's "not a politician yet". Another editor came along a week later and recreated the last article from that new redirect. A Google search for him, minus the word "Senate", turns up no significant coverate in reliable sources as a businessman or a soldier. The US is now three weeks away from a national election, and all of the major candidates are getting heavy press coverage. db-repost was declined, and the declining admin took a straw poll of editors from the last AFD at Talk:Tim Sheehy (businessman), and all have upheld the last consensus so far. So this article should be deleted, as it's really a renamed repost of Tim Sheehy (American politician). If Sheehy wins, then that article should obviously be un-redirected and expanded. Wikishovel (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Sheehy does not have sufficient notability as a political candidate and businessman; Sheehy has never held public office. Should Sheehy win, we can make the draft an article. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting on this AfD but this does make far more sense, to throw my own two cents in here, since he does have potential to become notable very soon. Don't delete the draft with such a high probability of him being elected within the next 3 weeks and 2 days. EytanMelech (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
There are likely thousands of undecided voters in Montana who don't know much about Sheehy, so they'll be coming on Wikipedia to look up information on him. Why would we disenfranchise them by deleting his page???
This is not like Delaware's senate race where it won't matter. This is a major senate race where almost every outlet says Sheehy is favored. It would seem that by deleting this page and denying valuable information to voters, it means you're seeking to help his opponent win. I had no idea Wikipedia was a partisan site seeking to help one candidate win by making the other seem less serious, but here we see i suppose? 2601:CF:0:9A0:B227:9473:F80D:C5D5 (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC) — 2601:CF:0:9A0:B227:9473:F80D:C5D5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:CF:0:9A0:B227:9473:F80D:C5D5 (UTC).[reply]
Please see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a candidate for US Senate from Montana. Putting aside my belief that this even in itself merits an article creation, he has additionally been covered in a lot of sources, both local and national and even international. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Zlad! (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP
Tim Sheehy is a major party candidate in a Senate race with major national attention. This race has received millions in spending on advertising, and voters in Montana deserve easy access to basic information on the candidates running in their race. It should also be noted that in an extremely contentious and likely close election, Tim Sheehy is the most likely of any Senate candidate to flip a seat. There are pages for far less notable figures who stood no chance of winning. There seems to be no reason to delete his page except for partisanship.Is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooter3 (talk • contribs)
I'm not American, and the outcome of this election means nothing to me, so partisanship (and an anonymous poster above accused me of the same) is not the problem here. As for pages about less notable people, please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is ahead in the polls, and is pretty likely to be Montana's next senator. Why delete? Im a democrat myself, and I think that thousands of undecided voters will look at both pages. Wikipedia shouldnt be biased, especially in a major tossup election. Lukt64 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's true that he's ahead in the polls, and if he does win, then as I said in my nomination at the top, Tim Sheehy (American politician) should be unredirected and expanded. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've always believed being a major party nominee for federal office should be noteworthy enough to have an article. AvRand (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the consensus at WP:NPOL from a far higher number of editors than you and I decided otherwise. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the page (as well as a Democrat living in Montana), I believe that he is, without question, notable enough for Wikipedia, even if he loses. If he wins, I would probably be in favor of moving the page to Tim Sheehy (American politician) or a new page titled Tim Sheehy (senator). If he loses, I still believe he's notable enough for a Wikipedia page because he founded Bridger Aerospace and was a former Navy SEAL. MontanaMako (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTINHERITED: articles about heads of notable companies regularly get redirected, if they're not notable independently of the company. Not meeting guidelines for notability still applies, even if notability is claimed for three separate things. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His aerospace company has a Wikipedia article because it's notable, and he has had numerous articles written about him as a candidate in one of the two most important Senate races of 2024 (Montana and Ohio, since West Virginia is guaranteed to flip after Manchin left). Bill Williams 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOTINHERITED: articles about heads of notable companies regularly get redirected, if they're not notable independently of the company. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ITSUSEFUL. If Sam Brown is judged to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, then that article should also be nominated for deletion. Wikishovel (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Calwatch: can you provide some examples please? In a search for his name, excluding the word "Senate", the coverage in reliable sources is quite poor. Wikishovel (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Knight

