Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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 delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Junaid

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

Non-Notable Politician. Fails WP:NPOL, According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are notable if they held international, national or state/province post. Also somehow looks promotional to me. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject has never been elected into any legislative bodies thus failing NPOL. In that case he must pass general GNG criteria. As I can see, there are no sources giving him enough significant coverage. I dont know whether there are any sources in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person fails WP:NPOL but has been covered in mainstream media as social activist. Riteboke (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed on notability based on other notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riteboke, Not significantly tho, Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability. He Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 15:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (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. Without prejudice against recreation as a disambiguation page Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of government

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

This article contains no useful information at all, is unsourced, and doesn't help the reader understand the topic. I would suggest converting this to a disambiguation, as there are many more specific articles on this topic. Crazy Boy 826 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This an overly broad and vague topic. The "See Also" section is a coat rack of criticisms of various ideologies and constitutional structures. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is simply too broad to be an article. "Criticism of X" would only seem to work if it's narrowed to a specific field or a specific work. There are hundreds of governments, none of which are identical such that the inclusion of any particular "criticism" would simply be an arbitrary selection. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No useful information Athel cb (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to qualify for a wiki article. Pilean (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a possibility to recreate as a disambig. page or a list. This could serve as a disambig. page, but it does not provide proper disambig. This might be also a list, but it is not properly constructed as a list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems very vague, is remarkably short, and only describes its own name - mainly because the very topic is too vague. I agree with My very best wishes' (potential) suggestion of a disambiguation page. Forvana 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment per nom Rajuiu (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Mättö

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because he was also murdered by the Lapua Movement, but was otherwise unnotable:

Delete Both 'Erik Mättö' the related article 'Yrjö_Holm'. As the Nom points out, subjects fail WP:VICTIM I looked at the other language article & second subject other language page and do not see anything else that might meet WP:GNG. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable murder victim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2021 (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. The consensus across the two AfD discussions seems to be that this election is notable. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Missouri State Auditor election

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

CRYSTAL and opinion pieces used as statements of fact. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being brought up again? It was already decided to be kept. Kirby1706 (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first TAG was a PROD. This is an AfD – a different mechanism where the community will decide the article's fate, either deletion or some other solution. Reason(s) is stated above. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first PROD was contested and the the article was immediately nominated for AfD. There was never a 2nd PROD. Kirby1706 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge I removed the low-quality kitchen sink speculative source but this is otherwise consistent with other 2022 election articles. Rather strange that Missouri has auditor elections in midterm years but all of the other five statewise positions are in presidential years, but this could be merged to a future 2022 Missouri elections. Reywas92^Talk 22:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of CRYSTAL (it's well established that articles on the next elections are perfectly acceptable), but because we simply don't need articles like this. The election of the state auditor should be covered in the (to-be-created) 2022 Missouri elections (and I am aware that an article on the 2018 election exists – this should be merged with the respective equivalent). Number 5 7 11:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that this would also apply to the 2014 and 2010 election. Kirby1706 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Crystal" is due to the speculative (unconfirmed, opinion-piece referenced) listing of possible candidates, which makes up the entire article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There isn't much information right now since the election isn't until 2022 and the open Senate seat is getting more attention (as noted in the first AfD). There has been an article for each Auditor election since 2010 (4 total elections including this one). There are also pages for other statewide elections that don't get as much attention: Treasury, Secretary of State, etc. So overall I think the article was created too soon but will likely be recreated once the election day gets closer if deleted. Kirby1706 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which literally has a point on exactly this. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2024 U.S. presidential election and 2028 Summer Olympics."

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raving Loony Green Giant Party

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. This article does not prove notability as required by GNG, politics and organisation policies. Sentences in this article such as " who disagreed with the split and stood as a joint candidate with the OMRLP – the candidate also wished to highlight the duplicity of a number of individuals that were holding clandestine membership of each and waiting to see which "Loony" faction came out on top" sound like someone has been using this article against WP:BLOG amongst others. No evidence of notable achievement before or after elections, and no evidence of notable results in elections. doktorb _words^deeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 17:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article as nominated didn't provide good evidence of notability, but there was a lot of media attention in the early 1990s, and I've reworked it using three articles from reliable sources, two of which provide substantial coverage of the party, so it now passes the GNG. Warofdreams talk 22:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the updates by Warofdreams keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the updates by Warofdreams. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Brown Wanamaker

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

Individual related to famous people fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources are available apart from a one-paragraph New York Times death announcement. KidAd • SPEAK 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now first x to do y is getting to absurd levels. Her first x is not just enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

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

Non-notable or not-yet-notable journalist. After discussions with the page’s creator, who has done extensive research, we were unable to identify significant coverage in secondary RS beyond a single source (Yahoo). This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now the entry relies almost entirely on primary sources and does not meet wiki notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The discussion of sources can be found at Talk:Isaac Saul. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage actually about Saul to justify having an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnpacklambert: since I'm still not a very experienced editor, and this was my first major article, do you mind explaining why this is? I thought that in particular three of the sources that I included justified this for publication:

And then, there are the sources for his career in Ultimate on top of that. Do you mind explaining why you don't think it's ready? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Establishing notability for journalists is fundamentally difficult because news organizations don't want them to be the story. It looks like we have two qualifying sources ([1] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [2]). ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Typically the notability requirement is for secondary sources tho no? (I’m speaking just of what I understand consensus to be—and actually that’s what that essay says—but I guess I’d have to think over what I think the ideal policy would be on primary sources of this type.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Innisfree987, Per WP:INTERVIEW: commentary added to interviews by a publication can sometimes count as secondary-source material ~Kvng (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - My apologies, I thought you meant the interview itself was a substantial introduction (to Saul). I take it you were talking about what prefaces it. Agree for sure about regarding that as secondary but have to disagree that it’s substantial—it’s just a few sentences. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that he's notable (yet, perhaps?) The Yahoo piece is pretty minor and afaict, has no byline and the interview isn't enough to satisfy independence of the source, nor coverage of him. TAXIDICAE💰 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to add that I found a new source covering the election fraud Twitter thread that does not include an interview: https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/us-elections-2020-journalists-mega-thread-debunking-trump-campaigns-fraud-claim-is-viral-read-here. Also, here's another interview that I found (I know that these aren't considered high-quality sources on their own, but there are a lot of him, and every one of them includes a blurb before the interview itself): https://braverangels.org/tangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnortangle-reimagining-political-news-isaac-saul-with-ciaran-oconnor/. Does this help at all? Also, isn't the Forbes source stronger than the Yahoo one anyway? Thank you! Kokopelli7309 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see enough secondary coverage independent from him either in this AfD or in the article to sustain an article on WP:GNG grounds, for instance the sources include his writings for Huffpost, personal interviews, and a Forbes piece (which doesn't contribute to notability due to the consensus on Forbes and self-publication.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks borderline after 2 relists, hoping for more people to take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli7309, I see no one has replied about those additional sources, so my two cents: despite the header, the Free Press source is really about Trump and only has a passing mention of Saul. Prose before interviews can be helpful as Kvng was saying, but for AfD purposes we’re looking for material that’s gone through an editorial process, fact-checking, etc. and to me it’s not clear the podcast blurbs fit the bill. So for me these don’t change much, as far as giving us more to go on that’s not Saul’s own writing/commentary, but I appreciate your looking for more sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete. This is not a bar against recreation if their is increased coverage in the lead-up/during/after the election they are involved in. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Green Voice

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. See Patriotic Socialist Party, Miss Great Britain Party and Scottish Family Party for precedents for the wider Wikipedia community agreeing that not all political parties are notable, and notability does not attach itself to political parties as of right. This article has sources, but no evidence of GNG, ORG and general achievement. Content of article has issues of tone, content, and sourcing. Political party has no evidence of achievement or notability prior to, or following, elections, and party has no evidence of notable coverage for campaigns expected of a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another step on the nominator's campaign to have every article on a small political party removed from Wikipedia. In the interest of balance, please list also the AfDs you have proposed that were declined. Emeraude (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until after the May elections. Notability seems to be borderline at the minute, but I think it is in the interest of democracy that the article is kept during the election period, especially as they are standing candidates on most of the Scottish Parliament's regional lists. We can then take into account the party's results and media coverage in the election when deciding whether or not they are notable. If the article is deemed non-notable, I would suggest redirecting to List of political parties in the United Kingdom to preserve the page's history. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am swayed by some of the opinions below. It is unlikely that this party will garner any significant coverage before the election, seeing as the campaign has been ongoing for two weeks already and there is nothing so far. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is appropriate that this article be deleted. It is my view that, if the decision was taken on the other List parties mentioned by Doktorbuk, then this party certainly does not pass the threshold - there is no evidence at all that it has any remote presence on the political scene. The individual named as the sole member of the party may, himself, justify a page about his own political activity, but it is not appropriate for a whole wikipedia page to cover this party. There are hundreds of other list parties with bigger followings that do not make the cut. I disagree that the issue should be kicked until after 6 May 2021.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO - I do not think it is correct that this party are standing candidates in multiple lists, my understanding was that the individual himself was contesting one Glasgow seat. It is not a party with members and individuals elected to stand on the list. My understanding is that the Party is the man himself.

I have checked all of the statements of persons nominated and they say that the party is standing on six out of the eight regional lists. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 14:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that is correct I missed it when I looked because I did not check each list (82.2.100.98). It is not a one-man party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.100.98 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a complicated one. For a party standing in an in progress election they are currently attracting very little coverage. In the past there has been some coverage, but historically they have been a bit of a one man band and it might be argued that an article on Alistair McConnachie is more appropriate. I can see the argument for leaving until the end of this election, but I have doubts that this will make a difference in the long term. Dunarc (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Considering that there is a moderate chance of increased notability in the leadup and aftermath of the upcoming election, it doesn't make sense to delete this article until after the election - then, whether or not Independent Green Voice is notable will become more black and white. Wait until after the 2021 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:GNG. It's not even borderline. Arguments based on the proximity of the elections do not appear to me to have any basis in policy. What we have is a party so minor that secondary reliable sources are not talking about it. What RS coverage we do have is more about Alistair McConnachie than about the party, so my second choice would be to re-name the article Alistair McConnachie. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The party fails WP:GNG today. We are considering this article today. Should it become notable in the future the article may be restored, provided with delete without prejudice to future re-creation Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The article is basically just an acknowledgement that "this party exists". — Czello 14:36, 11 April 2021 (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. Fork with no meaningful history to merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political views of Tucker Carlson

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

Here we have an article full of opinions of a well-known pundit, who generates plenty of news coverage--but we already have a biography, and the question here is whether every opinion of his that is noted in the press needs to be gathered into a big heap that acquires encyclopedic notability only by virtue of weight. My opinion is no, this is not what we are supposed to do; it's not unlike the series of Person X on Twitter, where the community decided in the end that, and I paraphrase, not everything that is verified acquires stand-alone notability. I don't like the slippery slope argument very much, but it applies here: if this goes, then it goes for just about every single person who gets on TV or on social media, and there is no encyclopedic benefit to it. Take the important ones (secondary sources and editorial judgment should suffice), stick them (back) in his biography, and be done with it. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the article was copied from Tucker_Carlson. — Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete duplicative of Tucker Carlson#Commentary so I fail to see why a separate redundant page is needed. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this doesn't need to be merged, the content copied over from Tucker Carlson was never removed in the first place. Tucker Carlson is a political commentator, it's fine for his biography to have a bulky section dedicated to his political views, having political views is quite literally his job, this is what he's notable for. I don't see the need to split the section off into another article, it's perfectly fine as it is at Tucker Carlson. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I LOLed reading this. Very good point. What next Religious views of Pope Francis or Religious vies of Russell M. Nelson, or maybe Doctrinal views of Russell M. Nelson. Such articles do not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason for this fork to exist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The political views of America's most popular news/talk show host are worthy of a lot of coverage here, but this could all be condensed onto his own page, which is clearly preferable.SatoshiSoul (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete: This fact can be added to the main Carlson article; otherwise it is entirely duplicative. Llll5032 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is absolutely no reason to have this at all seperate from the article on Tucker Carlson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete As mentioned, almost all of this article is already mentioned on Tucker Carlson's page. No reason for his 'political views' to have their own page. Redoryxx (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:POVFORK (ironically). If Carlson's ideas or views were unusual or all over the place, a separate article would be useful. Rather, his views tend strongly to be consistent, run of the mill for today's Republicans, and to the right of center. So it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2021 (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 Pandur II#Portuguese variants. The merge has already been done with Special:Diff/1015044401/1015066390 and Special:Diff/1017179990/1017738985. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Pandur

