Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics: Difference between revisions

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

Revision as of 00:13, 29 April 2024

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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 Politics.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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

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

Related deletion sorting


Politics

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crackhead Barney

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

Subject of biography has low encyclopedic value and fails general notability guidelines with only a handful of sources and a social networking video channel. AfdBarney (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Little of the nomination statement is relevant to our notability guidelines. The subject passes the basic criteria for a person to be notable (significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject) with profiles in Paper Mag, Inverse, The Independent, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the basic sources identify crackhead barney by name, in fact, she is completely anonymous to the public at large. At a minimum, these sources need to identify her to be considered reliable. Most of these sources are primary sources not secondary, or anonymous posts to youtube. One of the sources you posted The Independent, raises WP:BLP concerns relative to Alec Baldwin and his right to privacy after she followed him into a restaurant onto private property and harassed him while he was purchasing a cup of coffee. AfdBarney (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO. In addition to what's already in the article, The Root, the Independent, NME (both reporting on the Piers Morgan appearance), Hyperallergic covering a performance, interview magazine, Vice video, the Independent again (via Yahoo -- quick search didn't return the original), etc. But even if it were borderline, I'm not going to !vote delete in a nom by a user whose account was created just for that purpose. PS: whether sources identify her by her real name is 100% irrelevant to notability or reliability (which are explained at WP:N and WP:RS). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that she has enough notability to be here on Wikipedia. Once this article acquires more than five cited sources, some of which can include what @Rhododendrites: brought up, then the article can increase its credibility and relevance. I would like for this article to mention that Crackhead Barney was on a Savanah Hernandez video, if there is notable coverage for such. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. In the headlines is not necessarily sufficient to avoid BLP1E, but enough of a case has been made here that the 2021 coverage might get there. Like everything else 10/7 adjacent, a consensus while the situation is ongoing is unlikely. While there is no clear consensus for retention or deletion, this leans slightly toward deletion but this ATD preserves the history should the situation change, and allows for a merger if desired. Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khymani James

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

Violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. The high school bio provides context, however. Is there a problem keeping it? 2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seems like the person should occupy 4-5 sentences of the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation article discussing the leadership (of which this person is clearly a leader) and controversy. That article is protected, but perhaps one of the editors can make that addition in order to facilitate the deletion of this article on James. CampaignZippy (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable for multiple events, some while in high school and others while in college. Both got headlines. This is not a case of BLP1E. I am also not sure how he is a victim. He has made statements and taken actions of his own will that have made him notable. He is not in the news because of the actions of others. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep it. Merging it with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation makes some sense, but you are write about including his high school experiences. They help define him, and will become prescient when he resurfaces, which seems likely. 2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, actually agree, WP:AVOIDVICTIM probably does not apply. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why keep? He is at best a footnote in the Columbia protests. Should every individual who organized an event get a Wikipedia page now? If I organize a potluck this Wednesday should I get my own entry? He is specifically responsible for spreading dangerous rhetoric and incitements and I’m talking about his comments, not the protest. An individual such as this does not warrant nor deserve a page 173.56.60.163 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter whether it "seems likely" that he'll resurface later. Inclusion is based on present notability, not WP:FUTURE. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is dangerous for a person who has openly said he "feels comfortable calling for the death" of any individual to be given fame/notoriety and a platform in the first place. Keeping a webpage up for a domestic terrorist like Khymani James is outright wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.141.24 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored. Terrorists exist, and many are notable. For example, I'm guessing you know who Bin Laden is (if you live in the US at least). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Slugger O'Toole's general points. Uncertain how victimhood could be asserted (& if it is I would strongly disagree with that assertion). The individual is notable. The President of the United States has commented on the individual & they are a leader in a movement gaining global attention.
I don't think it's prudent to rush to delete the page as these events are still in progress. It's not possible to determine whether this individual is basically inconsequential, or whether they will be considered a key contributor when we are all looking back on this. Give it a few months & perhaps that will become more clear. Dlobr (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s clear in a few months then that’s when you give him a page. Until then the president commented on him because he said vile, evil things about people and organized a protest. Not everyone who organizes something warrants a page, ESPECIALLY such a vitriolic and hateful individual 173.56.60.163 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that if the page gets deleted at this point, that decision will be forever cited as the rationale for why the page should never exist, in spite of the continued notoriety. The cat is out of the bag already.
Remember that this discussion is about whether the individual is notable enough to have a page at all; this is *not* a discussion about what content inside that page is deemed hurtful or impertinent. Dlobr (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not an intrinsic and immutable property. This discussion is about whether the individual is presently notable; we can leave the question of WP:FUTURE notability to the future. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy has been paid $38,000 to damage the education of other students. His life goal is to be on congress. He wants all white people dead. He says his current life goal is to physically kill people. The voters have the right to know who they will be voting for even if it would be 10 years in the future. Employers have the right to know who they are hiring. Keep the article for the safety and well being of the rest of society. Actions have consequences. This article stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.44.251 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. The movement is noteworthy but the subject's notability does not seem to warrant a standalone article. This a mostly leaderless movement that would be happening with or without the subject's involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pop music would be happening without Taylor Swift & the sun will rise tomorrow morning even if I'm not awake to observe it. Dlobr (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a crystal clear WP:BLP1E to me. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? There is significant coverage of him from 2021, including in depth profiles by the Boston Globe and the Bay State Banner. Do those not count? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bay State Banner looks to be an interview which doesn't count. I don't see the Globe article. He very clearly wouldn't otherwise be eligible for an article apart from this incident - very clearly being covered for this single event. He's likely to remain low profile, and he did not have a substantial role in the overall event. SportingFlyer T·C 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: I'm not sure why a Q&A wouldn't count, but this is a 1,800+ word profile of him in the Globe from 2021. It covers everything from his childhood to his confrontational style on the Boston School Committee to why he resigned from the Advisory Board and more. It also has multiple links to other news stories about him. That is significant coverage about multiple events. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He wouldn't have been Wiki-notable for that article. It's painfully obvious this is a BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. He absolutely wouldn't. But the Globe profile is from 2021, three years before the current events at Columbia. So is much of the other coverage of him. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This guy should not have the satisfaction of having a Wikipedia page 2600:1700:9857:70C0:B9A4:731D:B3D5:9D8A (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete, this is single-event notoriety and belongs as a section within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation.
In fact this incident is already described therein, under "Allegations of antisemitism". Marcworld (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge into the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation page. Topjur01 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, delete or merge. Non-notable and poorly sourced.CommonSentiments (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CommonSentiments: Poorly sourced? The sources include The Boston Globe, CNN, The Hill, and The New York Times. What better sources would you like to be seeing? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d say delete. It does not seem he has much individual note. A newsworthy (but not long term-significant) instance of bigoted remarks and involvement in a movement that is itself notable does not strike me as enough. SecretName101 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - single notable event to his name with limited media coverage. unless more comes out related him that generates extensive coverage, no reason he can't just be covered under the protest page Claire 26 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree Ephun (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently written like a hitpiece and violates BLP. The student isn't notable at the moment. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For reasons above. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the WP:NOTNEWS arguments do have some ground, but at the same time there seems to be enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as a significant concern here, but the case via WP:BLP1E seems clear. I suppose one could argue that this is in fact WP:BLP2E or similar, in particular via the Globe human-interest story, but it's not as if James has an activist career that makes him notable rather than the notability of the ongoing event he is associated with. Almost all the useful content can easily go into 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Tomasz Kamusella as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisms Across the Globe

