Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abote2 (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 7 July 2019 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump derangement syndrome. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Ankit Jain

Ankit Jain (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as an election candidate, fails WP:NBASIC otherwise. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the election is uncontested (Green Party didn't field a nominee) and less than a month away. The position of Shadow Senator is a federal position, equivalent to a senator. There's also a decent amount of coverage already [15][16][17] Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying they would meet NPOL if elected, but they don't right now. Routine election coverage of candidates is expected and doesn't really count towards anything. I would support a draftification that can be reverted if they win, but right now they are not notable. C F A 💬 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the coverage is decent as is, what reason is there to get rid of the article of a person who has a 99.9999% chance of being elected into office just before an election? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify per nom (lean draftify IMO). I've talked with the page creator about WP:NPOL already, including a bit about how a candidate's article was not put into mainspace until he actually won the election. Right now, on the page, there are four sources, two are routine coverage, one is an endorsement, and one is Wikipedia:BALLOTPEDIA. Searching on Google doesn't yield much that can be added. They don't seem to pass NPOL or WP:GNG until he actually wins the election. reppoptalk 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also wouldn't be opposed to draftifying the article until November. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Singh

Praveen Singh (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)

Praveen Singh does not meet the qualifications for a Wikipedia page, especially under the WP:NPOL notability guidelines. His role as a block pramukh lacks national significance and does not represent a state or province-level office in India. Note: This page is being nominated as part of an ongoing New Page Patrol (NPP) training exercise. Charlie (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should be kept as Praveen Singh has been a notable political figure in Uttar Pradesh with significant contributions to regional politics, being a local i am aware he's going to contest for block elections in 2026 from Machhrehta Block. In case of India, the Panchayati Raj system still prevails and for Indians the block levels are really significant offices in government. IndianQuest (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ururuka

Paul Ururuka (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)

During the time he was alive no news talked about him to pass WP:GNG. Now his dead a governor has to build a Statue of him in remembrance of his works in the construction of road which is the only significant coverage. That means during the times he was alive he wasn't important to the news to be talked about which fails notability on wikipedia but his well known to the Nigerian east politicians. Aside being remembered as the late Minister of Works due to his death. Theirs nothing else to proof notability. Gabriel (……?) 13:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again @Gabriel601 has nominated my article for deletion. This is the 3rd time he is doing so in a week or so making me wonder what this is all about. Nevertheless, regarding Paul Ururuka, who was honoured with the national honour of Commander of the Federal Republic by Rt. Hon Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, the first President of Nigeria, he is notable. You may reference some Nigerian history to get convinced. Cfaso2000 (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfaso2000, not everyone conferred with CON, OON or similar titles is notable. Ururuka is notable here simple notable because he was a regional minister for works and simpler positions. Don’t create articles because they were given titles by the government. This ain’t politics. Best, Reading Beans 14:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Regional minister listed on the Regional minister article page that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The WP:NPOL state that 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. If I can repeat that again "does not guarantee notability." If not they are lot of politicians with a lot of political office work but no coverage about them. Other editors can now possibly use statement from this AFD rather than what Wikipedia says to judge their own article. Gabriel (……?) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was Engr. David Umahi I will accept that because his not only given the position of a minister of work same as Paul Ururuka but has a lot of coverage about him. My question is that where was the news when Paul Ururuka was alive. Gabriel (……?) 17:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Cypriot presidential election

2028 Cypriot presidential election (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)

Sounds like a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The election is more than 3 years from now Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam VanHo

AfDs for this article:
Adam VanHo (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:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The majority of references are either non-independent, court documents, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS predominantly in local news. No substantive change from the previous 2009 AfD ending in deletion. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage to establish notability. GhostOfNoMeme 21:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD notes the author as Adamvanhoforjudge (obvious COI). This time, it's Akronbrownsfan – the very same user who created the now-deleted Midwest Law Blog article, a blog that was run by Adam VanHo (as you can see via this Wayback archive which after a few seconds redirects to http://www.vanholaw.com/blog.aspx), and with zero other contributions. Some other obvious COI edits in the article's history, too (such as 330akron, Ohiodad, Akron44308 – accounts that pop up to edit his article once and disappear). GhostOfNoMeme 21:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wilson (businessman)

