Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politicians|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive 2

watch

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

Politicians

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

The result was delete. JBW (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Satyajeet Tambe

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Satyajeet Tambe
• Articles for deletion/Satyajeet Tambe (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Satyajeet Tambe Patil

Satyajeet Tambe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-elected politician, does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Not so many changes from previous afd. Also fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Nothing has changed from the previous AfD to make this subject notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete:Fails NPOL Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 09:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. President of a political party's youth wing is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, and the sourcing consists primarily of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, with not nearly enough coverage about him to claim that he passes WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep First delete in 2016 was five years ago, the second delete nomination from earlier this year was from indef blocked sockpuppet. Correct there is no presumed notability under NPOL, but are editors certain this is a WP:BASIC failure: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability"? There's extensive non-trivial coverage of the subject in Marathi and Hindi since 2019 and he appears to be frequently interviewed.

References

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Interviewed" isn't a notability criterion. The notability test is not passed on sources in which he's the speaker of content about other things, it's passed on sources in which he's the subject of content written or spoken by other people. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no claim that being interviewed is a criteria for notability, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider the *frequency* of interviews as contributing towards an assessment of notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Semboga Roy

Semboga Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a student president that fails WP:SIGCOV and or WP:ANYBIO. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete No indication of notability. Fails WP:NPOL. DMySon (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. President of a university student government is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates either, and there isn't nearly enough sourcing or substance here to deem him more special than the norm for people with not-inherently-notable jobs. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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 Withdrawn. It's very disappointing to see so many people say "screw GNG, let's outsource to a brief add-on to her sister's actual entry that is in no way significant coverage". Very disappointing to see people make up nonsense out of thin air claiming MBE counts for automatic notability despite no consensus or guideline saying so for this not-uncommon lower-level honor, for which a small portion of recipients are WP-notable. Even more disappointing to see people call bias because this is a woman in (perhaps) a woman's profession, even when it is in fact rare for grammar school heads of any gender to be notable for that. Substantive sources may in fact exist, but I expect to see that before keep votes. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Maud Cameron

Maud Cameron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Can't tell why this grammar school headmistress would be notable, seems to be a generic principal and sources are passing or nondistinguishing mentions. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:ANYBIO#1, she is a member of the Order of the British Empire, and per WP:ANYBIO#3, she has a minor entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ANYBIO #3. The MBE doesn't convince me (it's too low-level an honor, with too many recipients) but the Australian Dictionary of Biography does. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Having an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is plenty sufficient to establish GNG. Schwede66 08:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per David Eppstein and Schwede66. Deus et lex (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Hi Beccaynr, David Eppstein, Schwede66, Deus et lex, Maud Cameron does not have an adequate entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography for automatica notability! Please see in the link that she is only a brief mention in the entry for Winifred Barbara Meredith as her sister and it explicity notes "Maud Martha Cameron is a minor entry in this article". Without a full entry this is not automatic notability and further coverage is expected for just a headmistress. Reywas92^Talk 15:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Reywas92, I did note "minor" entry in my comment, but upon further review, because the main article is for her sister, there is more biographical information available about her in the entry than is currently included in the article that could be added, and regardless, the Australian Dictionary of Biography also notes this as an entry for her, and it includes more than a trivial mention due to the amount of information and detail available. I also referred to the award as contributing to her notability in part because the Australian Dictionary of Biography noted it - the AfD nom asks how a 'generic principal' is notable, and these are factors that appear to distinguish her - there are multiple independent and reliable sources that provide content about her family, education, and career, as well as a significant and well-known award. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  • "more than trivial" is hardly inspiring, especially for such a generic position with no impact described at all. As David Eppstein said, MBE is widely given and also fails to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 15:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It is the language of WP:SIGCOV, e.g. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and since this is available from multiple independent and reliable sources, there also appears to be WP:BASIC notability, which includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. My perspective on notability for Cameron is influenced by the sources available to help develop the article, as well as sources that appear to find the award notable enough to include as a relevant fact. A BBC article linked to the Order of the British Empire article explains how after WWI, the award is based on "prominent national or regional roles and to those making distinguished or notable contributions in their own specific areas of activity." Beccaynr (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

      She's the lowest rank of MBE not OBE, and at least 90% of those listed on the page don't have articles either, this is not basis for notability. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

      From my view, per the BBC News article linked above, the MBE award is WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports her notability, per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

