Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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 no consensus‎. Any other decision at this point in the discussion would involve with me basing the closure on my own opinion which is permitted. So, no consensus it is and it might be suitable to have another AFD after a suitable period of time has passed (weeks or months, not days). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Gromyko

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

Notability is not inherited; not notable in herself but only as the spouse of a notable person. All sources are minor or in passing, so WP:BIOFAMILY. Merger with Andrei Gromyko might be suitable. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Russia. TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Громыко, Лидия Дмитриевна was deleted in March 2020. Absolutely nothing remarkable in the biography. She played no role in the political life of the USSR. --Khinkali (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, the relevant rule. WP:BIOFAMILY consists of the following two sentences: Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. (My emphasis.) In other words, the fact of being related to a notable person has neither a positive nor a negative effect, and likewise the fact that a person received coverage only because of their relationship to another person also does not detract from the value of such sources. Moving on: I can't evaluate any Russian sources (although they seem numerous), but even in the Western press she attracted sufficient coverage to support a basic article. This 1959 Der Spiegel piece has brief but nontrivial detail, as do the numerous stories around her being selected to escort Nancy Reagan around Leningrad four decades later. Moreover, despite her deliberately low profile, she was sometimes noted for her own diplomatic activity, whether advocating for a limited test ban treaty in the 1960s or warning Nelson Rockefeller about Cuba in 1943. On the whole, this is a bit of an awkward one as, at least in the Western press, Gromyko was mostly noted for not being very noticeable -- but at any rate she was noted for it, quite widely and over many decades. A merge to Andrei Gromyko wouldn't be the worst thing, but having an article about two different people is always going to be a bit awkward and doesn't work well with things like categories. Given that she meets the standard criterion of article-worthiness I am inclined to think that the articles should be kept separate. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally a merge, but there's nothing really to merge - everything that you would merge is already in her husband's article in some form. Almost all of the sources in the article are on him, not her, and is not enough to support GNG/a standalone article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrei Gromyko. There are multiple sources about the Nancy Reagan incident, but that was typical "what message is Russia sending?" cold war speculation. Being able to cobble together biographical details isn't enough to support a stand-alone article for a person who was only given any attention at all because of her spouse. Schazjmd (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soviet Union asking for opinions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:32, 17 July 2023 (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 Andre🚐 20:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies

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

This is an improper list that rests on a synthetic/original premise. I was trying to figure out what to rename it to or how to preserve the content, but I couldn't come up with anything. I believe this is an original creation and a violation of our guidance on what makes a list. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this point up last week at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What "controversies"?. It's the same problem with the other POTUS articles in Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States, an insufficiently discriminate page that isn't neutral. 21:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep, borderline speedy. Historically, most judicial nominations have been uncontroversial. These lists convey the range of circumstances that arise where there is some controversy arising in connection with a judicial appointment. Given that the United States has lifetime appointments for federal judges, and that these appointments are made by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by the United States Senate, these are high-stakes issues of broad public interest, and it is perfectly reasonable to document them accordingly. BD2412 T 21:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are called controversy by RS, so it's synthetic. They were contested, but they weren't necessarily controversial. It's a false consistency. Andre🚐 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying these were uncontroversially contested? BD2412 T 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the new normal is for Republicans to contest judicial nominations just to be obstructionist and gum up the works. What's the source for it being controversy? A Joe Biden judicial appointment controversy? Why isn't that a total neologism? Andre🚐 01:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a "new normal", there are a surprisingly small number of names out of the 136 Article III federal judges appointed by Biden. BD2412 T 01:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possible WP:SNOW see George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies etc —siro χ o 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that a parallel rename of all this type of article may be a good idea as "controversies" is a bit loaded. —siro χ o 21:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE Andre🚐 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. BD2412 T 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a rename would be ideal. "Controversies" is not the correct term. I would suggest "unsuccessful," but I do not think that term is quite correct either. --Enos733 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I previously removed several listings but was reverted, with discussion begun at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What constitutes a controversy?. This article should not be just any instance where any Republican made an objection or mere poor faith partisan politics. Rather it should cover actual controversies treated as such. If it cannot do that by trimming of less significant items, the article doesn't need to be kept. The article should also be trimmed of extraneous procedural details, such as who vacated the seat the person was nominated to and when, since that's rarely relevant a controversy. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. The OP should be briefed about WP:BEFORE.

95.12.119.26 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. Maliner (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was sceptical initially but, given equivalent articles exist for the last few presidents (as well as those posted by Siroxo above, there is also Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies and Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies), it seems clear that an article should exist with this title. I would echo Reywas92's concerns that we need to ensure they're actual controversies, as opposed to bad-faith objection by a small number of opposition politicians in our increasingly polarised age, though clearly that concern also applies to the last 2 presidents also. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. See all above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (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 that individual is notable by virtue of highly significant role, recent in-depth coverage of appointment. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Sinha

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

Non-notable civil servant, routine mentions in non-RS. Only confirmation of where the individual works. Was tagged for speedy deletion, which was reverted, bringing to AfD for review. I'm not finding extensive sourcing for the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ravi Sinha is serving as Chief of Research and Analysis Wing which is same position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a lot of news coverage of his appointment to head RAW a couple of days ago, and accompanying background pieces, but I don't know whether it just consists of newspapers reprinting a press release. I really can't be arsed to check, so I'll leave that to others. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appointed political figure at the national cabinet level per WP:POLOUTCOMES. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Maliner (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Big job - Chief of India's Research and Analysis Wing. Lots of recent news coverage.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appointed as RAW chief (significant role). 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though online sources may not appear frequently on Google search. But this person has been appointed as chief of India's Research and Analysis Wing. It's Indian counterpart of American Central Intelligence Agency.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chief of Research and Analysis Wing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Glenn