Keith Wilson (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)

Non-notable political candidate and businessman. This page was previously created and deleted under a different name. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Bearian: and @SportingFlyer:, who voted in the last deletion discussion for Keith Wilson. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Anderson (politician)

Derrick Anderson (politician) (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)

Political candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Otherwise, there is no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nomination, doesn't yet meet WP:NPOL until he's won an election. An online search for reliable sources returned routine candidate coverage and interviews with Anderson, and interviews are primary sources. His previous work in the White House was as a lawyer for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and I couldn't find any SIGCOV of him in that role. The closest I came was these two articles in the Washington Post [19], [20], both of which are about the election rather than about Anderson. The sentence in WP:NPOL that declares presumed notability for "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" doesn't seem to apply here, so I don't see that as pulling him over the line for WP:NPOL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to redirect per User:Bkissin below. Wikishovel (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freeland Wood

Freeland Wood (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)

Does not PASS WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources listed are all from a local paper while the other is election results. After an internet search there does not appear to be anymore significant coverage to make him notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Goyal (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:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one -- but this neither demonstrates that he had sufficient preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, nor that his candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. No prejudice against recreation after October 5 if he wins, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to already get him into an encyclopedia today. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. While I understand that simply running for a political office may not meet the notability requirements under WP:NPOL, I would like to clarify that Naveen Goyal's notability extends beyond his candidacy. He is the co-founder of CanWinn Foundation, a prominent NGO engaged in substantial social work, particularly in the healthcare sector. Over the years, his efforts have benefited countless individuals through health services, skill development initiatives, and community welfare projects. His contributions as a social worker have received significant media attention and public recognition, making him notable for his social impact.
His candidacy for political office stems from this established reputation in public service. In fact, he is running for office precisely because of his existing notability and influence as a social worker. His candidacy is not what makes him notable, but rather his track record of impactful social work is what has led him to pursue a larger platform to serve the public.
Given these broader contributions to society, I believe Naveen Goyal meets the notability criteria beyond just his candidacy, and therefore, the article should remain. Of course, I am open to improving the article further to highlight these aspects of his work.
Thanks and regards. Anish Semalty (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cofounding an organization isn't a notability freebie either, and a person still has to pass WP:GNG for that. Which means he has to be the subject of a significant volume of coverage in his own right, and it is not enough that his name gets mentioned in articles that aren't about him. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Tang Williams

Lily Tang Williams (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)