      @Reywas92: I can't see anyone suggesting she did have the OBE! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Part of the WP:Systemic bias that affects our project is the devaluation of jobs done by women. We may tend to view fields dominated by women (like teaching) as less important or worthy of note. Let's be cautious about dismissing her job as "a generic position with no impact." She was awarded an MBE, so clearly someone felt she had impact. (Not that notability requires impact, anyway...) pburka (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Bullshit. There are so many countless headmasters and headmistresses and principals or what else have you around the world, and this is indeed a pretty generic position when there's no description given for what she did in this position. I highly respect them of any gender and that is disappointing for you to say I am devaluing women, but it is an absolute fact that we have no indication what Cameron's significance is and grammar school heads are not often notable for that. Looking through Category:Australian headmistresses and Category:Australian headmasters, pretty much every one of them has substantial description of what their impact was, be it within teaching or another area, described in multiple significant sources. We do NOT have that for Cameron. Reywas92^Talk 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Which part is bullshit? That there's systemic bias on Wikipedia? That we devalue jobs dominated by women? That WP:GNG doesn't require any impact whatsoever? That she was, in fact, impactful, having been awarded an MBE and been president of the Victorian Association of Headmistresses? Please clarify. pburka (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

    For one, teaching is dominated by women, but being a headmaster is not. But what's absurd is your implication that because education may be less valued, that this role is exempt from the standard expectation of significant coverage. What I devalue is biographies without in-depth sources, or sources like this Who's Who that list a bunch of people without clear indication of their significance. I don't care that she was president of this association – where are the sources describing with some depth what she did as president and why that's important, rather mere mentions that she held a role? WHY would this organization grant automatic notability when there have been dozens and dozens of presidents of the Victorian Association of Headmistresses, and perhaps the New South Wales Association of Headmistresses and the Queensland Association of Headmistresses, and the associations of headmasters, and the countless other organizations which do NOT give automatic notability to their leaders? If the Victorian Association of Headmistresses is so important that we can say "screw GNG" about its presidents, then why doesn't that even have an article? Any other holders of this position or related ones on Wikipedia? MBE is NOT so rare that the need for substantive coverage is thrown out the window. I doubt 80% or more of recipients have Wikipedia articles or meet notability guidelines for them. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep As well as the Australian Dictionary of Biography, she also appeared in Who's Who in Australia and so that's a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Wrong. Many of the others listed in Who's Who include "pastoralist's wife", "banker's wife", "barrister's wife", all of which are short sketches of who their family members were. Cameron shares a page with an I-don't-know-what who came from Canada and likes to read. This is not automatic notability that passes ANYBIO. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I have restructured the page so that relevant information appears in the lead. Either of received an award from the head of a nation Y and was head of a national organization Y is sufficient to establish notability. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  No, there is no guideline or consensus that either of those vague and broad statements give automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 00:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:ANYBIO #3.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep #3 of WP:ANYBIO is met by her entry in the ADB. #1: Her MBE award was one of only 46 given in Australia in June 1955, so not insignificant. Oronsay (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep due to WP:ANYBIO#3, entry in Australian Dictionary of Biography.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep seems to meet WP:GNG due to coverage beyond just getting an MBE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep with a non-trivial entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography plus an MBE she meets GNG. Also agree that there is a tone of unconscious bias in some of these comments which suggest a general devaluing of women's roles and accomplishments. The article could be expanded with more detail of her career achievements, but a lack of this detail is not a reason to delete the article. MurielMary (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG + ANYBIO. Furius (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Please EVERYONE relying solely or mainly on ANYBIO based on the ADB entry PLEASE look at the article. If you search by "Maud Martha Cameron" then the article comes up titled accordingly, BUT see the caveate in RED. The article is about her sister, "Winifred Barbara Meredith". If you search by "Winifred Barbara Meredith" it comes up titled "Winifred Barbara Meredith". Cameron gets one short paragraph at the end of the article. YES the way the search engine works is very misleading. I am not saying there are no grounds for keeping, but please can we get the evidence correct. Aoziwe (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have not been able to look at these at all but there are possibly up to 2,000 references in the following. Most will be entirely trivial and-or routine, any many probably not the target, but it will only require < 1% to be good ones to support GNG:

• https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=Firbank&keyword.phrase=Maud%20Cameron
• https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=Firbank&keyword.phrase=Miss%20Cameron
• https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword=Firbank%20Cameron&startPos=160