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Glenn. Since then, he has still not received consistent, in-depth coverage from national news outlets. Of the 6 cited sources, 2 are election databases and the other 4 are routine coverage of his political campaigns by local news outlets in Colorado. Being a county commissioner and a party's nominee for U.S. Senate doesn't inherently establish notability. Seems to violate WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete city council members are not de facto notable, and failed political campaigns are not de facto notable, and there's nothing showing otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 26 June 2023 (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 03:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Hedger

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

The article states that Kristin Hedger is a candidate for office and a businesswoman. Hedger would not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. Only under certain circumstances would a candidate qualify for an article based on their candidacy either as their candidacy has some sort of notability to it (e.g. Lar Daly for his use of the "equal time rule") or are candidates who qualify for reasons independent of their candidacy (e.g. Joe Exotic). Hedger as the "youngest to be a statewide candidate for public office anywhere in the United States during the 2006 election cycle," does not reach the level of Daly and her business career does not meet GNG let alone the level of a Joe Exotic, Cynthia Nixon, or another GNG qualifying person who happened to also be a candidate for office. This will be added to deletion streams for politics, North Dakota, and business among others. Mpen320 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Young person ran for office, lost and got job." Just a regular working person at this point, I don't see any further coverage for her. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about all the coverage I can find, could likely be her, but nothing for notability [1]. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources that pass WP:GNG in article or on Google. Having never been elected to office, does not pass WP:NPOL. There is no election article to redirect to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NPOL, there's only really two sources in the stub (disregarding the image referenced?) and one is only a passing mention. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable political candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consensus seems clear, but lending further support to an argument for deletion on the grounds discussed above. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:54, 28 June 2023 (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 Principality of Hutt River. Content remains on the redirected page in case there is interest in Merging any of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Casley

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

No notability independent of the micronation, all the sources I found just mention him in conjunction with Hutt River deciding to "rejoin" Australia. Should just be mentioned in the article about Hutt River. AryKun (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. AryKun (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content can easily be accommodated in Principality of Hutt River. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Hutt River article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2023 (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 speedy keep‎ in accordance with the guidelines set forth in WP:NPOL (Wikipedia: Notability of Politicians). These guidelines establish that politicians who have served in legislative bodies at the international, national, or state/province-wide level are generally considered to be notable. (non-admin closure) AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Kshirsagar

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Maliner (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They meet WP:NPOL as an elected member of a state/province legislature in Indian. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indian state legislators pass WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as legislators pass WP:NPOL 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 09:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a member of a state legislature. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (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!} 06:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the New Zealand Parliament elected earliest

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

Quite frankly, I cannot wrap my mind around this being an actual topic on Wikipedia. Living former members of the NZ Parliament who were elected more than 40 years ago. We do need frequent reminders that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. If people really wanted to know this information, all the election dates of former MPs are available on the election articles in which they were first elected. Ajf773 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 'who were elected more than 40 years ago' is a completely arbitrary cut-off point, which will also shift as the article ages. It's also WP:ONESOURCE from one single 1985 book, which miraculously already seems to know which people would still be alive as of June 2023. (Did Nostradamus write it?!). By contrast, List of longest-serving members of the New Zealand Parliament may be said to be defining. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another one of those “list of famous persons, by non-defining criteria X, by completely arbitrary criteria Y” lists that makes zero sense whatsoever. Dronebogus (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2023 (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. Thanks for the work you did, User:Reading Beans. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Muhammad Ketso

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

While a one sentence political biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He appears to meet WP:NPOL as the deputy governor of Niger State. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Kpg jhp jm 06:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Have only one sentence. Doesn't pass general notability . either. Very poor article. Even that one source seems fishy tbh.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — unless the notability guidelines for politicians has changed, this subject is notable as the deputy governor of Niger State. I wanted to close this discussion myself but I’m hasitating in doing so. I have improved the article to something readable but I guess I should advise this user that deletion is not cleanup. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2023 (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. I think editors coming in after the final relisting have provided sources that overcome Deletion objections. Just a note that while it's discouraged to relist AFD discussions more than twice, sometimes the discussion can change significantly after a third relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Beaty

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

First female mayor should be notable, but coverage is all routine happenings. Beaverton is a mid-size town, not notable on a national scale. The bit about the former mayor being arrested for being a pedophile isn't particularly helpful. Would be a stronger keep if she was featured in a large newspaper or the like, rather than just reporting on what she's done for the city. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that there were significant flaws in the way in which the article was originally presented. I appreciate Oaktree b's recommendations about the reference to the former mayor and the extensive information about what she has done for the city. I have made edits accordingly. However, I disagree that Beaty does not meet the notability threshold. While the average mayor of Beaverton, Oregon may not be particularly noteworthy, Beaty is the first woman and youngest mayor in the city's history, as Oaktree b mentioned. Additionally, she has participated in national events, and contributed to national organizations, that I did not include in the article, but they have broadened her notability nonetheless.^[1]^[2]^[3] Even if Beaty wasn't the first female or youngest mayor of the city, it wouldn't be unprecedented for her to have a page; several other current mayors of midsized cities in Oregon have Wikipedia articles (see: Lucy Vinis, Chris Hoy, and Steve Callaway). I appreciate the opportunity to make this article better, but I strongly discourage deletion. Biznaga22 (talk) 8:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Achieving Large Goals: Short Essays from Three U.S. Mayors. The Bush Center. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/creating-more-perfect-union/mayors-moving-communities-to-greater-goals.
^ Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative Announces Sixth Class of Mayors. Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.cityleadership.harvard.edu/news-collection/bloomberg-harvard-city-leadership-initiative-announces-sixth-class-of-mayors.
^ Pool Reports of January 20, 2023. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/pool-reports-january-20-2023.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Oregon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's what Wikipedia:Notability (people) says at the very top of the page ("Basic criteria"):

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
- "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."

WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:

"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."