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

There is very little to indicate that this book series is notable. While individual books and authors might be notable (as shown by reviews, citations, and scholarly coverage), there is nothing to indicate that this is notable as a "book series". This stands in contrast to for example The Cambridge History of the British Empire, which is covered by RS as a notable book series. Thenightaway (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or as anATD redirect to series editor Tomasz Kamusella. AFAIK the consensus at WP:NBOOK was that book series that are written as a series did not need series-wide coverage if the individual books were notable (and in fact it may be better to cover them as a series by default). However this appears to be that type of publisher monograph series where the individual books don't form a cohesive whole (which did not count for that), so it would need series wide coverage, which does not seem to exist. At least a few of the individual books are likely notable though but there's not really any useful content on them here anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a series of academic journals/volumes, not a series of books. The four refs don't support notability. Desertarun (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by Hey man im josh: (WP:G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Cartoons2022) in violation of ban or block.) (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UK Independence Party leadership election

2024 UK Independence Party leadership election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. This is a very minor party with no elected representatives and only a couple of thousand members. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, leaning on keep. WP:TOOSOON. Give it a bit more time and more sources and we can probably keep it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON is an argument for why an article should not exist... AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, decidedly minor political event. TOOSOON applies to articles and not to nominations that come "too soon". The event is currently covered with two sentences in the UKIP article, and may be expanded to 9-10 sentences there. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable, no reason to warrant its own article, any more than for leadership elections of the continuing SDP. Anything on this page can by covered on the UKIP page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Centre in Mexico

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

Failure of WP:ORG; the article subject is a small, non-notable organisation. The article has been unsourced for over a decade. I could not find any reliable sources in English, and a translation of the name to Spanish yielded no results either. Yue🌙 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant

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

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt. All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source you mentioned, by Dowdall, is self-published. That is, it was published by HistoryEye, and looking up HistoryEye on the Web [1], we find that it is "managed by Dublin-based genealogist, Denise Dowdall." According to WP:SELFPUBLISH, if material in a self-published source is worth citing, one is expected to find the same material in a more reliable source and cite it from there instead. This goes for all 11 of the citations of Dowdall in the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep   First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
    The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
    It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothatdarkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources.
"Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach.
The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Smith and White mention Grant's horsemanship over twenty times in their biographies, often at length and at various points during his life. I'd certainly say it's not a trivial subject. Intothatdarkness 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources. Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an American equestrian, I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents, and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians. Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians. Obversa (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by User:Intothatdarkness, both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War, also ridden by Abraham Lincoln, was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Obversa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility. I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To everyone else. Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:INDENT. Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough indents! Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
giddyup? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've mislaid my copy, but as additional source British military historian John Keegan discusses Grant's horsemanship in some detail in his 1987 book The Mask of Command ISBN 0-7126-6526-9 and compares it to that of the Duke of Wellington, another noted equestrian. Narky Blert (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
"Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird" - Okay? We don't delete articles for being weird to readers born outside the US, as far as I know. This AfD reads as reflexive anti-nationalism. That isnt a bad impulse, but I believe it is misplaced here.
I don't personally care for his horsemanship, but I've read enough biographies of Grant to know that it's important to every biographer of this massive figure in American history. Calling it nationalistic drivel unworthy of an article by comparing it to horses - horses that have articles of their own (you linked Alexander's horse, and here's Washington's horse)- seems to negate your point. Myth or no, it is a notable subject covered by reliable secondary sources. Comparing it to North Korean leaders' alleged golf prowess is also off-base - because Grant was actually good at riding horses.
I can't find good cause to delete this article. Though I agree the article certainly needs clean up. Happy to contribute to a clean up. Carlp941 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We must bear in mind that a "nationalist" is someone who loves and is loyal to one's own country. This doesn't mean that there is a dislike for other countries. Calling someone a "nationalist", by using terms like "nationalist drivel", "myths", etc, reveals a hatred or contempt for a given country, and in that case this is not good. Now we have the same apparent tendency behind the complaint just made on the Grant Talk page, here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The writing isn't great, but the subject is notable -- which is what matters here. Grant's horsemanship is no mere myth, it's something his scholarly biographers all mention. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Refocus, Rewrite: The information is worthy of being an article. I would focus on Grant's use of the Union Calvary during the Civil War. Confederate Calvary under Van Dorn (Holly Springs) and Forrest, may have influenced Grant to use Union Calvary under Sheridan. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't have anything to do with Grant's use of cavalry. It's focused on his horsemanship, which isn't the same thing. Intothatdarkness 13:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cavalry has to do with soildiers on horses. Grant was a soildier and a General. He convinced Lincoln to appoint Sheridan, head of the Army of the Potomac Cavalry. After Forrest and Van Dorn attacked Grant in Mississippi, Grant learned the importance of having a strong cavalry. I respect your opinion. I understand what you are saying. Your point is taken. This was just a suggestion. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying and respect your opinion as well (although Grant's larger fight was to get Sheridan appointed to command in the Shenandoah Valley, and Sherman was the one who developed an obsession with Forrest). But we already have some serious feuding going on the article's talk page. Trying to add cavalry in would in my view just make things worse. And for the record, Grant didn't champion cavalry in any major way after the war, nor do historians write much about his overall use of cavalry being visionary or exceptional. He understood cavalry, including its limitations, and was very good at using it in the wider strategic sense...as he was with all his forces. Intothatdarkness 23:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Five Forks was a Union victory in April, 1865. Sheridan led the Union Cavalry. Grant's most humiliating defeat was at Holly Springs in 1862, when Confederate General Van Dorn and his Conferderate Cavalry sacked Holly Springs, Grant's Union supply depot. Grant believed cavalry should be under stong leadership. That is all I am saying. Aside from this, I am for keeping the article, but trimmed down and rewritten. I hope this issue can be resolved in the near future. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say at this point the article is clearly a Keep. But the campaign has now moved to the article talk page. Intothatdarkness 14:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creepTalk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creepTalk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creepTalk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creepTalk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creepTalk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zerotalk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creepTalk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zerotalk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.
  • Ref 1 [2] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 2 [3] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
  • Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
  • Ref 4 [4] This is another interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 [5] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
  • Ref 6 [6] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
  • Ref 7 [7] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
  • Ref 8 [8] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
  • Ref 9 [9] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
  • Ref 10 [10] Another press-release Non-RS.
  • Ref 11 [11] An interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 12 [12] Business interview. It is not independent.
  • Ref 13 [13] Another interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 14 404
  • Ref 15 [14] A radio interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:
Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.
  • Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
  • Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
  • Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
  • Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creepTalk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.
  • Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
  • Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
  • Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.
None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creepTalk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:
  • Ref 17 [18] Another interview. Its not independent.
  • Ref 18 [19] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
  • Ref 19 Non-rs
  • Ref 20 Non-rs
  • Ref 21 Unable to view it
  • Ref 22 [20] Its a passing mention.
  • Ref 23 Non-rs
  • Ref 24 [21] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
  • Ref 25 [22] Essentially a passing mention.
  • Ref 27 [23] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
  • Ref 28 [24] Doesn't mention him.
  • Ref 29 [25] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
  • Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
  • Ref 31 [26] A small profile. Not significant.
  • Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
  • Ref 34 Non-rs
  • Ref 35 [27] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 36 [28] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creepTalk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creepTalk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [29] [30] [31] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:
  • [32] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
  • [33] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
  • [34] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creepTalk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creepTalk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zerotalk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creepTalk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zerotalk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creepTalk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zerotalk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is complete nonsense. Yes, its true that newspapers are generally a good source, I use them all the time, but that covenant only holds when when there has been research by the journalist to construct the article not to turn up and ask a few questions of the interviewee and convey it verbatim. To say such a statement makes me question your competence. It is a not question of reliablity anyway. I never questioned that aspect in all the comments above. The problem is independence. There is not a single piece of information here that doesn't come directly from Dror. Thereis no filter. There is no analysis or verification from any other source as far as I can see. scope_creepTalk 07:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you have no idea how much background research was done by the journalist for that article, and you brought no evidence for its unreliability. You just asserted it. Zerotalk 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be attempting to put words in my mouth, for the second time. I never made any mention of reliability in any argument. The problem is there is no corroborating evidence to show this individual is notable, nothing. Its all comes from him talking. All of it. Its a question of independence, not reliability. Interviews don't add up to squat. I can't make any progress with you. I suspect your involved somehow with your Freudian slip above, saying "our" article. Your views are diametrically opposed to the majority of folk who write content of Wikipedia and expect to work inside consensus. I'll not make any other comments to you, from this point forward. scope_creepTalk 14:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When reviewing articles about people for GNG, I always discount interviews as non-secondary sources as required by GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I see WP:THREE invoked I always assume it's because the three sources presented clearly pass GNG, which I do not believe was the case (they all just sort of quoted him.) As I noted I'm not really sure where to fall on this, but if there are three that stood out which clearly pass GNG, I'd be happy to switch my !vote to a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying, I did not bring up that essay, nor say that my assessment was based just on those three. It is based on going through a few thousand articles during NPP reviews and taking about 100 to AFD. GNG sourcing in this article is far stronger than a typical kept bio article; conversely criteria and application advocated by someone here would have about 3/4 of Wikipedia's bio articles deleted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't do a WP:BEFORE on it. Your joking? scope_creepTalk 14:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your insulting comment is doubly out of line. WP:BEFORE refers to person doing the AFD which is you. Secondly, I never said that anything that you could derive that statement from, even if it was applicable to me (which it isn't). You need to ease up on things regarding other editors here, to put it mildly. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with that statement on 3/4ths of bios being deleted based on these "stricter" standards. The sourcing for this particular article just isn't that great. SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look pretty WP:GNG solid to me:
--Omer Toledano (talk) Omer Toledano (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all interviews with the subject, they don't pass the secondary prong of WP:GNG, and only Ref 3 is different from the one North8000 presented. They're also all business interviews, which can be solicited by subjects for marketing purposes (not insinuating this is the case, and WP:NCORP doesn't apply because it's a biography, but similar precautions need to be taken here). If he passes WP:GNG, it's likely because he's been covered independently as a protestor. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omert33, Ref 3 (Haaretz) is mostly an interview with 2 short paragraphs of texts followed up by primary elements, it's just him talking about himself and his activities. Ref 32 (Shine News) is also more of the same. Ref 33 (Calcalist), is even a more prevalent interview, from the starting paragraph. Ref 30 (Israel21c) is also like the rest here. X (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: The "3/4" was just my off the cuff guess. On your last point, I never said that the GNG sourcing on this article was great, just stronger than average. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added references (notability):
-- Omer Toledano (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are passing mentions and Techcrunch is trash. Nobody uses it except UPE editors. Both of the again are not independent, more evidence to show that it all comes from Dror. scope_creepTalk 12:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gonna keep this short since we're at the 7-day deadline, but I find myself agreeing with scope_creep's source analysis more than anyone else's. The sources presented by Omert33 are passing mentions or not independent. Interviews usually are not independent from the subject, and they lack the kind of analysis and critical assessment we usually find in WP:RS. A final thank you to the closer who decided to reopen this to let me !vote. To the nominator, consider a renomination with a source assessment table if you choose to renominate this. Pilaz (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am not convinced by any of the 'keep' arguments above. There's some vague waving at GNG by a number of participants (importantly, note, this does not include North8000, who has engaged in meaningful discussion regarding GNG to justify their position), but when asked to present sources that meet the GNG standard, I agree with scope_creep's analysis of any such sources presented in response. Beyond that, there are a number of straight votes (eg. היידן, Sofiblum) and other arguments to avoid that I'm sure will be discarded by an experienced closer (eg. "a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel", "A known activist and the article has enough references"). I also do not accept that being interviewed contributes to GNG (they are acceptable sources for information, yes, but do not contribute to assessing notability), and community consensus at deletion discussions in recent times has generally also found in this manner (WP:PRIMARY explicitly notes this consensus in a footnote). I agree with North8000 that this should be judged against GNG rather than NCORP, although I understand scope_creep's point that there is a strong mix of CORP about this article - but ultimately it is a biography and I agree with North8000 more on this. Daniel (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Indian general election in South India