Aoziwe (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for the links - it looks like there is more support for WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability, e.g. SOCIAL NOTES (Leader, 1911, biographical, education, career information), FIRBANK PRINCIPAL LOOKS BACK "Today's girls just like grandma" (The Argus, 1951), She's been head for 40 years (The Argus, 1951), LOOKS BACK 40 YEARS (The Herald, 1951), picture with announcement of her retirement (The Argus, 1954), No chalk dust in her eye (The Argus, 1954, in-depth profile). Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Waman Meshram

Waman Meshram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable political figure. The only source cited in the article is all that I could find by search, of any substance; the rest is just the usual social media mentions and a couple of pieces written by the subject. Fails WP:GNG, and there's nothing to indicate WP:NPOL notability either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete as per the nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Has national profile in Dalit and OBC politics. Google news search turns up multiple mentions over many years. Mentioned in Dalit studies texts. Op-ed in Indian Express.

References

Passes WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:BASIC per Goldsztajn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per Goldsztajn. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Per Goldsztajn and all above. Namkongville (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

J. J. Power

J. J. Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Failed MP candidate, representatives at County and Town Council level don't tend to get articles. Most mentions of him in sources are to do with his notable relatives, and notability is not inherited. I wasn't sure that there was a suitable WP:ATD, though there are a few redirect possibilities, I think choosing any one of them would be more confusing for a reader than seeing there is no article. Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. On the face of it, the subject fails WP:NPOL (in that local councillors in Ireland are not holders of "international, national, or [..] state/province–wide office, or [..] members of legislative bodies at those levels"). In terms of WP:GNG, I cannot find anything beyond what the nom has mentioned (the same routine coverage we might expect for any political candidate -- none of which seems to substantively focus on the subject as a primary topic). Guliolopez (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. County council is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:NPOL, an unsuccessful candidacy for the Dáil does not help to make him more notable than the norm for county councillors as even at the national level the notability test still depends on holding office and not just running for it, and the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to make him markedly more special than most other county councillors or unelected TD candidates. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

A.C.Kadloor

A.C.Kadloor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-elected politician fails WP:NPOL. As per available References also fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: He was never elected. Fails WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete fails our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Sahaib (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing establishes notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet NPOL and the coverage is not sufficient for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The article doesn't appear notable to me, does not follows the guidelines.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Nkonge Muwonge

Sarah Nkonge Muwonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essentially promotional BLP of an unsuccessful candidate for election based on interviews, profiles and other promotional sources. A WP:BEFORE search brings up more of the same, some election-related material and nothing else in-depth. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: References (those that could be accessed) are WP:PRIMARY and, as per nom, self-referential. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The argument to keep based on WP:NPOL is not unreasonable, but this is not a clear-cut application of that guideline, and as such it cannot override the other concerns, or indeed the argument that this individual does not meet NPOL. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid

Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable/ Based on a single press release, None of the positions imply notability, and no reason to think any other ones would be substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Assessing using WP:NPOL, I think his position as an Executive Councilor for the Emirate of Dubai may meet NPOL. Despite having the term "executive" in its title, the Executive Council seems like a legislative body (its Arabic Wikipedia entry, note the line "The Executive Council proposes and approves government policies and laws. It also supervises the implementation of local and federal laws, the establishment of government agencies, and the follow-up of their performance."). If I'm interpreting that correctly to mean that it's a legislative body, then the subject passes WP:NPOL. However, I'm !voting with weak keep because I may be incorrect with that assertion. Curbon7 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If I'm wrong about that, he would likely fail WP:NPOL, as I don't believe an executive councilor would otherwise count as a statewide office. Curbon7 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing indicates this fellow is an elected politician. It appears he is a successful businessman appointed to an executive council. Nothing here meets GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Whiteguru, NPOL does not specify that a politician necessarily has to be elected, merely that they have held a qualifying office. Curbon7 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly a prominent government member, director general of the Dubai Health Authority among other things. Googling قاضي المروشد gives plenty results. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DGG. Curbon7's logic can be considered because UAE is not a democratic country. -Hatchens (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