Non-notable congressional candidate. Winning a U.S. House primary does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page, and I don't see how she passes GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, I forgot that she has lost multiple elections. I don't know where the best redirect target would be, but if you think it's best for 2024, I'll defer to you. Bkissin (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
There's quite a few sources about her immigration/escape from China, if that matters, such as:
Interview with John Stossel 6 years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMWs8RyLLI:
https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/congress/2024/9/10/lily-tang-williams-republican-candidate-unique-perspective
https://bunewsservice.com/lily-tang-williams-living-the-american-dream/
https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/lily-tang-williams-growing-communist-china
From UK (though the Daily Mail is marginal):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146007/lily-tang-williams-congressional-candidate-republican-biden-border.html
From Japan:
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/5f210f5b6a3e-focus-asian-americans-voice-reasons-they-back-republicans-in-new-hampshire.html
And actually being in a debate with a sitting Senator as a Libertarian, which pretty much has never happened ("In a first, Libertarian candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race qualifies for major debate"):
https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/lily-tang-williams-libertarian-candidate-colorados-us-senate-debate/
https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/what-lily-tang-williams-said-colorado-libertarian-u-s-senate/
https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10/15/lily-tang-williams-us-senate/
Colorado Public Radio:
https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/childhood-in-china-shapes-libertarian-senate-candidates-vision-for-colorado-country/
I'm not sure if Fox News is considered a credible source, but there's more about her & China:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/survivor-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-scary-history-repeat-college-campuses
https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-immigrant-running-congress-fears-marxism-followed-us-witnessing-youth-indoctrination
https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/survivor-of-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-history-repeat-on-college-campuses/
More about China and the gun control debate with David Hogg:
https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-gun-control-activist-david-hogg-torched-ccp-survivor-go-china-see-gun-control-works/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.125.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are college newspapers not considered valid supporting sources? Heritage Foundation may not be a news outlet but its not deprecated and a highly influential conservative think tank. "Generally" unreliable sources need to be analyzed in totality not in part, so if there are 3 "generally" unreliable sources, a rational determination needs to be made as to whether the small part of them that is reliable is strong enough to create notability. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an academic journal reference where she appears: "Academic Marxism in the Crosshairs: What is at Stake in the U.S.?" in Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2024). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48771892 216.147.125.142 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume they meant for the same reasons as noted by SineBot, as they also said: “…has enough news coverage as indicated above”.
Do you, BottleOfChocolateMilk, have any response to what SineBot had to say, as they are the one whose argument seems to inspiring the majority of “Keep” votes Wickster12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...yes? I directly replied to their message right after they posted it. Also, that message was not posted by SineBot, it was posted by an IP user. SineBot is the bot that automatically adds a signature to people who don't sign their comments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But like a previously stated, that was a minor detail. She has recieved significant media coverage and does represent a district that very well could swing her way in 2024. Also, I know we’re not supposed to compare certain cases to each other, but there have been numerous other instances of less notable people in 2024 with Wikipedia articles. NathanBru (talk)
  • Keep because she has recieved substantial media coverage from major news outlets for both her 2022 and 2024 runs and has appeared in a documentary (The Great Awakening). 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons listed above. She has received substantial media coverage for her 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns and for her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign as a Libertarian, has appeared in documentaries, and has been interviewed by national media organizations like Fox News and Newsmax. There's also precedent for people equally and even less significant than Lily Tang Williams having a Wikipedia article. George Hansel is a former small town mayor who unsuccessfully ran for Congress once and now hosts a regional talk show (the station that hosts Hansel's show is so small that it doesn't even broadcast to me, and I live in New Hampshire only an hour away from Keene); Hansel is arguably no more significant than any other local politician, yet considering his article has existed for nearly 3 years without issue, there seems to be no question that he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Lily Tang Williams is much more significant than Hansel and I would argue that she just as deserving of a Wikipedia article, if not more so, than him. Eureka640 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then ignore the Hansel argument. The fact still remains that she has been the subject of much media coverage over the past decade for her Libertarian activism and congressional candidacies, including interviews on major national news stations. Eureka640 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG is met through the sheer number of sources (per above). Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Alberto Fujimori

Death of Alberto Fujimori (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)

