Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:53, 30 April 2024

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politicians.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Politicians

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Deaton

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a cryptocurrency lawyer who has announced a campaign for Elizabeth Warren's US Senate seat. He doesn't have any particular awards or distinctions as a lawyer to and I can't find enough press coverage to merit an article based on WP:GNG. He hasn't yet been elected to public office and so doesn't merit inclusion on those grounds. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Note the WP:AFD discussion two months ago - nothing material has changed that I can see. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Law, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, what happened here was that User:Dema9049, the article creator, blew off the prior AfD result of redirect, restored the article, the redirect was restored, and Dema9049 reverted the redirect, claiming "The AfD did not provide signification [sic] reasoning for this person to be deleted." That assessment was not theirs to make, obviously. I don't think we need a fresh discussion so much as restoring the redirect that was the outcome of the prior AfD, and to at the very least give User:Dema9049 -- whose talk page history has multiple admonitions against edit warring and template removal -- a very stern warning, and perhaps a page ban. Paging @User:Liz, who did the close of the first AfD. Ravenswing 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. The only thing that made me Wikipedia:Assume good faith here was that the article text has changed quite a bit since the last AFD. But the notability of the subject of the article doesn't appear to have changed at all. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I still don't see notability, even in the field of crypto law. He's only mentioned in passing in regards to a few law cases and there are no biographies in law journals about this person. Still a thin attempt at PROMO I think, given the recent deletion/recreation and rather passionate discussion by someone in his sphere of influence in the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that comes close in Gscholar is various latency simulators discussed in journal articles; I don't think they're related to this field of law, but neither is in my wheelhouse, so I don't know. Still feels like a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's really depressing that someone can just ignore the result of an AfD and recreate the page with no repercussions. This page--which was deleted after editors agreed Deaton is not notable--has now been live on WP for almost an entire month. And I'm sure once the page gets deleted again, its creator will just publish it again, and they'll probably get away with it. Again. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ummeda Ram Beniwal

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

He's an unelected poliical candidate and he doesn't really have coverage outside of being a candidate. Maria Gemmi (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Maria Gemmi (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article requires work and improvement, there are sources available that establish the politician's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. While much of the coverage understandably focuses on his candidacy, there are still a few sources on his life and political endeavor. With additional research, I think there is potential to expand the article further. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. I do not find reliable sources online with coverage on the politician himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPOL or have WP:SIGCOV outside of his political endeavor. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NPOL (not even WP:SIGCOV)..FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, He is very famous in political & media sphere in India.He is contesting from most hot seat of North India. Bajrang6691 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find us the reliable sources and I will the first to amend my vote FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with only 2 sources, I vote for deletion.Rustypenguin (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article, like others recently created for candidates in the 2024 Indian General Election, utterly disregards WP:NPOL. Editors should know that being announced as a candidate and receiving some media coverage does not automatically confer notability. This echoes previous discussions in Afds regarding Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarik Minasyan

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

I cannot find too much info on him in English or Armenian (I copy pasted his name in Armenian in Google). He seems to be an elected official but per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political officedoes not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. " Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Armenia. Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A member of parliament is a clear WP:NPOL#1 pass, I would encourage the nominator to read the guideline more thoroughly. There are additional sources at the hy.wp article. Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with some more content but nom has misunderstood WP:POLITICIAN. An "elected local official" refers to a local councillor, not a member of the national parliament. In fact, members of national legislatures are presumed notable per WP:POLITICIAN. AusLondonder (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarolím Antal

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

nonnotable "expert on social etiquette, state and diplomatic protocol", neglected and unused article. - Altenmann >talk 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete expression of notability not given in article and quick searches through the tools did not find sources/citations/etc. that come close to a typical WP:PROF, Author, or GNG. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only 1 source and nothing else found, I vote for deletion.Rustypenguin (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. per WP:NPOL and WP:BLP1E — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjog Waghere