even were it a democratic country, none of the positions he held would usually be elected positions. They're just administrative appointments. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Prior to its nomination for deletion, this article was arguably vandalised, with an edit on 29 March removing 8/9ths of the content and all but one of its references and citations. The individual is clearly a public figure with a quite publicly documented track record of service in positions of authority within government (elected or not). Iskandar_323 (talk) 7:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The material removed was a large mass of blatant promotionalism, with extensive name dropping of every possible dignitary, and incredible claims to have had magnificent success in everything he ever worked on. It's conceivable there may be a few valid references in among this, but the material was removed by a reliable and experienced editor, and was the only possible way to rescue what would have otherwise been a clear G11 DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, as I am not convinced by the "keep" rationales offered and it seems this person has not held any positions of noteworthiness. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep former member of Dubai's version of the Politburo, albeit less democratic. Passes NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BASIC with one press release as the only source. I couldn't find any reliable coverage. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment The previously linked sources for this page largely appear to have broken or expired. However, it is not hard to find live sources for this page, most notably for the individual's role at the Dubai Health Authority, with the caveat that the correct name spelling appears to be "Qadhi Saeed Al Murooshid", with a space between "Al" and "Murooshid". The page should possibly be moved to reflect this. — Iskandar 323 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - keep arguments don't really convince me. As far as I can see from searching, there appears to be only few useful resources. So subject's notability is quite questionable to me.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Whiteguru. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Michele Megale

Michele Megale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Local politician of small town who's death made the papers. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets GNG. GNG doesn’t distinguish between worldwide or local sources. As long it sources are secondary, independent and reliable. Note he didn’t only had coverage after his death; the Italian article was already created in 2010. SportsOlympic (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Firstly, WP:GNG is not just an indiscriminate "keep anybody who has n>2 media hits regardless of any other considerations" — GNG most certainly does test sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and not just for whether the raw number of hits has exceeded two. We certainly don't have a rule that "local" coverage is inadmissible for use as Wikipedia sourcing, but we do have a rule that a small smattering of "local" coverage is not necessarily always enough in and of itself. For example, every mayor of everywhere can always show two or three hits in their local media — but our rule is that mayors are not all inherently notable just for existing as mayors, so the distinction between a notable mayor and a non-notable mayor does not turn on just showing a smattering of local media hits, it turns on being able to show a lot of coverage demonstrating a reason to treat him as significantly more important and notable than most other mayors. But that's just not being shown here at all.
  And secondly, the fact that the Italian article has existed for a decade isn't determinative: for almost its entire lifespan, it was based entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability, with no reliable or notability-building sources added at all until the blip of death coverage hit in June. So it shouldn't have existed since 2010, because it never had a properly sourced reason to exist either. Also see WP:WAX for further clarification of why "this is a straight translation of an article that already exists on another language Wikipedia" is not a compelling keep argument in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, articles and sources with an overly local scope aren't considered significant. Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearcat. Mccapra (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Mayor of Trapani - As Bearcat mentions, the community expects that there is substantive coverage of the policies and actions of a local elected official. Usually, the expectation is that the coverage is contemporary, adds context to decisions or actions, and ideally not composed solely of local sourcing. --Enos733 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ezhar Cezairli

Ezhar Cezairli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

City councillors don't tend to meet WP:NPOL and dentists certainly meet no part of WP:N. I couldn't establish that she meets WP:N, but something might be lost in translation. Possible redirect to her political party? Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The German Wikipedia article is longer than the English one, with more references. She is also notable as a representative of secular and liberal Muslims, and many of the references seem to deal with her disagreements with mor traditional Muslims. The Frankfurt article says "Its 763,380 inhabitants as of 31 December 2019 make it the fifth-most populous city in Germany.", which suggests that Frankfurt may be big enough that its city councillors are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - my German is awful, but if I try to look up German-language sources, there does seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Like, it seems like there's coverage of her in Die Tageszeitung, in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in Frankfurter Rundschau, mention of her in Die Welt, etc... Could someone with better German take a look for German-language sources? NHCLS (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - A google search with the Books option on shows paragraphs discussing her in Dilemmas of Inclusion: Muslims in European Politics (2017) and Religion, Identity and Politics: Germany and Turkey in Interaction (2013). She's quoted in Legal Integration of Islam (2013) and mentioned among others in Governing Muslims and Islam in Contemporary Germany (2018). Then there's a whole string of German-language books. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As a town councillor she doesn't pass NPOL, but the German wiki article has a range of reliable sources for her political activism, which seems to take her past GNG. Furius (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

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 exists that the subject passed WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

James Heartfield

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/James Heartfield

James Heartfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for academics as described in these guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