Single event, unlikely to garner more details (that would arguably add to the lack of notability of the event), already covered in Fujimori's page. Fails WP:1E, WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand It is highly notable, but just needs an expansion. dunno if a convict will have a state funeral, but that is notable iniself.Sportsnut24 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait it's likely that the consequences of Fujimori's death will be notable; he will be getting a state funeral per El País and there will be more to come. If by the end of the seven days there's nothing notable that's happened, then I'll change my vote. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely sufficient to cover this in the main article. Violates WP:NOTNEWS. Having a state funeral (or not) is in no way a reason for a content fork. Geschichte (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man has just died, there's little point in nominating the article now, how big the event will be is WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, the article passes WP:GNG and the funeral itself and its aftermath are yet to happen. I would like to point out that this isn’t just any state funeral; this was one of if not the most influential figure in Peruvian politics and across Latin America. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The guy may be influential, but the circumstances of death doesn't really ring much. If it were an extraordinary COD it may have passed GNG. As for the funeral it is WP:CRYSTAL. Borgenland (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to re-nominating later or userfying if it turns out there's not much to say.
In my experience, these notnews/crystal deletions are typically pointless -- the news keeps rolling in, and the article gets edited, until it's clear whether it's notable. The deletion rationale seems simple at the front end, but trying to discuss notability as new articles get added daily is like trying to sweep back the tides ("relisting, anyone care to comment on the new sources identified above?") Oblivy (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely sufficient to cover this in the main article. --UpEpSilon (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And Wait. Let's see how this story develops Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Main article can easily cover this. "Death of [Person]" articles do not need to exist separately from biographical articles that the person already had — they're created only where the death itself is a notable event but the person was not independently notable enough to get a conventional biographical article at all, meaning that they exist instead of a biographical article about the dead person, not as a supplement to a biographical article about the dead person. The deaths of already-notable people with biographical articles are covered in the biographical article, not in separate death-of spinoffs. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although there's WP:SIGCOV, Fujimori already has an article. There's no need for a second one detailing his death - all new information can be added to the main article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Yet another absurd rush to create separate and redundant pages. Add content to Alberto Fujimori#Illness and death, then propose a split if there's sufficient content. The main article also has a whole Legacy section that would cover how people react to his death. If you think the main article is too long, move other content to the several existing subarticles rather than jumping to make another. Reywas92Talk 17:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is in fact scope for expansion and Fujimori was a notable political figure. Jang317 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable political figures who already had biographical articles do not get their deaths spun off to separate "death of notable figure" articles — "Death of X" articles exist only for people who were not already notable in life so that the death itself is their entire basis for notability, and people who were already notable in life have their deaths covered in the biographical article rather than in a separate content fork. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this meant to be opinion or a statement of policy/guidelines/consensus? There many articles, for example Death and state funeral of Ruhollah Khomeini, Death of Li Keqiang, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II and so on, for people who were extremely notable in life. I'm not arguing for WP:OTHER, but I genuinely wonder if what you are saying is a policy, guideline, or even a consensus in the community.
N.B. [[Category:Deaths and funerals of politicians]] appears to support my point above about apparent lack of consensus for the position that these articles are not for people who were famous in life. Oblivy (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A important event. Many other "Death of ____" articles exist. This isn't just the death of a random diplomat. It is the former President of Peru, who is notorious. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 09:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / Delete The manner of his death was not newsworthy in itself, the funeral will be covered, but IMHO doesn’t need its own page when it can be used to cap off the main page about him instead.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Castle

AfDs for this article:
Darrell Castle (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, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Routine coverage, interviews, profiles, election news. No indication of signficance. scope_creepTalk 08:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As a presidential nominee, Castle did better than any other Constitution Party candidate in both of his runs, winning nearly 200k votes each time. He was endorsed by Glenn Beck in 2016 and got some meaningful coverage [21][22][23][24]
As a lawyer, he founded Darrell Castle & Associates and has been interviewed by the New York Times earlier this year relating to the sale of Graceland. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirmai Ghebremariam

Ghirmai Ghebremariam (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)

Article of low relevance considering it is the biography of a living person and a current politician WP:BASIC. Alon9393 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Lenz

Shelley Lenz (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)

Non-notable political candidate – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Covey

James P. Covey (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:BLP of a diplomat and politician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats or politicians. The attempted notability claim here is that he was nominated for a subcabinet position but was never confirmed into the role by the senate, which is not "inherently" notable in and of itself -- the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just being nominated for one -- but the article says absolutely nothing else about his career up to that point to suggest any other basis for preexisting notability, and it's referenced 2/3 to primary sources that are not support for notability at all. And while there is one reliable source to a piece of media coverage, one of those isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note This editor has since been blocked for vandalism. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Morse

AfDs for this article:
Jessica Morse (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)