There's full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.^{[2][3][4][5][6]}

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The job of local news is to cover local politicians; it is literally their journalistic duty to report on who was elected mayor of their town. Thus, hyper-local news articles like [7] constitutes what I would consider to be superficial and typical coverage, routine in thousands upon thousands of communities. Without wide coverage, there has to be something that sets her mayoral tenure apart, whether that be a notable policy that generated coverage or a significant position or something like that. The subject has simply not been written about in-depth enough to justify an argument for WP:NPOL#2 and the hyper-local coverage that does exist isn't satisfactory for WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KATU, which you cite as "hyper-local", is the ABC News affiliate for the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area (population: 2.5 million people - about the size of the Orlando area). The oregonlive.com website is Portland's Oregonian, the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest; it's won 8 Pullitzer Prizes.

The closing admin will follow the guidance I quoted above in my "keep" comment. They'll look at the articles I cited and decide for themselves.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to its article, KATU-TV is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which should be taken into consideration when assessing the source. Beccaynr (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even The Washington Post and The New York Times, two of the country's premier newspapers, provide coverage of local affairs that have little demonstrative notability, so the argument about how many Pulitzer Prizes an outlet has is pretty irrelevant here. Regardless, The Oregonian source that you provided ([8]) is mostly coverage of someone else, with the subject receiving barely a passing mention. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biznaga22 and A. B., subject only to some personal wariness of the long-term maintainability of articles at this level. But I did a ctrl-F on Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) to make sure that nothing had changed since my last checkin, and have confirmed neither of these guidelines excludes local coverage. Nor should they: such an exclusion would have the effect of backdooring notability into a test of the significance of the article subject, which is not and never has been the standard. Full-length profiles are not, in general, examples of WP:ROUTINE coverage.
The fundamental question in notability is: is there an adequate quantity of suitable source material for an article? I think the sources cited in the above discussion make it clear that there is. As to the reliability of local sources, I think they meet the crucial threshold of being sources of the kind that experts in the field would rely on. I am no expert on Oregon municipal politics, but I cannot imagine that any expert in that field would prefer the NYT (for example) to a local source. As a character in my favorite forgotten 1990s drama stated, the paper of record somehow invariably manages to get some important detail wrong. And while Sinclair affiliation is something to keep an eye on, in my own limited experience elsewhere Sinclair stations tend to play local politics pretty straight. In sum, as there is adequate material to build an article from, and nothing here appears to bump up against the guardrails of WP:NOT or WP:BLP, there is no basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and easily and strongly so - mayors are not inherently notable and she has not received any non-local press. The "national" references aren't really national references, they're just conferences or development programmes she attended. The fact other mayors have articles isn't proof of anything and there's at least one of those articles which also doesn't pass notability standards. And it's absolutely WP:ROUTINE for a mayor to have a feature article printed in a local newspaper - that's the point of local newspapers! There's nothing here showing she's a notable politician at all outside the city she's in charge of. (If there's a list of mayors of Beaverton, that would be a valid redirect target.)

SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is routine coverage? WP:SBST, a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this:
- "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG, gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article:
- "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article.

WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mayor Beatty is not an event.
Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top ("Basic criteria"):
- "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:
- "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."
The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.

These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is correct - local politicians frequently only receive coverage in local papers, and that coverage itself is WP:ROUTINE. If that were true, then every mayor in every town would always be notable, considering mayoral elections always generate coverage - but that's not the case, and we use a combination of common sense and the scope of the media coverage to determine whether someone should have a stand-alone article written about them. SportingFlyer T·C 20:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although I see a slight edge to those advocating Keeping this article. But it seems to rest on differing interpretations of Notability and Routine and how they apply to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia now has more than its share of "the first X to be Y" type of articles, so piling-on makes it seem more like intereating trivia rather than notable fact. The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The office is not inherently notable, so there isn't really much justification" does not make sense. you have not provided a valid reason for deletion per policy. Do not post nonsense.

This IP voter is very suspect Naomijeans (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the IP's 5 contributions - they all seem legit. IP is registered to Washington University. I disagree with their !vote and their reasoning but comment doesn't seem to have been made in bad faith. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "first X to be Y" doesn't automatically constitute notability. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE as well, the office itself also lacks notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient that Beaty is the first female and youngest mayor of Beaverton, so this is not a case of "the first X to be Y." The article should be kept because Beaty meets the "general notability guideline." As A. B. pointed out, the WP:ROUTINE guideline is meant for events. Since this is a biography of a living person, we should be looking at the "general notability guideline" under WP:NOTABILITY, which is required under the politicians and judges section of WP:NOTABILITY (people). This policy states that, "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." WP:SIGCOV is met since there is enough source material to write an accurate biography without "original research." Additionally, I don't see any arguments for deletion that accurately refute the reliability or the independence of the sources in the article. Biznaga22 (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:ROUTINE were used only for events, every mayor in every town would be notable, but we use WP:ROUTINE in every article - not just events - for its clear guidance on interpreting coverage: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article. And mayoral elections are the very basis of routine - every village, town, and city in the United States has them at specified intervals, and they always receive routine coverage. The coverage for this particular article does not rise above routine coverage - if she had received coverage outside her metropolitan area, for instance, then I'd be on the keep side, but that's not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If WP:ROUTINE were used only for events, every mayor in every town would be notable, but we use WP:ROUTINE in every article - not just events…"
WP:ROUTINE is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage

If, however, you apply WP:ROUTINE anyway, here are the examples it gives as "routine":
"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

None of those examples apply to the coverage we're citing, all of which met newsworthiness requirements when published.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Analysis of the sources

Lacey Beaty received significant coverage in The Oregonian, which is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. She received additional coverage in other Oregon sources like the Beaverton Valley Times, KATU, KGW, Oregon Public Broadcasting, the Portland Business Journal, and the Portland Tribune. This is sufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges, which says, "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."
WP:ROUTINE, which redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Routine coverage, does not apply to Lacey Beaty because she is a person, not an event.