2024 Indian general election in South India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Practically a duplicate of the main election article. A general regional election article isn't needed as each state in South India has an article about the general election taking place in the respective state. Regional articles for India would only create more for the sake of more and would be more stats articles and wouldn't provide meaningful context. Articles about the election in each state and territory for the country is enough outside the main election article.

And the creator who contest the speedy deletion tag, states article like UK elections in England is a precenident type article. However, England is not a region in the UK. It is one of the countries part of the UK thus an article for each UK member country makes sense. Regions in England like Midlands, London, etc don't need articles for each general election result as that would be overkill. Articles like these would be overkill as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article can kept as 2024 Indian general election may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. As this splits data for South India, which would make ease of navigation. As the election proceed there would be increase in length of 2024 Indian general election.
Pagers (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too long is generally considered about 8k words of readable prose. These 2 combined is barely half that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Woke. Although clearly in some way notable, this term is not clearly separable from pejorative uses of 'woke' already discussed at our existing article and should be discussed there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke. There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is very widely used by reliable sources, so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like "woke." Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back. This is as forky as they come. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You must of course mean WP:CFORK and not WP:FORK as FORK is defined in the first line of the link you made as Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia, no? microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 02:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK2/SK4, sock nom. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkjutt Jammu

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

This article has many wrong and disputed information like IkkJutt Jammu is different organisation in Jammu And ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal is different from it. Both organisation have officially different different social accounts and websites.pls delete it. Nishalover — Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two are different .But this article has redirected Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong.The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu.Delete the article if not
So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Competitive Technology

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

fails general notability guideline. every source in the article is primary. ltbdl (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lacks reliable secondary sources and it does not even meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It doesn't fit for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heights and weights of US presidents

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failure to meet WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think height or weight are notable characteristics of US presidents. JIP | Talk 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork of a list. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Roden

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

Autobiography of an individual who does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, as there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him. See source assessment below. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out" Yes Yes No Roden is not mentioned ✘ No
"NYS Assembly Bill Search" No Primary source Yes No ✘ No
"Opt-Out Organ Donation" No Primary source No ✘ No
"The Ins and Outs of Organ Donation" Yes ~ Blog from medical institution No Roden is not mentioned ✘ No
"College Students Push for More Organ Donations" Yes Yes No Only a quote from Roden ✘ No
"New York State Legislature Passes Living Donor Support Act" No Press release No ✘ No
"Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives" Yes Yes No Only a quote from Roden ✘ No
"Youth Coalition For Organ Donation Strives to Save Lives" No Press release ✘ No
"TEDxTulane" No TEDx Talk by Roden ✘ No
"WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award" Yes Yes No Nomination for non-notable award ✘ No
"Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney" Yes Yes No Roden is not mentioned ✘ No
"Loyola team wins honorable mention in the global “Students Reinventing Cities” competition" No University press release No No ✘ No
"ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden" No Podcast with Roden No No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.
    The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.
    The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.
    The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.
    The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.
    The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.
    The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.
    The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.
    The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar. Evanroden1 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept. GraziePrego (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Pakistan audio leaks controversy