The subject was an unsuccessful candidate for an election. The subject of the page does not meet the notability criteria for politicians as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians_and_judges — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maud.Clowd (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• He may, however, meet the requirements of an author. He's published quite a lot of books, which sit somewhere in between academic and popular, making it hard to know exactly what standards to use. However, I note that his book "The British and Foreign Anti Slavery Society" has been subject to a number of independent reviews [1][2] Elemimele (talk) 09:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: I hadn't considered that his notability might come from him being an author. However, the reviews you reference are published in academic journals. I think academic books in history will usually have independent book reviews. So I'm not sure this makes the author notable. Perhaps a historian could confirm or deny this. Maud.Clowd (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest idea! I know we're encouraged to use common sense about academic books that may have smaller print-runs and appeal to a narrower range of people (i.e. a truly academic book that got reviewed twice in academic journals would have been one that made an exceptional impact; most fade into literature without mention!), but my impression is that these are supposed to appeal more widely, in which case you're completely right. I have no strong feelings either way. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Heartfield01 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC) I tend to agree that losing an election is not notable. But I think that my research and written work has made a valuable contribution in a number of areas. Both books The Aborigines' Protection Society and the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society are the acknowledged leaders on their particular subjects. According to Google Scholar, my book on the Aborigines' Protection Society has been cited in 99 collected books and articles. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=5704919096256914697&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

For the Royal Geographical Society Jonathan Wright named The Aborigines' Protection Society 'book of the month' when it was published in November 2011, saying it was 'a major, well-written and closely researched contribution to the study of 19th century imperialism' (Geographical, November 2011, p 65) It was, according the the journal Settler Colonial Studies 'A welcome and long overdue history of one of the most influential lobby groups in Britain and its emerging empire during the nineteenth century.'

Senior Lecturer in colonial and indigenous histories of Australia and the Pacific at La Trobe University Tracey Banivanua Mar, while critical, accepted that the Aborigines' Protection Society was 'formidably researched, and for any student of British imperialism the book will be instructive and fascinating'. (Arena) I think that the reason that the APS book (and this is also true of the BFASS book) was successful was that it was based on close research of the thousands of pages that the Society published on different parts of the world where Britain was active. The material covered simply had not been looked at in the detail before. I'll add more about the other works later.

Heartfield01 (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC) My book The Death of the Subject Explained has been cited 190 times https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&hl=en&user=nm5fgNEAAAAJ Munira Mirza, when she was culture secretary at the Greater London Authority wrote that it was 'one of the most useful guides to why we thing about culture and arts in the way we do'. (International Journal of Cultural Policy, Vol 16, No 1, February 2010, 58-9)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• keep with a number of reviews including [3] [4] [5] and the ones found by @Elemimele: he passes WP:NAUTHOR. @Maud.Clowd: Generally academic reviews are counted towards notability per WP:NAUTHOR. I would fail to see how reviews in academic journals are less important than other reviews, I would rather suggest that they are held to a higher standard and assess scholarly contribution. In general as long as the venue in which the review appears is reliable, we can use it -- there are many niche genres outside academia where authors become notable by being reviewed in a specialized journal (eg science fiction etc). Given that multiple books of his have multiple reviews, this also means WP:BLP1E doesnt apply here but this shows a consistent streak of recognized scholarship. --hroest 16:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hannes Röst: I'm not suggesting that academic reviews are in any way unreliable sources, just that if one publishes an academic book (in some disciplines) then it extremely likely to be reviewed (in an academic journal) - so it doesn't really indicate notability. In particular, it seems that the majority of academic historians employed by British universities (beyond the early career stage) will have published a book which will have been reviewed in academic journals (so it isn't particularly notable). Mathematics is an extreme case i.e. all papers published in maths journals of good standing are reviewed on mathscinet - so clearly don't contribute to notability. As mentioned in my reply to Elemimele, I didn't consider notability as an author. The WP:NAUTHOR guidelines are a lot more vague, so personally, I find it hard to determine whether he is notable or not under those guideline. If the page is kept, it would be good if someone reviewed it as it looks like it may have been mainly written by someone close to James Heartfield and in earlier times, James Heartfield himself. Maud.Clowd (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete -- I see no evidence that he is an academic. He has certainly produced a number of books, whose titles suggest to me that he has some kind of political slant to his history. A few good reviews in specialist periodicals do not make an author notable without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: the argument is not that he fulfills NPROF but that he passes WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether he is politically biased or not does not matter here. --hroest 02:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep -- Heartfield would appear to meet qualification 1 under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NACADEMIC&redirect=no in the case of three of his published works, in that they are cited by authors working in his different fields (which is something other than being reviewed). Here, here and here. Murray McDonald (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I added 16 published reviews of five of his books to the article, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable historian in his area, as per reviews. Page useful to other historians. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Clint Curtis

Clint Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. Not notable for making whistleblower complaints either. Reads like a collection of controversies and a collection of stale news blurbs. KidAd • SPEAK 22:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If " During that same year, Curtis's accusations against Yang were the subject of a series of articles in the Daytona Beach News-Journal" is correct, with other whistleblower coverage, might be notable for that.