Sources
1. Bray, Kari (2014-05-21). "Lacey Beaty's city council win is bittersweet as husband leaves for Afghanistan". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Lacey Beaty is a U.S. Army veteran who has also served overseas, three years in Germany and one in Iraq. She previously told the Beaverton Leader that she struggled to reintegrate into civilian life, and Beaverton gave her the stability and support she needed. That’s part of what motivated her to run for council."
2. Bray, Kari (2014-02-12). "Lacey Beaty files to run against Ian King for Beaverton City Council seat". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaverton lacrosse coach and U.S. Army veteran Lacey Beaty has filed to run against Beaverton City Councilor Ian King in this year’s election. ... Beaty, 29, has lived in Beaverton since 2008 with her husband, Ian Beaty. She moved to Oregon after serving in the U.S. Army, including three years in Germany and one in Iraq. ... Beaty is currently vice chair of the Beaverton Visioning Advisory Committee. She coaches lacrosse at Beaverton High School, is vice chair on the HomePlate Youth Services Board of Directors and serves on the Leadership Beaverton Board of Directors."
3. Bray, Kari (2014-03-12). "Six candidates vying for three Beaverton City Council seats". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Council position 1: Lacey Beaty • 29 • Lacrosse coach Past public service • Vice chairwoman of the Beaverton Visioning Advisory Committee • Vice chairwoman on HomePlate Youth Services Board of Directors • Leadership Beaverton Board of Directors Other • Served in the U.S. Army, including three years in Germany and one in Iraq"
4. Alteir, Nuran (2014-12-31). "Incoming Beaverton City Councilor Lacey Beaty wants a defined downtown, warming shelter". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaverton City Council has a new face this week after community activist and U.S. Army veteran Lacey Beaty was set to be sworn in Tuesday. Beaty, who has lived in Beaverton since 2008, served as vice chair on the city’s Visioning Advisory Committee, was vice chair on HomePlate Youth Services board of directors, and was on the Leadership Beaverton board of directors. She had no intention to run for City Council."
5. Notarianni, John (2020-11-08). "Beaverton's new mayor, Lacey Beaty, will have a very different role". Oregon Public Broadcasting. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaverton City Councilor Lacey Beaty defeated incumbent Denny Doyle in the election. He’d been mayor of the city since 2009. ... Beaty has been a member of the Beaverton City Council since 2015."
6. Bishop, Lauren (2023-03-14). "Beaty touts accomplishments, work ahead in Beaverton's 2023 State of the City". Beaverton Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Homelessness, the Downtown Loop and community safety were key highlights as Mayor Lacey Beaty reflected on the last year and looked toward the future during the annual State of the City address Monday evening, March 12. At the Patricia Reser Center for the Arts, Beaty shared with the packed in-person crowd the city's successes in 2022 and gave residents a glimpse of what to expect in 2023. Beaty brought up the challenge of addressing homelessness just one minute into her remarks during the State of the City, after thanking notable members of the audience for attending the event."
7. Articles from Gabby Urenda in Beaverton Valley Times:
  1. Urenda, Gabby (2020-11-10). "Beaverton Mayor-elect Lacey Beaty shares plans for city's future". Beaverton Valley Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
    The article notes: "Beaverton residents have spoken, and Lacey Beaty will be the city's new mayor. The mayor-elect defeated incumbent Denny Doyle in last week's general election on Tuesday, Nov. 3, by a margin of about 7 percentage points. Doyle conceded the race the following day"
  2. Urenda, Gabby (2020-11-10). "Lacey Beaty will be first woman to serve as Beaverton mayor". Portland Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
    The article notes: "Beaty will be the first woman to serve as mayor of Beaverton. ... Beaty also wants to have public safety at the forefront — more specifically, making sure the right people are doing the right work when it comes to community safety policing, she added. ... She will officially be sworn in as mayor at the Beaverton City Council's first regular meeting in January."
8. "Forty Under 40 2022: Mayor Lacey Beaty of Beaverton". Portland Business Journal. 2022-05-11. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Why we chose Lacey: She’s transforming Beaverton city government, literally, as the city is transitioning from a commission form of government to a city manager form of government. The changes come as Beaverton, economically, becomes more of an extension of, as opposed to a complement to, Portland. She’s also an Army veteran, who served as a medic in Iraq."
9. Graves, Lincoln (2020-11-06). "Beaverton set to get new progressive mayor after longtime incumbent defeated". KATU. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Longtime incumbent Denny Doyle was defeated by progressive challenger Lacey Beaty. ... Beaty is fine with the progressive label but she also stresses that she's her own person and Beaverton has its own identity separate from Portland. ... Beaty begins her term as Beaverton mayor on Jan. 1."
10. Porter, Laural (2021-02-05). "Newly-elected mayors of Portland's suburbs break barriers". KGW. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "For Mayor Beaty, that busy month ended in a weekend skiing accident on Timberline. She tore her meniscus and was scheduled for surgery Friday. ... Beaty said she's spent a lot of her first weeks in office explaining to businesses and other officials the city interacts with how their new system of government works. Beaverton voters approved a city charter change to a mayor-city manager form of government with a full-time mayor. She's also spending a lot of time listening to people."
11. Owen, Wendy (2015-02-27). "Beaverton's Mark Fagin and Lacey Beaty appointed to National League of Cities". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
  The article notes: "Beaty was appointed to the Human Development steering committee ... Beaty's work will include development of federal policy positions for the National League of Cities on social services, children and learning, poverty, employment and workforce development, social security and seniors,"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lacey Beaty to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, source coverage looks to support on notability and quality. - Indefensible (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Article has improved and expanded significantly over the course of this discussion (and has changed a lot in the last 24 hours), so please do have another read: Lacey Beaty. I actually agree with the argument that "local" city coverage (i.e., Beaverton Valley Times) is not enough to justify notability for a mayor, but in this case, in addition to in-depth local coverage about her Outstanding Veteran of the Year Award from the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs), we have WP:SIGCOV at the regional level (Portland Business Journal 's "40 Under 40" 2022); at the state level (several articles in The Oregonian as highlighted above by Cunard, as well as this article by the Oregon Capital Insider which was widely syndicated to other Oregon city publications such as the Corvallis Gazette-Times); and at the national level in Politico, which named Lacey Beaty to its inaugural Fifty Mayors Club (and published her biography which we can be confident they fact-checked). Many other sources have been added to the article, which is now quite comprehensive (while trying to avoid going overboard with local detail), and was rated "B"-level by Rater. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per User A.B. who has summarized policies and provided links to 5 articles that establish notability. Naomijeans (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2023 (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. Redirecting is an editorial decision that can happen outside of AFD. It’s clear there’s no consensus to use the delete button. Courcelles (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Buscher