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

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality.  samee  converse  02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [41]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samee has not edited since 2 May. Possibly they received a software upgrade that was unsuccessful. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contacted (not by Samee) on email about this AFD but if I have any remarks I'll leave them here. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There appears to be ongoing coverage of the event into 2024 [42] as an example, but I'm not sure which sources from the geographical area are considered RS. Dawn has coverage about it, which I think is a RS [43]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.
Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article isn't in the best condition with its over-focus on four particular women's participation rather rather than on summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event in general, I find the essay Deletion is not cleanup persuasive in this case. Deleting an article about a valid topic makes it more difficult to improve later, and even in this non-ideal state the article remains educational and of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the challenge once cleanup is completed (deemphasizing the sections on the four women), you are left with the one paragraph opening, containing only one reference. And much of that prose is unreferenced - (e.g. "many women contributed their opinions and leadership skills to the movement" and "Although women had substantial roles, they had different standpoints regarding the hunger strike movement"). While I agree this is the case, the expectation is that there would be general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event. But those sources do not seem to be there, even with a Google Scholar search. - Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be a legitimate subject. Summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event would be fine and possible, but we should also include all specific women/examples as they are right now. No significant removals of text would be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Barlaston#Parish council. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Barlaston#Parish council. I agree with the nom in that it is not a notable entity and merging in entirety and then covering all future elections I think might be a bit WP:UNDUE. As it's already covered on the proposed target article, I think a straight redirect will suffice and is appropriate. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cursed soldiers. as a viable ATD since no further input appears to be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Justice (Poland)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [44], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr. I see a rough consensus to Merge this article with the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martyr (politics)

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

Low quality article. Parent article Martyr already clarifies in the first sentence that the word may have a non-religious meaning. I propose a merge of this article to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr and/or Martyr#Revolutionary martyr. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [45]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [46] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [47]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [48] [49]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what is known as a bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - in sum, I don't see anything with the information, which is all factual and correct. The biggest problem is that it's sort of a fork. A lesser issue to finding appropriate sources, but simple internet searches would help. I will defer to others who might decide whether and where to merge this, or alternatively, to fix it. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bearian: Did you men to say you don't see anything wrong with the information? Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I don't see anything wrong with it. Typo. I'm leaning'merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, per arguments above. The article seems to cite nothing to establish that 'political Martyrs' are an independent topic. Instead, it consists of a few examples that the article creators think the term applies to. This is particularly problematic when applied to contexts where events in non-English-speaking countries are being described, since as the martyr article notes, terms translated to 'martyr' may be applied much more broadly than is generally understood through normal English usage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, I'd have to suggest that there are obvious problems with neutrality involved. Generally speaking, people tend to be described as martyrs by those who share similar views - and Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting such subjectivity as if it was objective fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Political and Legal Education

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– North America1000 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [50], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The sole Keep view did not provide any valid argument. But without quorum, this can only be treated as a contested PROD. Feel free to renominate in a month. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - subject passes WP:JOURNALIST as he is widely cited and interviewed by International and Pakistani media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you voting twice? While it's clear he's a journalist and may be frequently cited or even invited on TV talk shows, but having a WP BLP requires meeting WP:GNG criteria. Whether he meets that is unclear to me, so if you think he does, you'll need to provide evidence of coverage right here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pinging @Mar4d: as they stood with strong sourcing in first AfD. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it ethical to invite those who previously voted "keep"? It could be considered canvassing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unethical as they earlier hammered by strong sourcing. You too can invite, it's no wrong man. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources provided by Mar4d weren't particularly robust. Mar4d presented 04 references. Let's assess each of them. The Diplomat and [DW sources consist of interviews but they don't directly discuss the subject. While Al Jazeera only mentions him in passing. Only the BBC story offers some coverage of the subject, but it alone isn't sufficient to establish WP:N because it lacks significant depth.
    And no, I don't feel the need to invite anyone here because I generally try to steer clear of such actions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion needs more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Just wanted to point out that although @Twinkle1990 voted to keep the BLP, they only cited WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JUSTAPOLICY and didn't provided solid reasons backing their stance. In my last comment above, I've thoroughly evaluated each and every reference cited on the BLP and none of them passes WP:SIRS. I'm mentioning this because sometimes AfDs are closed with no consensus due to lack of participation, leaving the BLP on WP unnecessarily which is a bit frustrating. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