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

The article does not describe its subject, instead, it seems to justify Portugal's purchase of the Pandur II. The Portuguese version of the Pandur II does not justify such an article, it is not different enough from the base model. In addition to that, the base article already describes the subject – in its current state, this article is nothing but opinion promotion and fails to comply with Wikipedia's point-of-view forks policy. Therefore, I propose "Portuguese Pandur" for deletion; improving this article is not possible. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Pandur II - Portuguese variants. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted content that violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy ([3]), and put the most important aspects of the Portuguese Pandur's problems into the Pandur II article ([4]). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants: there is significant WP:OVERLAP as this is essentially a slight variant of the base. Only the essential details need to be merged (e.g. not the lengthy and only partially-referenced timeline). — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pandur II#Portuguese variants per MarkH21. Riteboke (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Libcom.org

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization and web site that has already been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libcom.org (2nd nomination). I haven't seen the deleted article, so am not tagging G5, but probable G5. Also close to A7. Naïve Google search finds two pages of hits on the organization's own web presence, which shows that it exists, then finds a reference to it in Reddit. Duh. No mention of anything since 2015, when the AFD was closed. One of the references is their own web site, and the second one says nothing about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the second one does have nontrivial coverage of libcom. The ref bokk (a 2018 collection) contains an article "Rethinking networked solidarity" by Sky Croeser which says "The main focus of this research is on Libcom (discussed in more details below), a non-corporate site." Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For further context (from a cursory read) the Sky Croeser chapter in Social Media Materialities and Protest (Routledge) goes into depth exploring the extent to which Libcom can be considered a social media site, as well as the dynamics within Libcom between contributors / forum participants and the Libcom collective/administrators, and tries to assess the extent to which Libcom "facilitates solidarity efforts" more widely in comparison to standard forms of social media (specifically Facebook) using debates around the struggles in Kurdish Syria as an example. LittleDwangs (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. There comes a point when recreation of such content can no longer be seen as an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of this project. BD2412 T 04:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never saw the actual article since it was deleted, but I read the 2nd AFD. No one provided any sources of coverage. I attempted to change that and also what policies apply here. I kept the article short, anticipating an AFD, so I’ll make my case. Libcom.org is an important website amongst anarchists and academics and is reflected in academic literature with 3,500+ mentions in Google Scholar. More importantly, I've enclosed a chapter by Croeser, that extensively examines the usage/online behaviours of users on Libcom.org across 14 page chapter.

I would argue this passes WP:BASIC and WP:WEBCRIT as it has a demonstrable influence in the field of anarchism, including academia, and multiple independent citations. Shushugah (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you see 3.500 mentions of libcom in google scholar. Instead I see libcom.org merely indicated as a publisher, i.e., nothing about libcom itself. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear we're in agreement. And numbers themselves don't formulate the basis of anything. I was stating that Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE, but clearly people then and now were not convinced, so I am attempting to provide more coverage. For the vast majority of Anarchist academics, they're more than happy to host/write on Libcom.org, even writing about Libcom.org on there, but I empathize why this is not independent for English Wikipedia.

Because Libcom.org itself is a host/website, searching for articles about Libcom has proved challenging, but not impossible. For others curious, I've searched in google "libcom.org website -site:libcom.org" to filter out Libcom.org posts themselves. Shushugah (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete. no multiple independent coverage. See my comments elsewhere. Lembit Staan (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom and lacks independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)#[reply]
Keep This is absolutely dumb. Probably the most well known long running anarchist website online. SP00KYtalk 08:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not as dumb as you think. And the goal of this discussion is precisely to prove that you are right or wrong. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah mate, it's an absoloute joke. Libcom, easily one of the biggest anarchist spaces on the internet and a major repository for anarchists works in the english language and i bet 'dollars to doughnuts' you could not find a serious anarchist academic that does not see it as such, and it should be deleted? And yet even most marginal random anarchist writers get pages at times just because they were in a newspaper? Let us not be so dishonest to each other, there is not 'proving' anything because policy can be wielded to suit any position you people want it to.. I've read enough of these painful things already to see this, so.. What is the actual downsides to having this page? SP00KYtalk 08:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Responding with some more sources: Ephemeral Journal paper on Music and Anarchism, writes a short paragraph reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org [5], Zones of Proletarian Development refers to LibCom as "A more comprehensive list of autonomous libertarian activities which resist 'intrusive intervention' can be found on the excellent Libertarian Communist website https://libcom.org" [6], combined with the most extensive source (14 pages by Sky Croeser) at "Rethinking networked solidarity" makes this AFD from past ones, where at best LibCom had cursory reference/mention (which I've mentioned as well). This would not pass WP:GNG, but does pass WP:WEB Shushugah (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing 163 posts made on LibCom.org - not about libcom, also very weak WP:NWEB (trivial: no analysis of content in general, reviewing 163 posts - a footnote that summarizes the content of a thread about music ). Zones of Proletarian Development - libcom is mentioned in passing as a publisher, no substantial info. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion is in danger in falling into a perennial confusion between importance and notablility (per WP rules). For comparison: some time ago I have have learned that certain plant manufactured over 90% of some kind of important resin (dont remember which, say polyurethane) in Europe. Clearly, an important one. But searching high and low, I could not find any info about it beyond name and location. It was not even part of a public company. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Libcom.org is a frustrating website to find suitable sources for - in part because its articles, archived materials, and (occasionally) forums are used so widely in citations in journals, books and websites, meaning results discussing Libcom itself are drowned out by Libcom citations. Similarly the site is mentioned in 524 English Wikipedia articles. There are some more passing mentions, such as in The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism where Libcom is described as "a hub for libertarian communist ideas" (Chapter 5) or in this journal article where in an overview of contemporary British anarchism Franks and Kinna (both leading British anarchist academics) list it as "Libcom.org : primary resource for UK anarchists : lively forums, news, blogs, information and support and an extensive library". There's are also a number of articles slagging off Libcom, such as this one published in The Brooklyn Rail. LittleDwangs (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