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

A WP:BEFORE search on Sanjog Waghere has a lot of reliable hits but they are all about his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election for Shiv Sena (UBT) making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG and NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article itself has reliable links from before the candidacy. MrMkG (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. also failed WP:NPOL, If this were the criteria of Wikipedia. So today there would be an article about the candidates who stood and lost in every election. Come on and grow up please. Thanks you Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. To contest candidacy for political office, does not guarantee notability. The degree of significance of the subject and of his role whether as a 3 time corporator or a mayor of industrial city is not enough to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. few sources are present. I vote for deletion. Rustypenguin (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is a new account that rapidly made many AfD comments and got blocked for advertising. MrMkG (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources are there as nominator concedes. But it isn't a case of WP:BLP1E, there is a lot of coverage of him from before candidature. It's just overshadowed by the candidature. I'll link two below. Jolt to Ajit Pawar-led NCP as party stalwart walks over to Sena UBT. He is being called a "party stalwart" which should tell you it's not merely any generic local leader. पुणे: गढ़ में अजित पवार को बड़ा झटका, संजोग वाघेरे ने खटखटाया मातोश्री का दरवाजा (Pune: Big blow to Ajit Pawar in Garh, Sanjog Waghere knocked on Matoshree's door). MrMkG (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have only linked to articles that talk about his candidacy. Raut said they are looking to field Waghere from the Maval Lok Sabha seat. ”We were searching for a strong candidate to represent the party in the Maval Lok Sabha seat. We found Waghere among the strong contenders. We asked him to join the party and he agreed,” he said.

It doesn't matter if he is called a 'party stalwart', as this is what WP:BLP1E states about biographies - Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Butler (Irish politician)

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

Last week I’d proposed this article for deletion. In the time since, some attempt has been made to demonstrate notability. However, I’d argue that he still fails notability under WP:POLITICIAN. The references added show no more than would be the case for anyone who happened to by mayor or cathaoirleach of a council (local coverage of their election, welcoming reports, expressing condolences), but none of which amounts to WP:SIGCOV of the individual themselves. A WP:BEFORE search of "Daniel Butler Limerick" returned only similar information. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Or, failing that, redirect to Mayor of Limerick (as an AtD). In terms of NPOL, the role of chair/mayor of Limerick council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article (and seemingly available) represent the same type of coverage that we might expect for ANY local councillor or political candidate. The sources and coverage, for example, which were added alongside the dePROD, are either the very definition of trivial passing mentions or mentions in coverage of activities (like opening books of condolence) that anyone in the same job would have undertaken (ie: coverage relevant to the role rather than the biographical subject). Except for the fact that this subject is a candidate for the planned/upcoming 2024 Limerick mayoral election, there is nothing material to differentiate the subject from other councillors/candidates. Neither role affording inherent notability (and candidates for office also not being inherently notable).... Guliolopez (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not sure how necessary it is to consider ATD here. The article was published relatively recently, so I doubt there are many external links pointing here. I don't think we'd consider redirects for all the other mayors of Limerick who don't have articles. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL. A local politician who gets the usual mentions in the local news. Spleodrach (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Owen× ☎ 13:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is the third-most populous region in Ireland, so I think it would be easier to show he has outsize influence for his role, but that is not the case yet here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note The article's author, and one of the main contributors, are both socks of the blocked user Cartoons2022. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, lacks otherwise significant coverage in secondary sources. Also per WP:BANREVERT as created by sock of blocked user. AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Auslondoner Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kelly Tshibaka

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

Per Talk:Kelly Tshibaka#Notability 2, I do not believe this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent. Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article. Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office). The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic. We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles). This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign. There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign. Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained. Hemmers (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.

Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
Specifically:
- Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
- The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
- The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?

As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.

As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.

Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?

All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?

Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Just came across List of third-party and independent performances in United States Senate elections. You can see dozens of BLPs listed there for losing candidates who have a lot less notability in reliable sources than the person we’re discussing. Also, people here who support a redirect are not suggesting moving this article’s content, which violates WP:PRESERVE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".

Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines

It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.

So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?

I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.

All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:

What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?

She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.

Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.

I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep

Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect. Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does cover some info about Tshibaka outside the election, it's not that bad in terms of sourcing and per Hameltion. Just because she lost an election doesn't make her any less notable if the article is well sourced. Plus, she appears to be active post-election via activism against rank-choice voting and being chair of Trump's Alaska campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. I’ll support the group consensus but feel strongly that she does not have the necessary notability in her own right to merit her own article. I’ve edited thousands of Wiki pages for federal political candidates and officeholders, and the difference here is she: a) was unsuccessful and thus did not serve in the office that she sought, and b) she has not yet achieved a significant level of notability in business, politics, education, or other ways one would qualify for a WP:BLP article. Running an unsuccessful race is not enough for her to qualify on her own, but her name should certainly redirect to the 2022 election article about the campaign in which she was a candidate. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska as a usual an appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal office in the United States. I also believe that some of the veriable information can be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wretha Hanson