Non-notable congressional candidate and state government official. Page previously created and deleted back in 2018 (though that was before her state government service). Of the 24 sources cited on the page: 5 are WP:ROTM coverage of her campaigns, 3 are press releases, 6 are articles about wildfires that quotes her a few times, 3 only mention her in passing, 2 are pages on government websites, 2 are recordings of state legislative committee hearings, 1 doesn't even mention her at all, and only 3 are actual in-depth interviews or profiles with local outlets. Someone is not inherently notable just because they ran for Congress and held a relatively minor position in state government, and the coverage I'm seeing here doesn't convince me she meets GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're right that running by itself does not make one notable. However, she's still notable for her work regarding wildfires which came after the page was deleted originally, and as I see it she definitely meets GNG. First there's this Sacramento Bee story, which despite being "local" as you say, is still 27th largest paper in the U.S., so it's not exactly a small town paper. This is also, though local, still notable enough to help with GNG I think. Then of course there's this profile which is not local at all. There are also things like this, which while they aren't profiles, are more than just passing mentions or quotes, and treat her as notable. If that wasn't enough though I've found a few other things as well via a quick Google search: this 2022 interview on KQED (second half turns into an interview of her background and life after talking about wildfires), this is a Dailykos profile, which although about the election still goes into detail about her; and finally here is another Sac Bee story, this one on her getting the Deputy Secretary job. There's more, but I think with the things I've already mentioned she safely passes GNG. Relinus (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not her first run for office, and most likely will not be her last. What makes her notable, are her public services, within California as well as on a national level. — Maile (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with @Relinus, easily passes GNG Filmforme (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted this article via the AfC process even though I didn't have to, and it was quickly approved. Why re-litigate?
I will respond to the substance of your comments later today or tomorrow. Thiesen (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that running for Congress does not make Morse notable, but her work in wildfire resilience, having attracted sufficient new coverage, does. As an expert on wildfire resilience, Morse is often quoted and invited to speak on the subject.
I had nothing to do with the 2018 article that @BottleOfChocolateMilk mentions. IMO deleting it was correct because Morse was not notable enough at the time.
I chose the sources for verifiability. Here are some that, IMO, also support notability. Other editors may disagree on some of these, and if you disagree I welcome your feedback, but I think GNG is quite clear:
I will add at least one of the sources suggested by @Relinus.
I believe that Morse's work in wildfire resilience has saved lives and helped California homeowners to afford fire insurance. Coverage in the news media recognizes the importance of her work. Thiesen (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Taggart

Logan Taggart (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)

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. He was a member of the town board of a town with a population of 862. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population of a town should not be a factor. He deserves notoriety for being the youngest politician in Colorado history. Bobsmithian (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiki there is basis to keep the article as it does meet standards as I created the article with enough legitimate citations showing he received tens of thousands of votes, spoke on live television and radio and holds a record in politics. @Grahaml35 @CAPTAIN RAJU. I want to make sure there is no political bias in this decision process. Bobsmithian (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - just because an individual has been on television or radio does not automatically qualify them as being notable for a Wiki article. I only mentioned the town size as a bit of information nothing more. The sources on the article and what I could find online are mostly passing mentions and lacks SIGCOV Grahaml35 (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not political bias, as this person isn't in office and editors aren't all in the US regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Based on the creator's contributions, I also strongly suspect this is a paid-for article. I have requested they declare any COI. Number 57 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never been paid for my articles and I have never asked to be. @Number 57 Bobsmithian (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Small town politician, being the youngest in the state... Might be notable, but coverage is all PR items or "what is the politician" doing articles, which are not helpful. I don't find coverage, other than talking his high school/college choices. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A person's age at first election is not an "inherent" notability freebie in and of itself — every single political body that exists at all will always have its own youngest-ever member, so that would simply create instant notability freebies for thousands upon millions of people of no national or international significance. So the notability test for people at the town or city level of governments requires a significant volume of coverage that's specifically about them and their work, enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact — but that's not what's here, and most of the sourcing glancingly namechecks his existence as a participant in events without being about him in any meaningful or WP:GNG-building sense. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Turkey by education

List of presidents of Turkey by education (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)

Tagged uncited for a long time and could be covered in other articles such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan university diploma controversy and List of presidents of Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of mayors of Barboursville, West Virginia

List of mayors of Barboursville, West Virginia (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)