frustrating website to find suitable sources -- yep; see my comment above. Everybody uses, but nobody cares. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an influential website for a wide segment of the far-left, I am surprised that there isn't more in-depth coverage of libcom.org itself. However, after examining the above sources posted above, it is clear that there are enough to write a WP:BASIC article on the topic.--User:Namiba 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there is some coverage of the website, like Sky Croeser's chapter and The Brooklyn Rail article. However, I think it's more important to see how the website is treated as a publication by those in the relevant subject area—similar to WP:JOURNALCRIT—and in this area we can see with a search on Proquest in The Wikipedia Library or JSTOR or with a Google News search (tag with "-site:libcom.org") that there are dozens to hundreds of meaningful citations in respectable works to libcom.org as a source. I'm not really sure what sort of WP:BEFORE search yielded only a primary source and a Reddit post. — Bilorv (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe the basics for establishing notability have been met for what is a significant and widely cited anarchist website (possibly the most significant anarchist website out there?). Definitely don't salt as the sole issue has been the difficulty identifying sufficient suitable sources to meet the notability criteria, and that the article is otherwise suitable for Wikipedia. Over time additional sources will likely appear. LittleDwangs (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilorv's points + UCS; other than marxists.org there's few other sources internationally in English that match the ubiquity of libcom.org with regards to left politics/history in general. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilorv, I find the analogy to WP:JOURNALCRIT to be appropriate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2021 (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 Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Geenakumari

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or the more specific WP:NPOL. ~~No RS with a~~ As part of WP:BEFORE, I have looked at the sources presented in the previous AFD and they do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. The book written by the subject has no substantial English reviews to verify whether they can be classified as an author. If someone wants to improve the article per WP:HEY I'll withdraw my nomination. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I propose that the article be moved to draft space so that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red can incubate it. Vikram Vincent 17:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Addressing some of the points made in the previous AFD:

1. Yes, she represented the two women who entered the Sabrimala temple but that in itself does not make a lawyer notable. However, it might be a case of BLP1E for the woman entering the temple though that would be a digression for this subject.

2. The positions in SFI are not inherently notable in themself even if it were in Kerala. SFI has units in all States and there are women office-bearers in each of those units.

3. The role of an activist is not brought out clearly through SIGCOV either in part or taking all the sources together.

4. Subject is a local politician without SIGCOV and hence fails WP:POLOUTCOMES.

5. Book by subject hasn't received substantial reviews nor any notable literary award.

By all these criteria, the subject fails notability. Vikram Vincent 08:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 07:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant accomplishments, achievements, or media attention. Just looks like a short resume which states basic facts. Yinglong999 (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the first AfD of this article just closed by @Sandstein: as KEEP 20 days ago (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T._Geenakumari). We don't need to keep beating a horse until it dead. Respect time of other contributors. Kolma8 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kolma8 The close of the last AFD was 11:31, 7 March 2020. A whole year has passed with no improvement. Vikram Vincent 16:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ok then... 20 days + 1 year. I thought I was just partaking in this AfD. I guess it was something similar. Thanks for clarifying. Kolma8 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify per Vikram Vincent, Beccaynr (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC) per WP:BASIC, WP:NEXIST, and WP:HEY - as this article expands, it appears there are clusters of coverage about various aspects of her work, and not always available in online English-language sources. For example, there appear to be more sources available about her SFI activism, because she became prominent and featured in newspapers in 1994. There also is some coverage of her work with the Kerala State Women's Development Corporation, and more substantial coverage of her work as a lawyer, including her practice focus on family law (where she has been quoted as an expert by independent and reliable sources), and her involvement in part of the Sabarimala temple cases, which picked up coverage over time. In addition, she recently was noted as involved in a high-profile case as a prosecutor. Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. In reviewing the sources presented both in the article and in the first AFD, there is only one source with significant coverage of T. Geenakumari, the article by Biju, K G in Malaysian. All of the other references are merely trivial mentions of the subject. For example, the Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications. merely mentions Geenakumari in passing within a footnote. The recent additions of Beccaynr are not any better, with only passing mentions of Geenakumaru or routine coverage of court cases without anything other than a name drop of Geenakumari. We need something more substantial that is about her directly and not just mentioning her in passing. With all due respect to the keep voters, could you please list the sources here which display significant coverage, because I am just not seeing anything other than this one source.4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not appear to be a footnote, nor a passing or trivial mention, but instead quotes her as an attorney with a practice that includes a focus on family law, for her expertise:

Singh, Kriti (2013). Separated and Divorced Women in India:Economic Rights and Entitlements. Sage Publications.