Fails WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This feels like PROMO for a US gov't program... Sourcing is solely to universities around the world, or the US gov't. I tried a Gscholar search, but anything not published by the US gov't is very hard to find. One mention of funding in a medical study, but I don't see any critical discussion of the program. I'm amazed it's been around for 40 yrs or so and there is no analysis of this fellowship. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This [51] but it's on the ed.gov web domain, I'm not sure if it's independent of the gov't or not. This [52] in a Malaysian journal... Jstor has nothing, using the Wikipedia Library link only brings up the case study listed in my first link. There just doesn't seem to be anything about this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reviewing additional feedback, I continue to find the rationales for keep insufficiently policy-based ("this is an impressive program," "the subject is notable enough"), while the sources (both in the article and beyond) simply don't support notability according to policy. The sources added by one of the editors arguing for keep are primary or trivial, and the Youtube links are promotional. I encourage the closer to review the sources! Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., Dclemens1971, and Oaktree b. Fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes. This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger. However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect/Merge Per WP:MERGEREASON, merging doesn't necessarily mean that this caucus isn't notable, just that there isn't enough to say about it to justify its own article. This caucus was essentially a non-event, and the "article" is mostly infoboxes, sidebars, and other template cruft. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the tables were turned, and it was the other party's nominee who had this caucus result of being the only candidate and not garnering many votes, how would people be reacting? I assume good faith here, but let's be consistent with the candidates. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've merged from the other party as well, not all of us care about American politics in a partisan manner. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge We've been redirecting elections such as these which aren't quite notable enough for their own article - while there's obviously some coverage, there's not much to say and they basically violate WP:NOTNEWS and our event guidelines while being able to be covered adequately elsewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub. A trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article. Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries, but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses". 2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category. I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default, with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary. Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article and fall under WP:REDUNDANT. Hemmers (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmericaSpeaks

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The keep votes have presented no reliable sources indicaticating notability and there is consensus that this is a subtopic that ought to be covered in the main article rather than forked. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical pro-Beijing camp

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

Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Stowmarket#Governance as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowmarket Town Council

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. This is a temporary close, as the consensus below is clearly not to retain the article; further, there is consensus to merge to Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. However, as that article does not yet exist, I cannot close as merge to that destination as a matter of historical precedent. Any interested editor is encouraged to create the target article, then merge this content, and replace this article with a redirect as per this AfD.

Note that if this merge and redirect isn't executed in the next couple of weeks, this procedural close should be replaced by a speedy deletion to execute the consensus below (ie. not retain the article). Such a deletion can be reversed immediately, should any editor wish to execute the above-described article creation, merge and redirect. Daniel (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Montgomery mayoral election

2007 Montgomery mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

M. L. Ashwini

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Singh Debbarma

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

Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K. Antony

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Carter

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This article says nothing other than the subject is a mayor which fails NPOL. The sources are obvious WP:ROUTINE coverages and do not count towards GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Merrill

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

Fails WP:NPOL as he was defeated in the run for a seat in South Dakota State Senate. WP:GNG is not passable as the sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:ROUTINE and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [57]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artha Woods

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

Fails WP:NPOL and also no sources to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice J. Buah

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Council of State members are not inherently notable and there’s not enough source to establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hernández-Mats

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

Prod declined. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. She is a teacher and a leader in a local union who was chosen as a major party's nominee for governor's runningmate in 2022. It appears that the Miami Herald wrote up one in-depth piece on her during the campaign and there are other WP:ROUTINE articles relating to the election and the Crist ticket that do not cover her in significant depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. I reviewed the available coverage and it's either of the Crist campaign or it's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the United Teachers of Dade, quoting her incidentally to her role as president in the process of coverage focusing on other issues (such as the decertification vote or COVID-19). Redirecting connects this page with what most people may be searching for related to her, and it makes it easier to resurrect the page in the future should she be the subject of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Hirschel

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject currently doesn’t pass NPOL as city councilor, and is only contesting for a seat in the EU Parliament. Sources were insufficient to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanak Dhanai

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable, the listed sources are mostly statistical websites on election and stuff like that. No GNG pass here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttarakhand. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my check, I found that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL criteria, as he was never elected as an MLA or MP. The fact that his father was an independent MLA does not confer notability to the son. GrabUp - Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and role as politician, author and policy researcher is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Guedes

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

Fails WP:NPOL and utterly fails WP:GNG. Being the mayor of a certain city that is most populous in a state shouldn’t inherently make them notable as there are no sources to establish GNG. Sources are either WP:ROUTINE or WP:RUNOFTHEMILL which do not count towards GNG. Just like other articles on mayors that I have nominated in the past, just saying one is a mayor doesn’t count, aside that, they should at least pass the three basic criteria for GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Brazil. Owen× ☎ 07:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my check, these sources can’t establish notability due to a lack of in-depth coverage, failing WP:GNG. Additionally, he fails WP:NPOL. I agree with the nominator, who said, “Being the mayor of a certain city that is the most populous in a state shouldn’t inherently make them notable.” GrabUp - Talk 08:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Salmón

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because she enjoys in-depth coverage mainly by primary sources (the UN -- I also found university coverage of her as its associate but did not add it). In-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources appears not to exist. Separately, she remains far from passing special criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN as well. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pretty sure her position would meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, but regardless, there's been coverage of her since the appointment of both her and her activities (and North Korea being angry at her findings from her work). For example:
I think there's enough here to meet the WP:GNG. SilverserenC 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Pakrashi

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

Contested WP:CSD. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a "veteran leader" of a party doesn't inherently makes one notable. Sources found both here and WP:BEFORE can not establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bangladesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A quick Google Book search shows plenty of books mentioning him. I am not confident about this AfD. GrabUp - Talk 08:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup Did you find significant coverage or passing mentions? GNG isn’t established by merely passing mentions. It has to be SIGCOV or coverage to an extent. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Satish Pakrashi and Niranjan Sen of Barisal ( this latter had his organization in Murshidabad ) were prominent among the leaders of the Anushilan who joined the Revolt Group . [...] He met prominent revolutionaries such as Satish Pakrashi..." [63], "... Satish Pakrashi of Anusilan group were placed in charge of the Dacca cantonment." [64], "... Satish Pakrashi , Niranjan Sengupta and Ramesh Biswas , top leaders of the Anushilan revolt group and of Barisal group , were arrested by the police in a house in Mechua Bazaar , Calcutta , and subsequently more arrests were made ..." [65], etc, there are tons of books mentioning or discussing his role in the struggle for Indian independence. Moreover, he was a member of the West Bengal Legislative Council for six years [66], so easily passes WP:NPOL. --Soman (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert P. Watson