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

Article about a mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all "inherently" notable just because they exist -- the notability test for a mayor requires significant coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But all that's here is two footnotes verifying her declaration of her candidacy and her swearing-in as mayor, which is not enough.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when a stronger, more informative and better-referenced article can be written, but just stating and minimally sourcing that she exists as a mayor is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois, where the mayor is listed. Djflem (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm ok with the redirect. Likely TOOSOON, all articles simply confirm her win. One post is of the mayoral debate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added some references. The subject was already an elected official (city treasurer) 8 years prior and had some coverage from that time period. I've no opinion on whether this is enough to keep, thus just leaving thus comment. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last eight mayors of Springfield, Illinois have articles and only Karen Hasara would be considered notable under the notability guidelines for politicians. There's a reason. Generally, locally significant politicians can pass GNG. Springfield is the state's capital, the central city of a metropolitan statistical area, and has 100,000+ residents. I think this is a case of a need to improve the article rather than delete the article.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as now-referenced demonstrates definite notability -- unsurprising since Springfield is the state capital and has a 114,000 population. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Springfield, Illinois - coverage is all WP:ROUTINE coverage of a local politician running for office. The past mayors of the city having pages is not a rationale for keeping an article... There is always going to be routine coverage of local elections. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is routine coverage? WP:SBST, a subsection of our main notability guideline, says this:
"For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage."
WP:SIGCOV (a.k.a. WP:GNG, gives the rationale, which I believe clinches the argument for this article:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
This definitely applies to this mayor -- there is substantial independent coverage of her in multiple reliable sources to support this article.

WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Mayor Buscher is not an event.
Wikipedia:Notability (people) is instead the applicable guideline. Here's what the guideline says at the very top ("Basic criteria"):
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
WP:NPOL is the subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people) that mentions politicians. Referring to local politicians it says:
"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."
The article cites full-length reliable, independent news coverage of this mayor.

These are our guidelines and they're what the closing admin will use to decide this case

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True the mayor isn't an event, but it's been held over and over again at AfD that WP:ROUTINE applies to news coverage of any topic in Wikipedia, and there's no distinguishing news coverage here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I can only go by what our guidelines say. That's what the closing administrator will use. I suggest if you don't like these guidelines, that you propose a change; you can cite these AfDs you're talking about.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - I just re-read my comment above and thought it probably sounded snarky. That was not my intent.

When I said that stuff about changing guidelines, I meant that for real - it's a discussion worth having elsewhere (perhaps as an RfC at the Village Pump) to settle this issue (i.e., guidelines don't match actual recent practice). I think it's suboptimal when practice doesn't match our guidelines -- either change the guideline or reinforce its use as already written.

I didn't mean it in the sense of "go away" but it looks that way when I look at it now.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayors need more than routine local coverage to be kept at AfD. I don't know why I'd need an RfC to change that rule - it's just what we've always done, take a look at some of the archives. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of mayors as per above - mayors do not have inherent political notability, and there's nothing demonstrating she's received any notability from non-WP:ROUTINE coverage outside the city she's been in charge of, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Otherwise every mayor everywhere would be notable, and that's not how we operate. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mayor of Springfield she's as notable as the previous few mayors who have articles. It's also a new article (was red link a few weeks ago) and it can be improved! Ninevolt (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, largely per A. B.'s analysis above. I don't think there is any serious question that the GNG is met here. As to the specific question of AFD precedent, i.e. whether repeated erroneous decisions by AFD participants to delete articles despite a lack of authority to do so under any relevant policy or guideline can, by simple dint of repetition, cause those decisions to no longer be erroneous, I think the question answers itself. -- Visviva (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2023 (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. While promotional tone could be fixed editorially, consensus is depth of sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lord

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Edward Lord

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

Unclear why this person is notable, doesn't pass the criteria at WP:BIO. No depth of coverage. Lots of minor positions such as local councillor or chair of various committees, but nothing that would automatically grant notability. cagliost (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The OBE, while not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, adds to notability, as does his entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Being selected for an entry in WW is certainly an indication of notability. Not on its own, but contributory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the criteria at WP:ANYBIO, an OBE is not particularly significant honour. UK "Who's Who" is somewhat selective, but it is not the Dictionary of National Biography. Given Lord's lack of "widely recognized contribution" or achievements, I'm just not seeing the notability. There are loads of non-notable local councillors with OBEs and entries in "Who's Who".

At present, the article is just an extended CV, just a listing of positions held with no accomplishments or analysis. I'm thinking WP:TNT and WP:JUNK. cagliost (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord is a trans activist and been involved with disputes over trans women using the "ladies pond" at the Hampstead Heath Ponds.^[9][10] He was forced to recuse himself in a hearing over a trans worker's dismissal. ^[11] Also, some articles in the Daily Mail which of course aren't encyclopaedic references. WP:DAILYMAIL: variably reliable, reliably sensational.