Advocate Geena Kumari, a family lawyer from Kerala discussed4 how women in Kerala suffered domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. She said that a lot of deserted women in Kerala do not want to actually say that they are single and wear the mangalsutra and put sindhur (jewellery and red vermilion on the forehead worn by married woman) so that they are socially accepted. She said that the courts were not accessible to everyone because family courts were only located in district headquarters and low income women could not spend the money to reach them or hire a lawyer. She said that the procedure also took a long time and that was why people normally went to the court as a last resort. She pointed out that to get maintenance women had to prove not only the income of the husband but also that they were living separately for some valid reason. She said that the courts are gender biased and women are frequently told to reconcile and live with their husbands. She said that the maintenance that is awarded is often not even 5 per cent of their spouses’ income, particularly in cases where the male spouse has a high income. She also commented on how difficult it was to execute maintenance orders. According to her, in Kerala the dowry system was pervasive and people gave huge amounts and even property as dowry.

Similarly, she is quoted for her expert opinion as an attorney here:

T'puram is Kerala's divorce capital too, News18, 2012

[...] “Majority of the cases sprout from the problems of adjustment between partners. There is an increasing trend in the marriages from 2002 for divorce,” says T Geena Kumari, a counsel who specialises in family cases. She points to ‘adjustment problems’, with single children and the couples’ parental interference for the increase in number of cases. [...] “The rate of dowry is high in the southern districts. There are instances where the husband asks for more dowry after the birth of a girl. There are many cases of the husband and his family demanding more dowry after the marriage of the wife’s sister by comparing the amount,” says Geena. [...] The relationship between husband and wife also gets strained owing to the modern modes of social networking. “Most of the relationships between married men and women start off as mere friendship. But they end up in extra-marital relationships, if they are suffering from a bad marriage. Mobile phones and Internet chatting form a smooth medium for the marriages to rock as they offer more chances to meet and share their feelings than before,” says Geena. The 099 list some more factors for the increasing number of divorce cases.[...]

And here:

Alimony to women is not a welfare scheme but a right: Activists, The Indian Express, 2010

The stigma associated with single women, the paltry amount in alimony, expenses incurred during trials, "class and gender bias" among lawyers are some of the problems that were raised during the course of the seminar.

"Let's take the case of Kerala which has the highest women literacy rate, but even this state is not spared of violence, crime and discrimination against women," said Geena Kumari, a lawyer practising in the Kerala High Court.

Women often feel that they are doubly harassed, first by their husband and marital families and then by the police and lawyers they approach for help, she said.

"Women most often are unaware that they are entitled to maintenance, have no idea how much their husbands earn, or even where they work, and are unable to provide their income proof in order to ask for maintenance," Kumari said.

"These are the least of their problems. In addition, they have to carry the stigma of being a single woman, go through the cumbersome judicial process, try to meet the expenses for each hearing and the end of all this make-do with the meagre alimony they get which can be as low as Rs 500 per month," she said.

Beccaynr (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. I confused my sources, I meant the footnote on page 32 of the Poverty, Women and Capability study as the footnote example. Thank you Beccaynr for catching my error. That said, expert opinion quotes like these are not considered substantial coverage at AFD. The kinds of sources we are looking for at AFD are ones in which Geenakumari is the main subject being discussed, not her opinion as a lawyer which is about something other than her. Can you provide evidence where Geenakumari is the main subject of the article or study? Perhaps something about her work as a lawyer in general, or positioning her work as exceptional within her field? Please remember, that routine coverage of an individual court cases or expert opinions in a publications are not evidence of notability. Otherwise we would have tens of thousands of articles on average lawyers doing routine interviews.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cheers, and it looks like we agree that the Biju, K G article in Malayalam is significant and in-depth, and I also think it supports WP:BASIC notability that is sufficient for the article (due to the content, commentary, and documentation that other news sources exist), in light of the additional sources since then that help show Geenakumari did not otherwise remain low-profile, so this is not WP:BLP1E. For example, in the article, the Google Translate version of the lede is:

മെക്‌സിക്കന്‍ അപാരതയുടെ കാലത്ത് 'മുന്‍ എസ്എഫ്‌ഐക്കാരി ഗീനാ കുമാരി'യ്ക്കു പറയാനുള്ളത്, K G Biju, Narada News, 2017

November 25, 1994. The day when Koothuparamba went down in history as a river of blood. As a warning of the impending police terror, there was a picture on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning. A picture of a girl with her head cut off and bleeding during police brutality. Her name is T. Geenakumari. At that time he was the State Joint Secretary of SFI. Geena may be the first woman comrade to call on Kerala through a front page newsreel that such blood-soaked struggle is not unique to male comrades. Today she is a lawyer. Additional Govt. Pleader and Public Prosecutor. Lawyer defending murder and rape cases. [...]