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

The only real claim to fame in the article is a "former candidate for the United States House of Representatives" and an academic. The information for the candidate for the House of Representatives specifically states he was considering running and formed an exploratory committee. This does not meet the requirements for notability. The article was created in 2005 so there has been plenty of opportunities to add reliable sourced content if it existed, but from what I can see it doesn't exist. This individual does not meet the requirements for notability to have a stand alone Wikipedia article. VVikingTalkEdits 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Academic notability in the subject's field would probably be established via reviews of his books. Checking JSTOR finds at least one for The Ghost Ship of Brooklyn [67], Affairs of State [68], George Washington's Final Battle [69][70], The Presidents' Wives [71][72], The Nazi Titanic [73], and America's First Crisis [74]. So, there may be a WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR pass here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews I found for his many books. He also has a distinguished professorship but the case for WP:PROF#C5 hinges on whether one counts Lynn University as "a major institution of higher education and research". He's not notable as a politician but that's irrelevant; he's also not notable as an astronomical body nor as a species of insect. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I removed the political campaign from the article altogether, refocusing it on his academic career, as I could not find good enough sourcing. The best I found was this dubiously-reliable interview (also potentially WP:CIRCULAR) which mentions the campaign without any specifics in response to which Watson states "I plead temporary insanity." I don't think that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bam

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Another case of a politician who got involved in the upcoming election and withdrew or defected to another party and stuff like that. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, some are unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and being a candidate from a political party for the upcoming election does not make them notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Once again, a non-elected individual, this article was created solely due to the general election 2024 in India. The person does not meet WP:NPOL criteria as he has never been elected as an MP or MLA. Furthermore, he does not meet WP:GNG standards as the sources only provide passing mentions of his candidacy. GrabUp - Talk 10:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contesting for a candidacy is not notable. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Baş

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article appears to be a direct translation of tr:Hüseyin Baş. I tried to move some of the sources from there to here after it was translated without the references intact. There is one additional source used on that language wiki here but I don't know if it's of any use. (After review I can see that a user script marks that link as unreliable - this one has low hopes but I don't think I will be weighing in as someone with no context otherwise.)Reconrabbit 23:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [75] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [76] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Korniychuk

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources.

Source eval:

Comments Source
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS 1. "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV 2. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the position of the head of the Pervomayska district state administration of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV 3. ^ "About the appointment of A. Korniychuk as the Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV 4. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the post of Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS 5. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above 6. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above 7. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

 // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

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

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.
    And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?
    I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.
    Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite, Jr.

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

Not meeting WP:NBASIC, and tagged since February 2024 for notability, missing multiple independent sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician, and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline. This article should be deleted. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanshi Arya

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable. There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years. This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: "Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-03-26. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV. Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya? Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is
    In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se..
    Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet. It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV, an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media. I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call. May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified. thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News. There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports. Davidindia (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and potentially WP:BLP violations. As a university student she is not notable, absent significant coverage in Chronicle of Higher Education or the equivalent. One reliable source by definition fails SIGCOV and WP:OR. We very rarely keep any academic who has not gained tenure with at least an associate chair. There's also disputes in the sources about whether she's dalit or middle class - a real BLP violation if you're an Indian reader - and very likely to be the subject of an edit war. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources given like Indian Express, Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Economic Times are major reputed newspapers in India and the three news websites, News Minute, News Laundry and Wire are equally reliable and reputed news houses. Except Sportsgrail all the sources cited are secondary and from mainstream news industry as reputed as Chronicle of Higher Education or much more. All are highly respected news outlets. The article about the subject is not for an academic, per say, but for a political leader in student politics. I could not understand the dispute of the subject being a Dalit. Anyway, I leave it to the editors. If possible, it can be put in the draft space. Thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Keep, Delete or Draftify arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete University-level student leader is inherently nonnotable unless some national level achievements. - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With due respect to the senior editors here, who have been doing great work on Wiki for years, I am just curious to understand if there is a wiki guideline or policy that prevents student leaders from having a BLP page. I saw that many student leaders in Europe from Digby Jacks to Malia Bouattia to Shakira Martin to Zamzam Ibrahim, have articles. Many BLPs on student leaders were created on Wiki with just a reference or two, when they were first created. Here in India, a leader from JNU|Jawaharlal Nehru University is not just a university-level student leader... any leader from JNU gets ten times more visibility and recognition in India than a state university, say Bangalore University. Many from JNU have become National leaders later on. The subject is also notable because she is the first queer dalit student. But this bit was removed to make sure there were no BLP violations and to protect the confidentiality of the subject, as there were not many sources and it was not clear if she was “out” I feel this subject BLP passes the WP: GNG. But I leave it to the editors to decide. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Draftify. The page is currently confusing with the sources given whether the page is on Priyanshi Arya or Dhananjay. I do not think a local student union leader is notable but seems like the subject must have made some achievement that could be worthy of notice so I lean on draftifying this page for improvement with more reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) and after going through all the sources more discreetly, many are poor to unreliable to lack of coverage on the subject. General Secretary of a university is OK but it is not a significant enough to be considered notable when you cannot find more reliable sources with indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus The person who "won the Jawaharlal Nehru University student union (JNUSU) election for the post of General Secretary." is Priyanshi Arya and not Dhananjay. The author of this article is suspiciously using the "Dhananjay"'s coverages to imply notability on Arya. Dhananjay is not inherently notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the sources and also tried to find sources on the subject but not any help. It lead me to change my vote. Page and the subject fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the outset, I would like to declare that I have absolutely no conflict of interest. I just saw the news and did the article. I have a lot of respect to the editor for all his work, especially with a number of good articles and C rated articles. I am taken aback by a comment that attributes motives. 1000s of editors use the subject in search and cite all the articles that quoted the subject, which is quite normal. AfD discussions are not 'voting' and since it is relisted, I used the bullet as Keep. My only point is when student leaders in Europe have pages why not in India... especially when Priyanshi has at least one article, exclusively about her (Zee News is a reputed media outlet). I just want everyone to know that I am just doing this in good faith, and have no particular interest in the subject. Thanks and regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved.  So let it be reviewed by the community.
    And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest,  you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
    Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
    I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass GNG notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oblivy, What do you mean by "inadequate independent sources"? I can't find any reference that isn't independent of the subject. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source Assessment Analysis
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/ Yes Yes according to WP:RSP, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source ~ ~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694 Yes in Urdu language Yes BBC is renowned to be reliable Yes ✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka ? ? mere interview No ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/ ? ? No Not opening, dead link ✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette No advert site No No ✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/ ~ ? archived, Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world No No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf No No Non existent pdf No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/ No Not opening.. Dead link No Not opening.. Dead link ? ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/ ? ? archived ? ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/ No No archived site ~ ✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol ? No Link not opening ~ ✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup ? ? ~ Probably paid promotion ? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/ ? No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704 ? ? Probably Paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not supporting any side. The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment. It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. This is very clear! Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.
Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.
Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links. Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.
GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).
With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC. I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV shows/films Roles Reference
Living on the Edge
Pakistan's most popular TV reality show		 Director [1][1][2][3]
XPOSED Creator and host [4][5]
King of Street Magic Creator and host [5]
Desi Kudiyan Creator and host [4][5]
The Cricket Challenge Creator and host [5]
BOL Champions season 1 Executive producer [6]
Babylicious Executive producer [5][6]
The Musik Director and producer [1][7]