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she was an alternate vice-presidential candidate in one state for a minor fringe party's presidential campaign, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- it could get her an article if she were shown to actually pass WP:GNG for it, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from GNG. But there are just three improperly-formatted footnotes here, all of which are to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, so she hasn't been shown to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have independent sources.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Passes GNG and notability is established per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed

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

Procedural nomination for deletion under WP:BIODELETE per request on my talk. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Arab Emirates. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (recuse/abstain), neither advocate nor oppose deletion, please do not consider my nomination a !vote. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~poor unreliable resources. Myounes22 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you voting here despite your conflict of interest on this subject? Your words, not mine. Also, what's unreliable about the sources? JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inaccurate information, lack of reliable references to the person's notability & insufficient verifiable sources. Mywordsmyspirit555 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Mywordsmyspirit555 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"A user with 2 edits. Account created on 30 April 2024." DBaK (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person holds two very senior positions in the government of Abu Dhabi, analogous to cabinet level positions in other countries. The content regarding alleged violations of hunting laws in Azerbaijan should be removed because it implies a criminal offense though there seems to be no prosecution or conviction, and the offense may not even be considered a crime. If the current content is correct, a violation would be an infraction and a small monetary fine would be the outcome. WP:BLPCRIME is relevant to this issue. I will remove that content for now. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.doh.gov.ae/en/about-doh/leadership he is not a member Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject was, as Cullen328 said, a member of government in not one but ~~two~~ senior positions. Removing disputed content based on dubious sources, what's left is plenty of reliable sources indicating the significance of this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make that three positions as of 2024 (see added source from Emarat Al Youm). He's currently head of National Media Office and a minister in the Emirates by that virtue. Unrelated, I'm a big fan of irony. JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first resource is not working. all other resources are outdated and many of them are blogs and not reliable. additionally, the article is written in CV mode. i vote for deleting. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But in a number of edits you, Ahmaddarwish74, have indicated that you are the subject of the article. Then at times you seem to be rather obfuscating this factoid. Do you not see how, if true, this leads to conflicts and problems? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmaddarwish74: Have you run across WP:POLITICIAN yet? After you've read it, can you offer any reason to claim that the subject of this article is not a "politician[...] who [has] held [...] national [...] office, or [has] been [a member] of legislative bodies at [national] levels"? JFHJr (㊟) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Ahmaddarwish74: The broken URL was easily fixed with an archive link. The internet is forever. I guess that still might be news. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information provided contains inaccuracies, lacks credible references to establish the person's notable achievements, and fails to provide sufficient verifiable sources to support its claims. Femina Anzil (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Femina Anzil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"A user with 1 edit. Account created on 30 April 2024." DBaK (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly held important posts and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have enough information with poor unreliable resources require improvement must be deleted or move to draft. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "must" about it. It's a perfectly acceptable article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. This article has improvement opportunities.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing GNG, held important positions Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. • Bobsd • (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wishes to create an article, depending on the election results, we can consider restoring this article to Draft space. But the consensus right now is with Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Obese-Jecty

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the history, was clearly created as a campaign ad. SportingFlyer T·C 04:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have deleted literally hundreds of such articles, for all parties across all spectra and countries, in the past 17 years. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Beaudoin

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

Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [1] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [2]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG.Rustypenguin (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has 2 refs that indicate notability. Desertarun (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG, good sources. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Verma

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

Case of BLP1E. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG as BLP is contesting in the 2024 Indian general election and has not been elected to any office positions yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know how these people create an article about a politician without reading Guidelines. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, same like previous AFDs Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. No in-depth coverage of the Subject and not yet elected as MP or MLA to pass WP:NPOL, If she wins the election and elected as a MP then he will automatically pass WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not notable enough. Can't find much about her on Google. Fails WP:NPOL Rustypenguin (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG and NPOL Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus that subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Keep arguments were mostly based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart

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

Fails WP:NPOL (WP:NSUBPOL), sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In short, the offices being occupied by the subject do not guarantee notability under WP:NPOL and fail WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics. His successor Jake Dan-Azumi also has a Wikipedia article. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Batmanthe8th Oh, thank you for bringing my attention there. Under what criteria do you think COSs are notable? They do not fall under any and have to pass WP:GNG which this one and the one you have pointed me to utterly fails. Even the COS page is AfD-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall accepting the COS page a while back on the generous side due to its notable role in Nigerian politics. I didn't nessesarily imagine the individual people getting their own articles unless they were notable for something else, though. TheBritinator (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being the Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives and Senior Special Assistant to the President are notable positions. I know all of the Senior Advisor to the President of the United States are considered notable, so why not Nigeria especially that this article have good sources to confirm WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six out of 8 of the current sources are pieces about being the new chief of staff which do not pass SIGCOV. I am sure all the senior advisors to the President of the United States are not inherently notable, but they all appear pass GNG clearly. This is not the case here. This subject is not inherently notable and also fails GNG. Also, CoS to a HoR is not to be compared with a CoS-ish position to the President of a country, who is the number one citizen of that country. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where we differ. I think some positions make you inherently notable even if there is zero English sources. If I can draw parallels, for academic being a Fellow of the Royal Society automatically makes notable, regardless. You are within your rights to disagree especially that the Wikipedia:Notability (politics) has failed. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NPOL.Chief of Staff must meet WP:GNG OR any other WP:SNG. Shoerack (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Senior Special Assistant to the President of Nigeria, with past experience as United States IVLP Alumni of the US states dept, Chief of Staff in the 4th highest ranking public office in Nigeria has strong notability in the country's public space. I think consideration and necessary concessions should be given. 102.91.69.137 (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not meet NPOL; he is not elected for any public office, he is not a member of any cabinet (in the state or national level), he is not a legislator or a judge either. The entry needs to have enough sources to meet GNG; sources there are also press releases and his opinion published elsewhere. The keep !votes are contrary to NPOL. Best, Reading Beans 20:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pujan Malvankar

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

Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape") WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's the leader of the youth chapter of a state-level political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it could get him into Wikipedia if he were shown to pass WP:GNG, but does not automatically entitle him to a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because he exists.
But the referencing here is not getting him over GNG: it's referenced to one primary source, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article that doesn't even mention his name at all, and appears to be here just to tangentially verify that the political party he works for exists, none of which is support for his standalone notability as an individual at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual doesn't meet the general notability guidelines; there's no news coverage about him, only passing mentions. Additionally, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL since he hasn't been elected as an MLA or MP yet. Grabup (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with the typical flowery wording we see, boils down to "nice guy runs for functionary position in the youth wing of a political party". Very not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the leader is of a 'state level poltical party'.This is just to inform you,its not a state party Aam Aadmi party is a national paty (AAP). a Link for your reference https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/story/aap-national-party-status-how-to-get-the-tag-2358592-2023-04-11

If needed i shall add more references. Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/aap-requests-cm-to-postpone-exams/articleshow/88819441.cms Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it matters, he's a functionary regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's the leader of the youth division (not the entire party) of a state-level chapter of a national party, not of the youth division of the entire national party. So I said nothing incorrect at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for clarifying, the leader of the youth division of a state-level chapter is not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG; no decent independent news coverage and doesn't meet WP:NPOL too. Rustypenguin (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Hamza

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no reference to winning an election or being in a position of power in another party to qualify as a political activist WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [3] Did not win his election so no WP:NPOL pass, and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Avijit

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

Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being nominated for the general election in 2024 doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:NPOL. However, if the individual wins and is elected as a Member of Parliament, they would then meet the notability criteria. Currently, there's a lack of in-depth coverage on the subject, with the cited sources being primarily press releases. Grabup (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is national spokesperson of Indian National Congress and we have article like Nupur Sharma. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject starting from his grandmother Sumitra Devi (politician) to his mother Meira Kumar.-Admantine123 (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Nominator and Mccapra offer the most persuasive P&G-related arguments, which have not been adequately refuted. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar

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

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His only claim to notability in Wikipedia terms is being chairman of the state skills development board. Being an appointed chair of a state advisory board is not enough to justify a biography on Wikipedia, and the fact that he’s previously been a municipal ward councillor and party official doesn’t help. The rest is just a ridiculous hagiography, entirely unsourced, about his revered rather and devout mother raising him in a holy city among the sand dunes, a quote from his dad, and a homily about how he sacrificed his personal advancement to devote himself to the plight of the marginalised. None of this stuff belongs in an encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Newbern, Alabama. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Braxton

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

Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.
So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [4] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [5] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politician proposed deletions

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Politicians==
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_E._Deaton_(2nd_nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ummeda Ram Beniwal}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarik Minasyan}}