And there is more in that article, including about her incarceration for twelve days, although it is not clear if there is additional news coverage about that, or other aspects of her work as a student activist, but given her prominence in 1994, it seems possible. The article also appears to position her as exceptional as a lawyer, in what appears to be an exploration of the tension between her women's rights activism and her criminal defense work. I also disagree that it is routine coverage or a routine interview when she is quoted as an expert about her experience as an attorney; it appears to be secondary source opinion about her by the publication due to their consideration of her as an expert, and therefore contributes to her notability per WP:BASIC. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, the general consensus of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG in AFD discussions on wikipedia is the "rule of 3" (ie multiple sources) that are substantial. Basically, we are looking for three sources which show significant coverage over time. The Malaysian article is more in-depth and its more personal, and it positions T. Geenakumari and her work at the center so it is significant. That's just one source towards BASIC, but does not establish BASIC on its own, because at least two other sources of that caliber are needed to meet BASIC. The interview quotes do not count towards BASIC, because professionals like doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. get routinely interviewed in the media in the course of their jobs. They may be expert enough to be quoted in an article, but that doesn't make them necessarily notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. (ie not all doctors, lawyers, etc quoted in the press as an expert opinion are exceptional doctors, lawyers, etc. who deserve an encyclopedia entry) WP:NOTNEWS is pretty clear on this. Likewise, being quoted in a few academic journals isn't likely to count towards notability either. When we look at quotes in research, as seen in Wikipedia:Notability (academics), we usually look for individuals widely cited in research in a particular field, which in this case would be at a minimum dozens of journal articles, and not just one or two. I hope this helps you understand what we are looking for at AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That source has images from what appear to be two newspapers from 1994 that feature her. And per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [...], and I am suggesting that her notability appears to have been established based on coverage of her activism in 1994, including due to the 2017 coverage and commentary, and that the additional sources show that after this WP:NOTTEMPORARY notability, in the event that it appears WP:BLP1E, she has not otherwise been low-profile, having given interviews as an expert, and participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), 219, engaging in civic leadership documented by multiple news sources, and serving as a lawyer or advocate in high-profile cases. Also, per WP:CIVIL, I would appreciate it if we could focus on the article and the relevant policies and guidelines, thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, I have not been uncivil. I have been courteous through this entire conversation. Please calm down. Unfortunately, I don't think we can count this article as more than one source because there is no publication information for those articles to cite and that assertion is speculative. Participating in the Economic Research Foundation, Economic Rights and Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women, Report of Regional Seminar Proceedings (2008–2009) (New Delhi: ERF, 2010), and being a civic leader is also not inherently notable. Participating as a lawyer in cases covered in the news does not make a lawyer notable. Those are all wonderful professional achievements but wikipedia is not a CV. WP:SIGCOV requires three sources where the subject of the article is the main topic (or at least significantly featured beyond the routine) of the source. The evidence simply does not satisfy that requirement.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 article quoted above states that her picture was "on the front page of the Malayalam newspapers that morning" (November 25, 1994), and includes images of what appear to be at least two of those newspapers, so I do not think it is speculative, given the precise information about the publication and the images, and the front page placement appears to be 'significantly featured beyond the routine.' It appears there are three sources for her initial notability as a student activist (at least two from 1994 and one from 2017), and there are several ways she has additional notability as a lawyer, because the 2017 source also finds her exceptional in the context of her women's rights activism and legal practice, and there are multiple independent and reliable sources that find her noteworthy as an expert, and multiple independent and reliable sources find her noteworthy for her participation in high-profile cases. Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are multiple independent reliable sources, but the coverage is trivial and routine and not significant in all but one of those sources. They only prove her to be a reliable family lawyer, not a significant lawyer in her field (which would require analysis of her career in relation to her peers or within her field). Meer quotes don’t provide a significant claim to notability, nor does listing a host of professional activities that don’t provide the level of context required for notability in an encyclopedia. The Malaysian article does make a good claim to notability. If you are able to actually locate the 1994 article so we can read and evaluate the content, that would help us a long way into proving WP:SIGCOV. Just proving the existence of an article without actually getting to read and evaluate content (no matter where it’s location in the paper) is not enough.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:HEY has not been satisfied even with the current set of improvements. It is just a set of minor comments and minor professional and political positions. Taking all the sources into consideration we do not have WP:SIGCOV This does not clear WP:GNG yet. Vikram Vincent 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It is important to point out that both Shuchi Anand and Sindhu Joy AFDs were closed as delete though they both had a higher level of sourcing. This bio does not anywhere close. Vikram Vincent 04:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And Vageshwari Deswal closed as keep, without ever having been a notable political figure. Geenakumari has also written legal commentary, and two links are included in the External links section of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I also went through the previous AFD and found that the subject does not have enough sigcov. Being mentioned in some reliable sources does not make anyone notable. Even if we combine all the sources provided by Beccanyr and others (in previous AFD) to claim sigcov, it is not sufficient for sigcov. I also agree with the point shown by 4meter4 that wikipedia is not a CV.

Draftify: As per Beccanyr's request.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmorwiki I'd request you to change !vote to draftify. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Done Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject of article fails to meet GNG criteria. No SIGCOV is present either. --RaviC (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support a draftify, as I believe its possible that more significant coverage could be located and assessed (per Beccaynr's identification of that 1994 article) as a possible source. With one excellent reference already in evidence, I'm hopeful that editors may be able to locate, read, and document additional sources that support WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also like to support draftify because I believe that Beccaynr will do their best to rescue this article like they always do. Regards Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per User:Beccanyr's request. VocalIndia (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2021 (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 on WP:GNG after two relists. Number-wise, keep is at a slight advantage. Argument-wise, delete is slightly stronger.

To any future AfDs: Since nobody has mentioned it explicitly, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP may be relevant here. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UK European Union Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of political parties. Sources on this article only prove the party exists, not that they are notable, or have achieved anything notable. Previous AfD included valid delete votes and observations which have not been countered by subsequent editing. No notable election results. No evidence of notability prior to or following one single, unsuccessful election candidate. Fails GNG and ORG, and fails WP politics/politicians guideines too. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: minor political party with no electoral representation. Fails to satisfy GNG criteria. The party also seems to be inactive, having not contested an election since June 2019. --RaviC (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would agree with all the comments above. A party that only stood in one by-election (where it polled a tiny total - 25 votes or 0.07 of those cast) is not going to be notable based on that alone. There is no sign of anything else that would make it notable such as extensive coverage. If it had run in other by-elections or fielded candidates at the 2019 United Kingdom general election, then there might be a case. However I wonder if more details about it from this page could be added to the 2019 Peterborough by-election article. Dunarc (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The party stood in the European elections and got >33000 votes. It did not only stand in one by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG as it is the primary subject of articles from the Evening Standard and the New European, and is mentioned non-trivially in the i and BBC News as well. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the BBC one shows notability as it covers every by-election candidate in Peterborough including, independents, and standing at one by-election is not grounds for notability. I take the point about the other coverage, though that is in the context of the the European Election that the party contested, where it polled a negligible total (and only contested three electoral regions). Also other newspapers do not seem to have picked up on it. Thus to my mind it lacks sustained coverage and can be dealt with in the articles relating to the two elections it fought. That said if evidence of additional coverage can be found, then I would be happy to look again. Dunarc (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary subject coverage by two reliable sources and ancillary mentions in other reliable sources means it passes WP:GNG. Melmann 11:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this party may be minor but it is notable due to what's happened with the UK and the EU --K. Peake 08:04, 21 April 2021 (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 List of freedom indices. There seems to be consensus against a stand-alone article, but less than solid support for outright deletion. I am therefore redirecting this, with any content possibly worth merging still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaxRange

AfDs for this article:

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

The MaxRange data set was created by Max Rånge and Mikael Sandberg. All literature available about the dataset was created by one or both of these contributors. There does not appear to be any evidence that third parties have evaluated or made any significant use of this data. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar shows that some other researchers have cited this work, although not in large numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have received the required secondary coverage, possibly (likely?) promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Freedom indexes are a thing, and MaxRange is one of them. It is not as well-known as some of the others, but it has been cited in studies published in peer-reviewed journals. I created the article a few years back, when I was reading about freedom and democracy, and looking at indexes, out of personal interest -- I have no affiliation with the project, and no interest in how it fares. --Tsavage (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Dunny29 (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comment from confirmed sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or selectively Merge) to List of freedom indices, where this is included. Of course, this presumes the inclusion criteria for that page would allow this to remain without a stand-alone article. Certainly we need independent sourcing for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not a !vote, but if the entire contents of this article were merged into the listing for this subject at List of freedom indices (the possible merge target proposed by Rhododendrites above), that would not be particularly out of line with the existing contents of that article. BD2412 T 05:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS found for this one. Riteboke (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus against a standalone article. however, discussion about whether content should be kept in some way (redirect/merge) seems more open and so relisting a third time to see if consensus on that question can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added content with reliable secondary source citations (peer-reviewed academic journals). --Tsavage (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This seems to border on WP:OR but looks like a useful article to have for people interested in quantitative political science. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have many indices such as the Human Development Index (HDI), among others, but would MaxRange count as a WP:NEOLOGISM? Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politicians

Brad Chambers

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State secretary of commerce is a notable position; we have enough for at least a basic article, maybe needs a rewrite, but the individual would meet political notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 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. [7] 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 [8] 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]

Claudio Ferrada

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps not notable per WP POL. I'm the author of the page. Feel free to delete or keep it. I have no objections. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani

(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]

Anatoliy Korniychuk

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject would pass WP:NPOL as a member of the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, but this needs a source. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the archived source here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close as Draft: Based on the response from the author here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs, I request an uninvolved editor close this as Draft to give the author time to work on sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence G. Costanzo

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article survived a 2007 AfD but notability thresholds can change. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Religion, and Arizona. Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage for this person, neither position is notable without an extensive sourcing to back it up. There has been no coverage added since 2007, so I don't expect notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why is this person notable? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Siddiqui (politician)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any political office that makes them inherently notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habibullah Khan Swati II

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and a quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can help meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 or G11. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO with WP:NON-SIGCOV. Google search also doesn't provide anything substantial.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But google search provides many pictures of him from different pages along with mention of well known Tribal chief and information about his father and grandfather from newspaper and many blogs have mention of his name as a Khan of Garhi Habibullah. Most importantly, He and his father are mentioned tribal Chief on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's website. Hazarewal333 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Das Bobby

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject was never elected to any political office that can make them inherently notable, and article relies majorly on sources that do not satisfy SIGCOV and INDEPENDENT, hence, fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 or G11. Mccapra (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator sums it up, not notable. Lynch44 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time right now to follow up but I tagged this article for CSD G4 because it's been deleted at least twice in previous AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Oh, that's true, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijit Das (Bobby). Contested by the author of the page. It's great we're here, I don't think re-requesting speedy deletion after it was contested would be a nice move. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete."Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". — TheWikiholic (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Edmund Williams

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. The only source is FamilySearch.org. And it it just very basic obit type info plus a one sentence mention that he was one of the founders of a political party. Tagged for wp:notability by others since December North8000 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The stated notability claim here would be fine if he were reliably sourced as passing WP:GNG for it, but is not an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt him from having to have any valid sourcing, but the sole footnote here is genealogical information, not GNG-building reliable source coverage about his work in politics. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Helping found a notable party does not in and of itself establish that someone is notable. And that's if it's even true; people have lied about this sort of thing before (see Randy Toler), and the one source cited on the page doesn't exactly help prove it. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stanaland

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG; none of the handful of reliable, secondary, independent sources in the article (or in WP:BEFORE search) pass the WP:SIGCOV test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. I have added more secondary sourcing to back up previous claims, as well as more general information. I believe it covers significant coverage with sources such as Radio World and various newspapers outside the local area. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify as author. I believe there is enough to have it be notable, but I think that I have rushed the publishing of the article. There are newspaper archives I would like to look through, and I believe there should be enough there for it to go through the regular draft review process. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced too heavily to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability — and what there is for proper reliable source coverage isn't enough to establish the permanent notability of a person whose notability claims are of purely local rather than nationalized significance. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a volume and depth and range of media coverage that marks them out as special cases of much greater significance than most other city councillors, but the sourcing here isn't showing that. Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles cited are largely from organizations connected to Stanaland or passing mentions. Being a city councilor does not inherently establish notability, and neither does serving as treasurer of a festival "among the ten largest Shakespeare festivals in the world." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BottleOfChocolateMilk

I have a question about the sources connected to him, as I have removed some of the more promotional sources. Many of these sources talk about what he spoke about, and basic information. Would it be better to have a source that is specifically about him? The cited unlinked newspaper is, but it’s still more local. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources need to show "significant coverage," not merely be articles that include his name and facts about him. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm leaning delete, but the head of Economics at Auburn University is a credible claim towards WP:PROF notability if the head was a full professor with a research career. I'm not finding that, hence the leaning towards delete, but if the author of the article can find sources citing the significance of Dr. Stanaland's research, that could move me towards a keep vote on academic grounds (it's not a WP:NPOL pass by a long shot, I'm afraid) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mscuthbert There are cases of him going on the University’s radio show to discuss economics related things- I haven’t had time to go through them all but he generally discusses the economy, and I know there is stuff on the price of gold. Still not sure how to include that Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His going on the radio wouldn't be evidence of notability; WP:INTERVIEWS are primary sources. It would need to be independent secondary sources documenting his effects as an academic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 source 18 covers a small bit about his research. Would it be like that in terms of coverage, because there are other mentions in newspapers about similar things. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not, since it's a student paper; per WP:RSSM, student media can be considered as reliable to confirm information but not sufficiently independent to validate notability for their home institutions and affiliated parties. Here's an example, here's another of the kind of coverage that documents the impact of an academic's research. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Kerdyk, Jr.