• Delete, per WP:TNT. I don't often make this argument, but this article is an unqualified disaster as a BLP, and if I were writing it I would start completely from scratch. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Geschichte (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Melissa DeRosa

Melissa DeRosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

"Secretary to the governor" is not a position that comes close to meeting WP:NPOL, even if the governor is controversial. KidAd • SPEAK 16:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, against deletion. Clearly meets criteria. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The position she has is described as the most powerful non-elected office in New York. Massive press coverage. "Secretary to the governor" is NOT a low-level secretarial job, and we shouldn't mix it up with this (which may have happened?). Her job has been described as overseeing the daily government operations for the State on New York. And, she meets WP:General Notability Guidelines: significant coverage, reliable sources, the author is independent on the subject and "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." She has been described as the "spearhead" of the Cuomo sex scandal coverup. Mwinog2777 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep I have revised the article and plan to continue working on it, but including what I have found, it appears that per WP:NPOL, she is a Major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage per the footnote to that section, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, e.g. Melissa DeRosa named New York’s first female secretary to the governor, (NY Daily News, 2017), Cuomo Promotes Chief of Staff, Melissa DeRosa, to Be His Secretary (NYT, 2017), DeRosa recalls sexual harassment, urges women to speak up (Politico, 2017), How Secretary to the Governor Melissa DeRosa Is Leading Cuomo's Coronavirus Response (ELLE, 2020), Who Can Say ‘No’ to Cuomo? His Top Aide, Melissa DeRosa (NYT, 2020), Melissa DeRosa was on the rise, then the last two months happened (City&State, 2021), Cuomo report spotlights role of top aide Melissa DeRosa in trying to contain sexual harassment crisis (Washington Post, 2021), but this significant, in-depth coverage also supports WP:GNG notability. Beccaynr (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. A considerable number of the reliable sources cited in the article give her WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Regardless of her official title, DeRosa has garnered significant coverage due to her role in Cuomo's controversies. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given above. Also worth noting that, according to NYT, she "was the most powerful appointed official in the state". The title doesn't need its own article, but I think she clearly does. Cpotisch (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, as she meets GNG thanks to significant press coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per GNG. She's not a "secretary" who types letters. In New York, her job is equivalent to chief of staff. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Technically, the role of Secretary to the Governor appears to be a position above chief of staff in New York, i.e. Cuomo Promotes Chief of Staff, Melissa DeRosa, to Be His Secretary (NYT, 2017). Beccaynr (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is correct. This, which I have copied from Executive Chamber of Eliot Spitzer, confirms this:

"Spitzer was responsible for appointing his Executive Chamber. These appointments did not require the confirmation of the New York State Senate. Most political advisors report to the Secretary to the Governor of New York, while most policy advisors report to the Director of State Operations, who also answers to the Secretary to the Governor, making that position, in practice, the true Chief of Staff and most powerful position in the Cabinet.[1] The literal Chief of Staff is in charge of the Office of Scheduling and holds no authority over other cabinet officials.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLo-Watson (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• KEEP, Secretary to THE governor in NY is the one of the highest policy advisory positions in the NY governor’s executive chamber. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Chamber_of_Andrew_Cuomo

UNTIL she resigned, Derosa was among the highest paid and most influential appointees in NY’s executive branch. She resigned abruptly about a week ago after the New York Attorney General’s investigative report revealed that she was the center of a political and sexual harassment scandal involving Governor Cuomo. The editor that suggested deletion needs to know that in American federal and state government offices, just as with the secretary of state of the United States, Derosa was not a ‘secretary’ in the sense of somebody who types dictation. she is at the center of a major scandal that resulted in the governor of the fourth largest state in the United States resigning under a cloud and under threat of first impeachment of a NY governor in over 100 years. She belongs in wikipedia with her own listing more than many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.144.113.65 (talk • contribs) 09:34, August 12, 2021(UTC)