I still think the sources for the article are sufficient.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B.:, the Guardian and Inews sources you provide just have the same brief quote from Lord in his capacity as chairman of the relevant committee. These are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, not examples of coverage of Lord as a trans activist. Given that, I don't think the Telegraph story is sufficient on its own for notability. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- @A. B.:, could you clarify what you mean by "Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who)"? Given that Necrothesp says only mentions the OBE and the Who's Who entry, and says the OBE is "not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO", this appears to amount to a claim that the OBE is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, which clearly it is not. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Cagliost: I think you probably need to reread what I actually wrote! You seem to have missed the first sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cagliost Necrothesp wrote "Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.". I read each of the journalistic sources in the article and they do establish WP:GNG per Necrothesp. I did not read any of the other sources. Regards, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a CV in textual form. There's a couple local news articles on him so notability's not at zero, but as it reads, this fails WP:PROMO and badly. SportingFlyer T·C 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur it's a lousy, promotional article. My understanding, though, is that if the subject is notable, we fix the article.

I say this reluctantly as I spent 100s of hours as an admin 10-15 years ago mostly fighting spam; I always gritted my teeth at keeping notable COI articles. Now that I'm back, I still do.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think the notability is enough to keep, and the promo concerns stands. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have ample sources to meet the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, don't getting why it failed WP:GNG Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Most of the sources here are either not independent (e.g. organizations he works for or with) or brief mentions. Three of the sources that go beyond a mere mention are about a kerfuffle relating to the Football Association, and do not say much about him. The only other one I see that is substantially about him is brief and limited to a controversy that he is a Freemason. What is most telling, IMO, is that none of the sources provides biographical information, and anything in the article beyond the reporting on these two specific incidents is essentially sourced in non-independent sources. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a lot of citations here, but the test for WP:GNG is significant coverage and in reliable, secondary sources and that is where we fall down here. A lot of trivial and passing mentions, but little enough in depth - although WP:ANYBIO tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" but then also goes on, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" - and much of the coverage in this article is relatively trivial. We fail WP:NPOL as an unelected member of various boards and committees and Who's Who is indeed not the national biographical database. (I note source 32, Andrew Gilligan's Sunday Times piece - which would potentially have been a strong source - has been taken down - and source 24, seemingly a strong Telegraph piece, is in fact a letter to the editor) And while there was indeed a whiff of controversy over lobbying, we have WP:1E... All of which adds up to the fact that we do, indeed, have the CV of an accomplished candidate for a non-executive directorship of a nice, public company - but ultimately I don't think there is a clear-cut case for this gentleman to be considered notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/response: (1) WP:1E addresses the question of whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It does not contemplate that we would have a notable event and a person involved in it, and not have an article on either. So if 1E applies, and presuming that we are not going to have an article on the Resignation of Edward Lord or whatever, then 1E would suggest that the article on the individual should be kept. (I would preemptively note that I'm not actually convinced that 1E does apply here, and also that WP:BLP1E does not apply here at all for the reasons explained at WP:LPI.) (2) As a technical note, I believe the above citation to ANYBIO is actually meant to go to WP:NBASIC. (Which is good, since ANYBIO wouldn't actually apply here AFAICT.) (3) Absent some indication that a piece was taken down for substantive flaws, I am not sure why that would have any repercussions for our use of it here. It makes verification harder (the Wayback Machine only has some teaser text), but the hard copy of the Times is presumably still out there somewhere. (4) As NBASIC itself implies, there is a substantial gap between "not substantial" and "trivial". The best analysis of what a "trivial" mention is can probably be found at WP:GNG, which describes non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage as having sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. So if we were trying to piece this guy's life together from the various articles where he was quoted in passing as chair of the Inclusion Advisory Board, that would be a legitimate case of sourcing an article to trivial mentions. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here: articles like this and this, which are entirely devoted to the Wikipedia article subject, might still arguably be less than substantial, but they are certainly more than trivial. -- Visviva (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still don't think he quite meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria. Had a minor role in the Richard Scudamore business, and mentioned in other news stories, but most coverage isn't about Lord in their own right. The story about him being a freemason is perhaps the closest to coverage about him, but even that is primarily an attack on his campaigning organisation by a newspaper opposed to their campaign (and hence only incidentally about Lord), rather than detailed coverage about Lord qua important person. With a bit more press coverage you might claim it cumulatively adds up, but he's not done any particular thing to make him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Atypical ~~third~~ fourth relist due to the late swing toward deletion coupled with continued spirited counterargument from keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - close but no cigar. Mostly as per Alexandermcmnabb. This man seems to just miss all the criteria and in such a way that adding all the near misses together still doesn't quite do it. Ingratis (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2023 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seri Wati Iku

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. No effective sources for what is a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. President of territory’s council. NPOL presumes notability as member of province-level legislative body. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the coverage to support WP:NPOL. This a WP:BLP so real WP:SECONDARY references are needed to prove notabilty, not mickey mouse blogs or self-written profiles. That is an absolute and is emphasised in the opening paragraph of the policy.. On the article there is currently 1 non-rs and 2 WP:PRIMARY and one passing mention. The primary sources read like blog entries. At best they prove the person is verifiable and that is about it. WP:THREE is the standard best practice for proving notability. Where is the coverage? Put up three secondary sources that prove she is notability and we can close this. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a federal territory, the Shire of Cocos is constituted under Western Australia's local government laws. The territory is non-self-governing so I don't think we can draw equivalence between the shire council and e.g. the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. ITBF (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My opinion stands that members of the council of the Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands are not awarded WP:NPOL. The council is akin to a county council, with actual judicial and legislative powers residing with the Western Australian government, and with the council only retaining local administrative powers. This is different from, for example, the old Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, which was an autonomous/devolved body within Australia with self-governing powers. A search with both provided names did not provide WP:SIGCOV demonstrating a WP:GNG pass either. Curbon7 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit unfortunate because I'd love to see more content on Australia's external territories, but there's just no coverage to justify an article. The body of which she is a member has limited powers and she doesn't appear to have attained any particular prominence outside of holding office to attract WP:SIGCOV. There's a reason all other entries at List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council are red links (and that article should probably be merged to Shire of Cocos). ITBF (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although I agree this is a borderline case, it seems to me useful to maintain the article for encyclopedic reasons, as proposed by Innisfree987. If the conclusion is deletion, then key items from the article should be merged into Shire of Cocos, maintaining the blue link with a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for a combination of factors, inc. an oral history in a national collection, leadership (as discussed above). I'd also like to see more awareness of the context within which her achievements are gained - as a woman from a small territory in Australia, from a specific minority background, that has been historically marginalised, means that sources and coverage will be less likely to feature her at length. Within the context of the Cocos Islands, she is undoubtedly notable Lajmmoore (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the new references. The rationale for delete are accurate. A WP:BEFORE was done and nothing was found that was in-depth, secondary and independent. Looking at the refs:

Ref 1 Facebook non-rs.
Ref 2 [www.shire.cc/en/your-council/meet-the-council.html] WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 3 [12] WP:PRIMARY Not independent.
Ref 4 [13] Profile and passing mention. Not independent.
Ref 5 [14] WP:PRIMARY. Business directory. Not independent.
Ref 6 [15] Profile. Not independent. Why put a profile reference in BLP article? Profiles are non-RS. They are often written by the person themselves. They are WP:SPS sources and WP:PRIMARY at best. It not indepth and its not independent.
Ref 7 [16] Oral history interview. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 8 [17] Passing mention. Not independent.
Ref 9 [parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F54bb371d-6a22-4bf5-8caa-4760be68ece2%2F0001;orderBy=priority,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3AcomJoint;rec=13;resCount=Default] Government document. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.

There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of it. In the WP:BLP it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This is a complete crock. scope_creep^Talk 10:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Scope and Curbon. Lack of SIGCOV in independent secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, begrudgingly. There's just not enough SIGCOV for an article. A redirect may be proper to the list article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council where the subject is mentioned as an ATD. I do not think the sourcing is sufficient to pass GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article is non-sourced and is a list of red links. There is no encyclopeadic information in it. I will prod it today. I have sent it to Afd as somebody stupidly removed the prod. scope_creep^Talk 04:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m withdrawing my participation here and unwatching due to recurrent incivility 1 2 from the nominator. Not worth it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lajmmoore, borderline case but appropriate for keeping in the context of a smaller territory. There are likely to be more offline sources not available from a quick Google search. Deus et lex (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: It is a WP:BLP. Where is evidence for such a such a statement? Do you have three secondary sources that prove the subject notable? scope_creep^Talk 21:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the Cocos Islands? The sources are likely to be offline and difficult to get hold of. Stop being rude and actually engage with the subject matter rather than just nominating things without checking. Deus et lex (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first reference, although posted on Facebook, is from Australia's national broadcaster. It therefore seems to meet WP:IS. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its hardly in-depth though and its another routine report the candidate syle ref. A good attempt has been made updating the article per WP:HEYMANN, but this is a WP:BLP. Its states in the policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. I'm not still not seeing it here. The refs are a mishmash of routine news of appointments, position documents, profiles and other salient tangenital links. It seems very poor. Meet the team and election guide?? scope_creep^Talk 05:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree with MrsSnoozyturtle. Let's not extend the BLP policy beyond what it says. Deus et lex (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says exactly that. Its was copied directly from the policy. I forgot I'd posted it previously. I think you should probably read the policy, since you have provided no envidence to prove your !vote entry. The facebook ref is non-rs. You may consider it potentially independent, but its only five lines long and looks as though it comes from a press-release. Its not in-depth and is an extemely poor reference. I wouldn't use it any article I wrote myself, particularly if it was a WP:BLP. If that was all the coverage I could found (the refs in the article), prior to writing the article, I wouldn't have written the article in the first place. It is an extremely poor quality article. At best, it verifies the person exists but that is all. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the WP:BASIC isn't met here just yet. It would make sense to either delete this or -- as some have smartly suggested -- redirect to another relevant article until the source material can satisfy notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 June 2023 (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 is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 20:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Choudhary (professor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD resulted in soft delete, and it was reconstituted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DreamRimmer (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly redirect to Let's Do It! India. I see no sign whatsoever of WP:NPROF, and I did not find reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. (The name is shared by some other people, however, which did make searches harder.) There is some human interest type coverage about a litter cleanup campaign from September 2020 by Let's Do It! India, but I don't think it amounts to WP:SIGCOV of the subject here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

~~Sources~~

1.WorldCat, Choudhary on WorldCat Entities Archived from the original

2. Library of Congress, Pankaj Choudhary's publications on Library of Congress that mentioned its affiliation, association, and source that satisfy WP:NPROF

3. Hindustan Times, Campaign launched to manage litter caused by cigarette butts]: a campaign launched by Choudhary on World Cleanup Day.

4. Caspian Week 2020 Program: Choudhary was invited speaker and spoke on 'Energy transition in the Greater Caspian Region: development and emissions' and 'SDG in the health and wellness industry' in a prestigious Caspian Week World conference in Geneva, Switzerland.

5. The World Cleanup Day, World Cleanup Day India: World Cleanup Day organisation independently covered Choudhary's work

6. भाजपा राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष श्री @JPNadda जी की सहमति से भाजपा ओबीसी मोर्चा में प्रो0 पंकज चौधरी को राष्ट्रीय रिसर्च एवं पॉलिसी का प्रभारी बनाया गया है। BJP's official Twitter handle anounced Choudhary as a president of OBC Morcha.

8. World Clean Up Day 2022: जश्न मनाने छात्र और युवा आए एक साथ, प्रोफेसर पंकज चौधरी ने की Lets Do It India की स्थापना

7. Professor Pankaj Choudhary on his book ‘A Story of India’s Missing Women’: Pankaj Choudhary's book review "Female foeticide: A Story of India's Missing Women" by Aman Gaur from PinkCity post. Passes WP:BASIC.