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

Virtually all sources are local, with some sections being plain unsourced. A google search didn't find anything about him specifically, with some showing more notable people with his name. Additionally, the article was created by Greghenderson2006, who was banned partially for using hyperlocal sources to make articles which weren't notable. As a result, I think this should be deleted. Tavantius (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. P. Unnikrishnan

A. P. Unnikrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is passable, reliable sources are available Spworld2 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Mohammed Jamal

M. A. Mohammed Jamal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzafar Ali Brohi

Muzafar Ali Brohi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual is not a lawmaker, which means they fail NPOLITICIAN, and they don’t meet GNG either, as I couldn’t even find ROTM coverage, let alone SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Neculăescu

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. They don’t even have a BLP on their local language Romanian Wikipedia, yet most of the cited coverage is in that language. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:40, 9 October 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) 14:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Varga

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. Fwiw, they don’t even have a BLP on their local language Slovak Wikipedia, — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Konecký

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Czech Republic. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Konecký has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Czech political party. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Konecký accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia likewise only provides announcement news, nothing to indicate significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it passes WP:GNG per all the sources in the article. The subject is not just a career diplomat but a permanent reprehensive of an entire country to NATO and speaks on behalf of the country. Before this appointment he served as Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is sufficient coverage that easily pass all requirements. Piscili (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piscili, As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO or even Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affair doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Other than the primary mentions, no notability with SIGCOV found anywhere. Keep !votes do not mention any so called "sources that exist". The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Stala

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

Subject fails the notability guidelines for policitians. Being a candidate in an election or running unsuccessfully is not what makes a politician notable but winning the election and only if the position in itself is a significant one. Sources are either run of the mill or routine coverages, and no substantial coverage, hence, none satisfies the general notability guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iltija Mufti