• Keep As others have said, the term "secretary," in this context, is a significant political position, and recent press coverage has been more than significant to cover WP:GNG Niftysquirrel (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician)

Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nothing but local coverage of the local election. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Local elected officials are not inherently notable, per WP:NPOL. Non-election sources are lacking, so that makes WP:GNG tough to judge, but it looks like a fail for now. Curbon7 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete another manifestation of our overcoverage of Nofolk County, Massachusetts which is generally definable as Dedhammania.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Johnpacklambert, yup. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. County sheriff is not a level of office that automatically guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NPOL, and the article is not demonstrating or sourcing any credible reason to treat this one as a special case of greater notability than most others. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Participants are encouraged to improve the article by adding the sources indicated below to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Victor de Padua

Victor de Padua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability and verifiability in question. Article was unsourced for more than a decade. I found no reliable online references as per WP:BEFORE.

Deproded by User:Necrothesp. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: It took a while, but I finally found a seemingly reliable source that places de Padua as the governor of Batanes; this US Army document. Since governors are notable per WP:NPOL so long as we have a source that supports it, this now passes that criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I found some other miscellaneous documents about him that don't confer notability themselves, but may be useful to others, so I'll leave them here: a book and a document placing him as a superintendent, and a couple of Masonic newspapers which document his movements a bit. Curbon7 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by Curbon. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Tom Horner

Tom Horner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Third-party also-ran clearly fails WP:NPOL. Only routine election coverage from more than a decade ago with no claim to lasting notability. KidAd • SPEAK 23:04, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Tom Horner got over 10% of the vote in state level race. The article could use some updates since 2010. I see his name in the Minnesota news on a regular basis, and as as political writer [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Tom Ruen (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - He continues to appear in the news. Comfr (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

^WP:LOTSOFGHITS. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Independence Party was a major party in Minnesota at the time. Mrfeek (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and no, whether you define the party he ran for as "major" or "minor" doesn't make a difference to that at all, as "losing candidate for a major party" still isn't a notability criterion. Notability is also not boosted by sources where Tom Horner is the author of content about other things, so none of Tom Ruen's hits above help at all — notability can only be established by sources where Tom Horner is the subject of third party analytical content written by other people, and the existence of run of the mill campaign coverage of a losing candidate is not enough in and of itself if he can't be shown to have garnered any non-trivial coverage in other contexts as well, precisely because every losing candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, rather, it would have to be demonstrated that either (a) he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him into Wikipedia independently of an unsuccessful election candidacy, or (b) he could show a strong reason why his candidacy should be regarded as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Neither of those things are in evidence here, however. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Bearcat said it better that I could. Just cause someone ran as a major party candidate does not make them notable, per WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 08:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Suonii180 (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Bearcat. His candidacy is already covered in 2010 Minnesota gubernatorial election and is not notable enough for a standalone article. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearcat and WP:NPOL. --hroest 18:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearcat. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Klement Tinaj

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Klement Tinaj
• Articles for deletion/Klement Tinaj (2nd nomination)

Klement Tinaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable actor has become non-notable political dabbler; filled with fluff like what plays he was in in high school. Orange Mike | Talk 02:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The references seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Very poor sourcing. Clearly a WP:PROMO piece created by the article’s subject. Certainly fails WP:NPOL as an obscure perennial candidate. KidAd • SPEAK 06:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. improved the article a bit. There were many bad and dead sources. But I also found some sources regarding his California governor run. Peter303x (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR as his IMDB page doesn't indicate notable roles and fails WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate. I think most coverage can be boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MILL as most failed candidates do not qualify for articles and niche coverage isn't exactly great for WP:GNG. — BriefEdits (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete The sourcing here is horrible and clearly full of badly-disguised PR connected to the man himself. These articles in particular are poorly written and wildly exaggerate his participation in Furious 7, where he was a background extra at best, and are full of lavish praise that clearly comes from the horse's mouth. His "run" for CA governor is only mentions of him among all the other filler candidates running and is not genuine coverage. All in all, there's little here that's actually notable beyond the dressup. Nohomersryan (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Christian Jensen Jr.