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  3. ^ "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  4. ^ a b "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  5. ^ a b c d e "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  6. ^ a b Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  7. ^ Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  • Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."
I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.
@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.
    Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
    Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:

  • AFP (February 19, 2021)
  • Arab News (April 4, 2021)
  • NYT (February 26, 2021)
  • Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
  • Business Today (March 2, 2021)
  • The Print (February 13, 2021)
  • CBC (April 4, 2021)
  • Forbes (May 7, 2021)
  • New Yorker (June 14, 2021)

Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Local-government level politicians are not inherently notable under NPOL, and subject fails GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this article. From the page and sources I would say this person should have an article, but maybe there is sense in requiring more sources that are independent as mentioned by the user Timothy. O.maximov (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Mashwani

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

The subject evidently falls short of meeting WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't appear to satisfy the basic WP:GNG. This BLP was created by a SPA InamAleem990 (talk · contribs) and subsequently, the BLP was moved from the draft NS to the main NS. Much of the press coverage he received occurred during his detention, which may not be enduring enough to establish WP:N. Also see Draft:Azhar Qazi Mashwani. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. This, this, this, this, this indicates that the subjected person is notable in Pakistan as his kidnapping issue is widely covered by Pakistani media. If not a notable one, why too much outrage over his kidnapping issue? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So as I mentioned in my nom. above, a significant portion of the press coverage he received stemmed from his detention/kidnapping but this is not be substantial enough to establish WP:N. Describing himself as a social media activist, it's understandable that his detention would attract some media attention. However, does this attention render him notable enough for a Wikipedia BLP? Likely not. Furthermore, considering that this BLP was created by SPA - possibly by the subject themselves and was created in a questionable manner by moving an unapproved draft to the main NS, we shouldn't consider its inclusion based solely on insufficient press coverage that fails to meet even basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Creation by SPA is another issue. You must take it to WP: SPI as you have accused the page creator as SPA. Being rational, I don't find any issue to entertain this AfD. Excuse me if I missed somewhere. Fair is fair. So we should come to the rational AfD discussion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage you're referring to was published in March 2023, coinciding with the subject's detention. According to our policy, individuals known solely in connection with a single event typically don't merit an BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tshibaka

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.
    Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
    Specifically:
    • Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
    • The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
    • The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
    If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?
    As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.
    As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.
    Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?
    All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"
    WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?
    Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.P.S. Just came across List of third-party and independent performances in United States Senate elections. You can see dozens of BLPs listed there for losing candidates who have a lot less notability in reliable sources than the person we’re discussing. Also, people here who support a redirect are not suggesting moving this article’s content, which violates WP:PRESERVE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"
    All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".
    Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines
    It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.
    So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?
    I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.
    All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:
    What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?
    She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.
    Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.
    I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep
    Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does cover some info about Tshibaka outside the election, it's not that bad in terms of sourcing and per Hameltion. Just because she lost an election doesn't make her any less notable if the article is well sourced. Plus, she appears to be active post-election via activism against rank-choice voting and being chair of Trump's Alaska campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. I’ll support the group consensus but feel strongly that she does not have the necessary notability in her own right to merit her own article. I’ve edited thousands of Wiki pages for federal political candidates and officeholders, and the difference here is she: a) was unsuccessful and thus did not serve in the office that she sought, and b) she has not yet achieved a significant level of notability in business, politics, education, or other ways one would qualify for a WP:BLP article. Running an unsuccessful race is not enough for her to qualify on her own, but her name should certainly redirect to the 2022 election article about the campaign in which she was a candidate. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska as a usual an appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal office in the United States. I also believe that some of the veriable information can be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=1221283419"