~~8.Businessworld, Prof. Pankaj Choudhary Awarded With SEEP At The International Clean World Academy In Tallin: a news from reliable website independently covered about Pankaj Choudhary. Passes WP:GNG.~~ Rath Butcher (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat and LOC listings merely indicate that someone has published something. That's not enough for WP:PROF, not by a long shot. The World Cleanup Day website is just a blurb from Let's Do It! India talking about themselves (We have a strong presence in 24 Indian states, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Let's Do It! India per Russ Woodroofe. Routine publicity, press-release-level "reporting", and general fluff of that nature is not the basis for an article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is connected and elected to a post of the Party which is ruling Central Govt of India for last 9 years and looking into news articles i can say, He is the founder of the Let's Do It! India and also awarded by Alar Karis. He is also an Associate Professor in Delhi University, which is really a notable thing. He has been a Speaker at the World Economic Forum. He is notable as an Environment Activist. The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as an environmentalist. He is working and worked as a researcher at many places as mentioned in the article. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's very, very rare for associate professors at any university to be notable by virtue of their academic achievements. Minor party officials generally aren't notable either, regardless of their party. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]

~~Yes, He does not pass WP:NPROF, but As an environmentalist the subject is meeting WP:PEOPLE.~~ Rath Butcher (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:ANYBIO. Thanks Onel for renominating it. US-Verified (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Being an environmentalist, received notable award for his work, the subject meets WP:NPEOPLE.~~ Rath Butcher (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has good WP:SIGCOV.He was selected for Professional Fellows Program of United States Department of State See[18] and Awardes With SEEP At The International Clean World Academy In Tallin[19].His book 'Female Foeticide' was recently recognised by Princeton University and display at it library, demonstrating its importance and global relevance.[20][21][22].He is also the founder of Let's Do It! India making global impacts [23]Epcc12345 (talk) 06:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: Good quality content generation is always a difficult task especially there are numerous unsung heroes get no prominence due to lack of secondary sources or difficult to find such credible sources. Here, as we can see, this page related to the person seems to good acedemic reputation and is a budding environmentalist cum lawyer. His work got recognised at several places of high reputation like Princeton University and also by the Government of Estonia. He is also a founder of Environmental organization which is doing decent work.

I think we need to protect this page so that other youths get inspired from him and do some good for the environment. However, I would suggest to enrich the content with better language, its linkages for the public good. Ashishsuman14 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which makes them wiki-notable. Wiki isn't to promote up-and-coming people, we need reliable sources discussing them at length. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This subject seems to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)guideline, and has a good WP:SIGCOV. His book named 'Female Foeticide: The story of India’s missing women ' was recognized by Princeton University and displayed at its library showcasing the relevance of the book, is a notable event. Here are some referenes [24][25][26]..He is the founder of Let's Do It! [27]. Also was selected for Professional Fellow Program of United States Department of State. See here.[28]Kinkordada (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect. None of the accomplishments listed above are criteria for notability, and he does not appear to meet NPROF or GNG through any other means. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the requirements laid out in WP:NPROF. Did WP:BEFORE including a Google search and couldn't find anything major about him. Articles about him in some news outlets don't have an author or come from questionable sources. Was admitted to the Professional Fellows Program but that's not a major award, it's a program out of the US State Department. Let's check the criteria from NPROF and see if they pass.

The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: Not that can be determined
The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.: Only has a minor award given at a conference in Estonia.
The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).: Claims to be a "directed studies fellow", I googled this title and he is the only person who comes up. So it's either the most selective honor ever given or it's not important.
The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.: Was unable to find any of his published work in academic journals.
The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.: Not a named chair
The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.: Not an admin of a major academic institution or society.
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.: Can't find anything
The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.: Not a chief editor of any journal.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr vulpes. Clearly fails WP:NPROF per their explaination. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject seems to meet the Notability in the English Wikipedia. There are references backing up the content on this page, this is to say that content are verifiable according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. Although I think this project can be elaborated and restructured by anyone from the Wikipedia community in order to improve the quality of the page. Thanks Onosco23 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The content of the subject has great notability and Citations. The content is acceptable from Wikipedia Rules. Santhan Akkulu — Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to closing admin. We have a good number of established editors (including myself) making policy-based arguments for deletion or redirection. We have Epcc12345 making a policy-based argument for keep. We have a large number of keep !votes coming from accounts that leave me with concerns about possible WP:CANVASing: one such paraphrases the rationale of Epcc12345 very closely, others seem to confuse WP:V with WP:GNG. These accounts generally have around 50 edits, and I don't feel comfortable tagging as WP:SPAs, so I am leaving this comment instead. Please also see the discussion's talk page for an additional intended keep !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I discovered a few news sources that may pass WP:SIGCOV to justify its GNG criteria. 1 from Rajasthan Patrika, 2 from Republic TV, 3 from Zee News. That's all your honour. 122.177.105.251 (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Republic TV has been deprecated and is considered an unreliable source. Patrika is routine coverage of an awareness campaign and focuses more on his organization, 'Let's Do It India,' than on him. Zee News's article is a "Conversation", thus it as a primary source. The byline of the article is unclear, as it states "Zee Media Bureau", suggesting that it may be a paid article or press release-type piece. US-Verified (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for consideration of the additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With the sources provided Above, he qualifies for WP:Basic and strongly notable.103.47.134.15 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2023 (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.

[1] Achieving Large Goals: Short Essays from Three U.S. Mayors. The Bush Center. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/creating-more-perfect-union/mayors-moving-communities-to-greater-goals.

[2] Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative Announces Sixth Class of Mayors. Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.cityleadership.harvard.edu/news-collection/bloomberg-harvard-city-leadership-initiative-announces-sixth-class-of-mayors.

[3] Pool Reports of January 20, 2023. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved June 16, 2023, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/pool-reports-january-20-2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]