Christian Jensen Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Résumé-like biography of a small-town mayor, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. The strongest notability claim on offer here is that a piece of public infrastructure was named after him following his death, but that isn't an instant notability freebie in the absence of adequate sourcing (stuff gets named after former mayors all the time, everywhere), and the footnoting here is almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, user-generated genealogical content on FamilySearch or Find a Grave, and a university history essay that happens to mention his name a few times without being about him in any non-trivial sense. (One of the FamilySearch hits is actually a clipping of a newspaper obituary, but (a) that isn't enough coverage to get a smalltown mayor over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only real media hit he has, and (b) it fails to actually identify the newspaper in which it was originally published.) Further, the article was created by a single purpose account with no history of contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic, who's almost certainly a member of Christian Jensen's own family (thus violating our conflict of interest rules) as their username lines right up with the married surname of one of Jensen's daughters. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt Christian Jensen from having to have a lot more real coverage about him in real media than this, and Wikipedia is not a free platform to memorialize your own ancestors. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems this entire article will come down to the veracity of the statement: "He was instrumental in establishing several of the leading agricultural organizations in Alberta of the early 20th century." A quick Google search returned little, although I'm presently not sure enough one way or the other to make a !vote just yet. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Gerri Ratliff

Gerri Ratliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Certainly accomplished, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, in addition to the sources already in the article the subject is quoted in The Wall Street Journal, a major publication. NemesisAT (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Quoted in" isn't a notability criterion for political figures. Notability does not derive from being the speaker in coverage about other things, it derives from being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, as director of the Community Relations Service, a significant DOJ department. Also, I don't see how WP:NPOL applies here, given that she's not a politician or judge. KidAd • SPEAK 18:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - The position director of the Community Relations Service, is a political appointment, therefore NPOL would apply. And being it's director is not an automatic notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. The role she was appointed to is not an "inherently" notable one under WP:NPOL, so she isn't automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she has a job — her includability would come down to getting her over WP:GNG on the sourcing, but the sources here aren't cutting it: three of the five footnotes are primary sources self-published by her own employers, which are not support for notability, and both of the other two just briefly namecheck her as a giver of soundbite in articles that aren't about her, which is not support for notability either. As I noted above, people do not attain notability by getting quoted in coverage of other things, they attain notability by being the subject that other people are talking or writing about. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Being the director of "a significant DOJ department" doesn't convey automatic notability, either under NPOL or any other SNG. That leaves us with the GNG, which Ratliff fails: the primary sources cited in the article don't move the needle, and all other press coverage is simply single-sentence trivial mentions (or quotes) that don't amount to significant coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nom and Extraordinary Writ. --Sreeram Dilak (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Dougher

Leslie Dougher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable politician. BEFORE returns only one usable source (string: "leslie dougher") which in turn makes sourcing a potentially fatal issue for the article; I'm willing to buy that there are offline sources but what I can find on Google isn't making weight. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. I found plenty of media references to Leslie Dougher on Google, as well as what appeared to be public records of election results and so forth. I think being chair of a major political party at state level is notable. If she were some sort of precinct boss I'd be happy to lose this article, but Florida's got more than 20 million people, so this is a significant position. I do note that the article is a bit thinner than those of her predecessor and successor, but no doubt some politics junky will get round to filling this in over time. RomanSpa (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Her predecessor and successor were elected to notable offices, unlike Dougher, so RomanSpa's argument does not hold water. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• KEEP. State level Chairperson of a major political party is a notable position. See also Harold Alexander (Florida politician). SWP13 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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 Revolutionary Socialist Party (Leninist). SpinningSpark 18:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ambalathara Sreedharan Nair

Ambalathara Sreedharan Nair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bio of a recently deceased person who definitely does not pass WP:NPOL as he was an unsuccessful candidate for election. Head of a splinter party that won one seat in the state assembly. Existing sources confirm he was an unsuccessful candidate, that there was a leadership spat and that he died. A redirect to the article on his party was reverted but I think this would be an appropriate outcome. There may be other sources in Malayalam that I can’t find or analyse. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not soft-deleting due to revert of redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of adequate references for WP:GNG The directory listing at https://www.electwise.in/politician/ambalathara-sreedharan-nair/ does not itself establish notabilty. Unsuccessful election candidates can still be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Redirect I remember doing a speedy but it was saved. Doesn't need a standalone article. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG none of the four references in the article are indepth.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: just checking that was really a “keep” vote as the rationale didn’t suggest it was. Mccapra (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Malayalam source Is brief and states the subject died.
• My Neta A general site Lists and gives details about the all candidates contesting the Indian elections.
• Deccan chronicle Is about a inner party dispute
• Electwise A general site only states the candidate lost 2011 assembly elections.

None of them contribute to WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NPOL. No clear path for a redirect, does not pass WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

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.