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

The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NPOL. She has received media coverage primarily due to being the daughter of Mehbooba Mufti and granddaughter of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. However, according to WP:INVALIDBIO, there is no clear indication of notability. It does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at this point I am just being bullied by the bigger guys I did not even write something contervical Sarim Wani (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sarim Wani is the creator of this article. TheBirdsShedTears (talk)
I am 99% sure NDTV,Indian express,BBC,news laundry and the wire are preety good sources while as for abp we can say something who ever filed this is probably some one who is right wing Sarim Wani (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarim Wani: Assume Good Faith, there are valid grounds to suggest that the subject does not meet notability guidelines, which is why an editor nominated it for deletion discussion. Do not label someone as right-wing simply for nominating an article for deletion. AfD is a place to discuss the notability of the subject, and there is no room for politically biased accusations without evidence. GrabUp - Talk 13:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
test Sarim Wani (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears @GrabUp @RangersRus @Goldsztajn @Youknow? @Youknowwhoistheman
Bludgeon
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • it does not fail WP:NPOL due to "The following are presumed to be notable:
    • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
    • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." judging by her name when I search it on google she has been mentioned by
    • Times of India
    • NDTV
    • Indian Express
    • Mathrubhumi
    • The Hindu BusinessLine (would take too long to mention everyone by link)
    • The Wire
    • Scroll.in
    • The Quint
    • Hindustan Times
    • Outlook India
    • The Print
    • Firstpost
    • The Hindu
    • BBC News
    • Al Jazeera
    • The Economic Times
    • India Today
    • Deccan Herald
    • The Tribune
    • Greater Kashmir
    • Kashmir Observer
    • Rising Kashmir
    • The New Indian Express
    • Zee News
    • CNN-News18
    • The Statesman
    • The Telegraph India
    • Business Standard
    • Mint
    • The Pioneer
    • DNA India
    • Republic World
    • Asian News International (ANI)
    • Press Trust of India (PTI)
    • Reuters
    • and more... which are more than enough to ensure that is passes WP:NPOL
    • as for WP:NBIO "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
    • the unusualness of iltija muftis popularity ensures this hence this is a clear too hence this is a
    • Keep
Sarim Wani (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no it also fails WP:INVALIDBIO
  • That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article.
It also meets WP:GNG and I quote
"General notability guideline
[
edit source
]
Shortcut
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
  • CLEAR it has enough good sources like ndtv bbc news laundry greater kashmir etc. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    • The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
    • Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
    • CLEAR already explained
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • CLEAR it has enough reliable sources like ndtv bbc news laundry greater kashmir etc.
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • CLEAR sources like Al Jazeera probably do that
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
  • CLEAR sources like Al Jazeera / BBC probably do that too
@TheBirdsShedTears brother if you don't know of the subject pleas don't flag a random complaint out of nowhere like a well you know... Siblings my enemies ayeee we got smt in common well there is a lot more common but this is one of them! Sarim Wani (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarim Wani: You don’t need to post all the guidelines like spam; we already know them. Just provide summaries and include links to significant sources. Most of the sources you provided above are neither significant nor primary. They mainly quote the subject, and the articles are almost entirely made up of quotes, except for the Hindu Business Line article. I don’t think any of these provide significant coverage (SIGCOV). You mentioned Al Jazeera, Reuters, and BBC, so please cite them. GrabUp - Talk 13:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is leader of an party and is quite active in politics. Should retain it. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Who is Iltija Mufti, Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter who lost in J&K? What does this mean for PDP? – Firstpost
Who Is Iltija Mufti? J&K Ex-CM's Daughter Accepts 2024 Election Defeat (shethepeople.tv)
Jammu and Kashmir election: Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter Iltija Mufti loses debut election in J&K | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
Iltija Mufti: ‘It is good J&K has a govt with full majority. We saw the dilemma we had with 28 seats’ | Political Pulse News - The Indian Express
Iltija Mufti: India looking to crush dissent in Kashmir (bbc.com)
Jammu and Kashmir election: The region goes to vote after a decade (bbc.com)
I woud quote more but I am too tired/lazy to find them Sarim Wani (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think her life is fairly well enough documented for this Sarim Wani (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and if you go to local newspaper(s) her life is fairly well documented
You searched for Iltija - Page 2 of 12 - Greater Kashmir Sarim Wani (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://scroll.in/article/954196/mummys-girl-iltija-mufti-recalls-growing-up-one-kashmirs-major-political-families
https://www.outlookindia.com/national/interview-iltija-mufti-on-dynastic-politics-life-after-abrogation-of-article-370-and-making-of-narratives-in-kashmir-news-315485
https://twocircles.net/2024sep15/450394.html
https://www.outlookindia.com/national/interview-iltija-mufti-on-dynastic-politics-life-after-abrogation-of-article-370-and-making-of-narratives-in-kashmir-news-315485 Sarim Wani (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have p-blocked Sarim Wani from this discussion as their POV has been heard. Star Mississippi 18:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly meets WP:BASIC. There are plenty of sources available that address the subject in detail and many of which have already been listed here. While the current state of article is poor, it has the potential to be improved. The assertion that she has received media coverage primarily due to being a part of the Mufti family is inaccurate, in my opinion. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the subject is not the leader of the Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party; her mother is. A critical source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A failed political candidate, being related to a famous person, neither of which are notable. Maybe merge to an article about the parent's family, "Family of Mehbooba Mufti"? This would be like the various Trump children that came up in AfD recently, they were put in a family article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yolette Lévy