A mostly unsourced and thus unverifiable list of non-notable mayors of a "village". Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The list seems to be referenced by Ref 1 (HMdb.org), but still this appears to be a village of 4000 people with non-notable mayors. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the nominator and second seem to be conflating the population of Barboursville with the notability of this list. The word "village" doesn't determine notability; populated places have generally been deemed notable, irrespective of their size. Additionally Barboursville is an incorporated municipality under the laws of West Virginia, and under West Virginia Code § 8-1-3 Barboursville has been a "class III city" since 1960, and would have been a "class IV town or village" before that. It was also the county seat from 1813 to 1888. As an incorporated municipality, a list of Barboursville's mayors is appropriate, and could be included in the article about Barboursville, without having to demonstrate their individual notability; here, the list has been split out into its own article, because it is fairly long, covering over two hundred years. As a separate issue, the city's own official publications are not independent, and therefore do not count toward establishing the significance, and thus notability of its individual mayors; but as official government publications they may be considered authoritative as to the names of the persons who held that position and at what points in time. I believe that better sources are available for most or all of the mayors, and will visit the library today to find out. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not suggesting Barboursville itself is non-notable. I do on the other hand believe a list of all mayors of a relatively small locality is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list itself meets WP:LISTCRITERIA, the question is whether it should be a separate page or back in the city article. I view these pages as a valid page split (WP:SPLIT) as the content is verifiable, and could be included in the parent article, but because of the size of the content, does not always belong in the parent article. If the information was in the parent article, we would not be having this discussion about notablilty. --Enos733 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I thought the list went back to the beginning, but it only seems to go back to the late 19th century. I did find some materials supporting this list at the public library in Barboursville, but only going back as far as this list does. They're not great sources, but they're published and available for review—anyone can go and check them. At least one was based on the same source listed here: the Barboursville monument with a list of mayors. That's not ideal, but public monuments should probably be treated as official statements by the city, subject to correction using better sources. I'll see about whether any of the other sources make sense to incorporate here. At worst, the list could perhaps be incorporated back into the article about Barboursville, but deletion does not make sense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Warner Robins, Georgia

List of mayors of Warner Robins, Georgia (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)

List of mostly unnotable local politicians. Roasted (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "mostly unnotable local politicians" is not defined, because most of them are still red links. Please see WP:REDLINKS. I think if you look through "Category:Lists of mayors of places in Georgia (U.S. state)" you will find the same un-sourced situation on all of them. And for that matter, it seems to be a trend for most mayoral lists. These are the kinds of lists that are works in progress, and therefore should not be deleted. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Redlinks "indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" - few of those mayors seem notable, to be honest. AusLondonder (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you arrive at "few of those mayors seem notable" just by looking at a red link name? — Maile (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally uncommon for mayors of smaller cities to be notable, per WP:NPOL which states that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Mayors are frequently deleted at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since all the mayors currently with articles are under PRODs. Roasted (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are zero sources, so WP:V is not here. Looks like zero notable entries, too (blue links look temporary). What exactly is the value of this standalone list? If merged into the article, at least more eyes would be looking at it. --Викидим (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Gallo (politician)

Giovanni Gallo (politician) (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 a local politician at the city government level so fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not pass WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG as well. It's telling there is no Italian language wiki page. 4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, could editors arguing for Deletion counter Bearcat's information? Does it make a difference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom

List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom (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:LISTN, very limited discussion about importance of MPs being landlords among indepdent RSs, with the whole list just being primary sourced from the UK Parliament. WP:UNDUE.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United Kingdom.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:UNDUESecretSpectre (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + keeping the list up to date will be a lot of work, as MPs and their properties come and go. Wire723 (talk) 09:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is already met by the category: :List of Landlord MPs of the United Kingdom DimensionalFusion 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    • Notability: This topic passes WP:LISTN (WP:NLIST). This guideline states "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
    • This alone is sufficient reason to keep, but for completeness I'll address other arguments made above:
      • Primary sources: Given that notability is established by the above secondary reliable sources, the use of primary sources alone is not an argument for deletion. The primary sources in this article are used for verifiability, not notability.
        • These primary sources are suitable as, per WP:PRIMARY:
          • they are "reputably published", by UK Parliament
          • there is no interpretation of the sources; they are only used to make "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source" (NB. per WP:CALC, "Routine calculations do not count as original research"..)
          • per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". This source, UK parliament’s register of members’ interests, is explicitly mentioned by name in coverage from at least the FT, Sky, Guardian.
      • Undue weight: As I understand it, this is part of the NPOV policy about the content of an article, not whether an article should exist or not. As above, notability is established by reliable sources. The "background" section of the article attempts to keep due weight between criticism of landlord MPs and the view that these criticisms are too simplistic, but I'd welcome any improvements on this.
      • Duplicates a category: WP:NOTDUPE states "Arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided."
    Jonathan Deamer (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A signifcant portion of RS coverage is just to do with the scandal involving Jas Athwal. I do not consider a few RS articles on some MPs being landlords to sufficently justify a a list on the subject. I mean there were a number of articles around the time of private gentlemen's only (until this year) clubs like the Garrick Club and the MPs who were memebers of them but that does not justify list creation in my opinion.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but generalise to an article: the topic of landlord MPs has indeed been raised in the past, but the list at present is a snapshot of the situation as at the most recent declarations of interests. (How often do they have to update? Annual declaration, or as circumstances change?) The links above show earlier figures. A useful article could assemble all those various figures from articles, while including the current list. I have more doubts about the category Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was added, unsourced, to a couple of items on my watchlist. I don't think it's a useful category, and I don't think it will be maintained. In both the category and the list there is what I see as a problem in including MPs who are renting out their own permanent home while relocating to their constituency or London, ie landlords of a single residential property, almost "amateur" landlords, with those who have a portfolio of properties "professional" landlords. This distinction is made visible in the list, but not in the category. The present list could be made more useful if it included data from past parliaments. The category cannot be justified unless a source (the register of interests) is added to each MP's page, and is then checked every time there is a new register to ensure that those who are no longer landlords are removed: unrealistic. A list can be more clearly identified as a snapshot in time. PamD 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've nominated the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 9#Category:Landlord members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. PamD 19:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @PamD; this is a fair rationale RE: the category and useful feedback on the article. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands, the article has transient notability, and WP:NOTNEWS. Why? The article appears to have been created soon after this news story broke. Many MPs for hundreds of years have been property landlords, and they can't all have owned perfect properties; but now it's suddenly newsworthy. The article is titled "List of landlord Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom", but that title does not qualify the inclusion criteria by timeframe - however, it lists sitting MPs, so to avoid WP:UNDUE, the article should be expanded to include former MPs who had a property portfolio, and I expect that if it is to be at all comprehensive, it would soon become unwieldy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, yes, historically most MPs would have been country gentlemen, landowners and landlords of vast acreages and dozens of peasant hovels! If this list/article is to survive, it needs much clearer definition of its scope. PamD 12:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand for the reasons stated by Jonathan Deamer and by Redrose64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejakyo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete are we going to include every MP for the past hundreds of years? Every peer, MSP, Assembly member? What happens if an MP buys a property, that we aren't aware of, and therefore aren't included even if they are a landlord. I don't think this article will work. DotCoderr (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Peers, MSPs, and MSs are not MPs Bejakyo (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could editors arguing for Delete rebut the Keep arguments?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ellis (police commissioner)

Matthew Ellis (police commissioner) (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)

Local elected officials are not notable through WP:NPOL, the one source listed is a run of the mill election report, which does not contribute to the subject passing WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCCs (including this one) have received significant press coverage, albeit often on a local level. A police constituency can cover a population of several hundred thousand, or even into the millions. Indeed, the population of the Staffordshire area is around 1.146 million. Compare that to a Member of Parliament, whose constituency contains roughly 76,000 people, and a London Assembly member, whose constituency covers less than a million. Consequently it is a notable post, and the holder of it is likely to attract ongoing media attention, thus making them notable. As I have said previously, the consensus at the time these offices were created was that they were notable in the same way we create articles for every MP, MSP, Member of the Senedd and so on. I've also suggested that perhaps what is needed is a wider debate on how we deal with articles about people who hold these posts. This is Paul (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in NPOL that covers police and crime commissioners. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's something we should address though because these articles get nominated for AfD from time to time, and there's no clear guidelines for them. While they're not at the level of MPs they're also not at the level of local councillors. This is Paul (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:OFFICEHOLDER. A police commissioner at this level is unlikely to attract coverage beyond routine spokesbeing reporting, and there's no claim of that in the article. Possibly he could be redirected to the list of officeholders if must but personally I'm not inclined to take AtD as a requirement. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Warnke

Christine Warnke (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)

non-notable, subject has held several local, insiginficant and largely inconsequential appointments. Article reeks of puffery and edits by interested parties Bangabandhu (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

Sonali Phogat (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:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 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"