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

Biography of a smalltown municipal councillor and activist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing notability criteria for local politicians or activists. As always, neither city councillors nor activists are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about their work to validate its significance — the notability test at the WP:NPOL #2 level for local politicians hinges on the depth and range of reliable source coverage, not on merely verifying that she existed.
But 16 of the 20 footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and of the just four hits that come from real GNG-worthy media, two are just death reportage from the local media in her hometown; one is just a short blurb about her winning a minor award that isn't highly notable enough to clinch an instant "she's notable because she won this award" freebie all by itself for a person who's otherwise this poorly sourced; and the last one doesn't mention her name at all, and is here solely to verify via her absence from it that she didn't win a city council seat in the election that it's "sourcing", and thus isn't a demonstration of her notability. (And meanwhile, all of the city council elections she did win are supported by the primary sourcing rather than GNG-worthy analysis about her work on the council.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what sourcing establishes the permanent significance of her work as a union organizer, considering that her union work is referenced entirely to the primary sourcing here? Bearcat (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for a start? I expect we could find much more about her union activities in support of women if we had better access to the French-language Quebec press.--Ipigott (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need a lot more than just one source to establish notability on that basis, especially when that one source is just her obituary from the local television station, where coverage of the deaths of local figures is merely expected — we would need to see evidence of her being widely recognized as a union organizer beyond just her own city, which is still lacking. Also, the French-language Quebec press googles just the same as English-language press does, so we don't lack that kind of access at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added sources from radio Canada, and also found out that a beer was named after her after her death to honour her community enngagement. Her role as president of the STENOQ trade union for teachers also appears in a 1996 history book about the region Histoire de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue published by the Institut Québécois de Recherche sur la Culture. Nattes à chat (talk)
The article is still referenced very overwhelmingly to primary sources rather than reliable ones that count as support for notability, having a beer named after them isn't a reason why a person would get a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and local history books don't secure international notability all by themselves if purely local coverage is all the person has. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my understanding of WP:NPOSSIBLE which says Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article.. She is mentioned in Histoire de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, though to what degree I cannot say due to lack of access on my part. There is an award named after her, here is a source stating she was named to the Board of Directors Université du Québec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Page 16 of this source details her accomplishments, the awards she won in life, and the award named after her. This source substantiates her status as having won an award. This source describes her winning the Alexina Croteau award as well as speaking of her accomplishments including being President of a Union and that she was the coordinator of the World March of Women in Vallée-de-l’Or. There is also this source which was published years after her death and is described as a regional and independent socio-cultural newspaper whose mission is to provide information on cultural life and social and political issues in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Considering the existence of an award named after her, a resolution mentioning setting her name aside for future usage, and her status on the Board of Directors for Université du Québec en Abitibi-Temiscamingue and her involvement in the World March of Women, I find it probable to believe that there are sources in Quebec newspapers that we might not have access to. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources do not support notability. Having an award named after her is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim for a person if your source for that is the self-published website of the award rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; winning a minor local or regional award is not an inclusion-clinching notability claim for a person if your source for that is content self-published by that award rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; resolutions mentioning her from the city government are not notability-clinching notability claims for a person if your source for that is the self-published website of the city government rather than third-party media coverage about the distinction; and on and so forth. Nothing is ever an article-clinching notability clain until it causes WP:GNG-worthy third-party media coverage to be generated about it in sources independent of the statement, and "locally important to a small city" (a thing which every single city councillor who ever existed at all could always claim) is not enough of a reason why a small-town city councillor would be exempted from having to pass GNG on proper GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her work in real media.
(And just for the record, Val-d'Or's GNG-worthy newspaper is the Citoyen, not whatever the hell "L'Indice bohémien" is.) Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, L'Indice bohémien L'Indice bohémien est un journal culturel régional et indépendant qui a pour mission d'informer les habitants de la région sur l'actualité artistique et culturelle de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue. En parlant des gens du milieu culturel de la région, L'Indice bohémien veut contribuer à la professionnalisation des artistes, au rayonnement de ceux-ci partout en région et à l'extérieur, ainsi que soutenir la promotion générale de l'ensemble du milieu culturel de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
They also have an editorial board. Per Wikipedia:Tiers_of_reliability#Other_generally_reliable_news_sourcesTrade publications and Regional and local news are generally reliable sources. L'Indice bohémien is an independent regional publication that focuses on artistic and cultural news. Among their listed partners are the Conseil de la culture de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue, and Ministère de la Culture et des Communications.
Just because we don't have access to the sources don't mean they don't exist. There is a strong probability that events, awards, etc. were covered in newspaper publication. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world; it does not require their immediate presence or citation in an article
Again, she is mentioned in an academic history book. A regional independent newspaper which you've randomly asserted isn't reliable, a source that says she was responsible for coordinating an event, she was the president of a Trade Union, there is an award name after her, a proposal in a resolution to set her name aside for future use, and she also won multiple awards in her lifetime. The probability that some news coverage we do not have access to does is exist is more likely than not. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Bearcat has summed up well. True - there may be scources out there we don't have access to. There may not. If we start working on the basis of "there might be an RS out there somewhere" being good enough we will have lost the plot. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=905176854"