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

I don't think this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements because the non-trivial sources are all localised/ultra-specialised in nature. Also, this article was created by Lisabofita, who has a self-admitted conflict of interest and paid editing relationship with the article's subject, and also moved it from draft to article namespace without going through the articles for creation process properly. Graham87 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The language used in this article and the sources used are promotional in nature. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please specify the particular language of concern, and someone can review and revise accordingly. The language of the page is not grounds for deletion; instead, efforts should focus on improving the article. Regarding the sources, I have included a list below of non-promotional sources. If you believe any specific sources are promotional, please explain your rationale. Additionally, could you please clarify what constitutes a promotional source? Are you suggesting that the individual paid to have these articles placed? Please provide clarification and any evidence or reasoning to support such claims. Lisabofita (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion is using wikipedia to further a goal, such as boosting search result rankings. You don't have to pay the source to have it placed for it to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any part of the article sounds promotional please feel free to edit it or revise it. That is not grounds for deletion of a notable politician and philanthropist with dozens of articles. I have tried my best to not use any promotional language. If you can point out which exact parts are promotional, they can be revised by someone. Lisabofita (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been compensated for writing this article and have disclosed my affiliation on my userpage. Mr. Kedryk is a local politician in my area. We were introduced via a friend with the intention of my assisting in creating a page for him. I am uncertain if I am permitted to vote, so I am abstaining from doing so. Instead, I am posting a comment outlining my reasons for why the article should be retained.

He is a local politician with dozens of news articles about him. He meets:

WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage

WP:ANYBIO: Has won multiple awards

WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability:

Coverage includes:

4 articles in Community Newspapers 1, 2, 3, 4

Miami Herald

South Floriad Business and Waelth Magazine

Weekend Golfer

Lifystyle Magazine

Gables Insider.Lisabofita (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found additional coverage, not presently in the article:

- Miami Herald - This is very in-depth

- communitynewspapers.com - This is very in-depth

- .miamiherald.com 1

- miamiherald.com 2

- therealdeal.com - It is about a real estate deal, but should still count towards WP:BASIC. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lisabofita (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fully looked at BASIC, and I'm not sure I'll be able to for this one, but the well-known and significant awards of ANYBIO refer to things like Nobels and Pulitzers. The awards listed unfortunately don't quite make the cut. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that a previous version of this page, Bill Kerdyk Jr., was WP:G11 speedily deleted a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version is accessible on archive.org. Personally, I believe it warranted deletion due to its overly promotional nature and lack of citations for much of the content. In contrast, my version is significantly improved, devoid of promotional elements, and includes more citations. Lisabofita (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the creator being paid to make this page, I don't think Kerdyk is notable. Serving as vice mayor of a small city does not establish notability, and the articles cited on the page seem to mostly be articles from smaller publications or only mention him in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miami Herald is a widely recognized publication with a longstanding history dating back to 1903. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say it is non-notable. The subject has been featured in three distinct articles on Miami Herald, further attesting to their significance. Additionally, Community Newspapers has been in existence since 1967 and has also published several articles featuring the subject. It is worth noting that both of these publications have their own Wikipedia pages, underscoring their credibility and notability.

Moreover, numerous articles provide comprehensive coverage of the subject, including 1, 2, 3, 4, Miami Herald, South Florida Business and Wealth Magazine, Weekend Golfer and Lifestyle Magazine. I would like to emphasize that these articles offer substantive insights rather than mere passing mentions.

If you have not had the opportunity to review these articles thoroughly, I encourage you to do so. Upon closer examination, you will find that they provide valuable and detailed information about the subject. Lisabofita (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't even list any Wikipedia policies with your above statement which is concerning. Read up on our general notability guidelines and then look at the specific notability guidelines for politicians. – The Grid (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't read my prior comments. I named 3 policies above. How about WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability???
WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He has dozens of in-depth articles.

WP:ANYBIO: He has won multiple awards. Although someone has argued these are not notable awards. I do not agree as they are all from well known local organizations and he has at least 6 awards.

Lisabofita (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced primarily to promotional puff pieces from hyperlocal media.-KH-1 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify the articles you consider to be promotional puff pieces and explain why you think so for each one. Many articles discuss his political activities and are independently authored by reputable sources like the Miami Herald and Community Newspapers, both of which have presence on Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that some articles might be paid or sponsored content? Lisabofita (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the vice mayor of a relatively small city is certainly not an WP:NPOL pass and all of the awards fall well short of an WP:ANYBIO pass-which is meant to be applied to national and international award like a Pullitzer Prize and not something like the "citizen of the year" from your town's Rotary Club. Additionally, WP:POLOUTCOMES has dictated over the years that local coverage of local politicians is to be discounted and a higher level of coverage is needed to establish WP:GNG. I'd also recommend the author of this article read WP:BLUDGEON. Given that paid-for articles on this subject have already been deleted at Bill Kerdyk Jr. and William H. ‘Bill’ Kerdyk, Jr., I believe that WP:SALTing may be needed as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am not trying to BLUDGEON, but I must respond to your objections. Why do you think he doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"???

Please note that I was unaware of previous attempts to create a page for him. Those submissions were not made by me. After reviewing an old version on Archive.org, I agree that its deletion was justified due to its promotional tone and lack of sufficient citations. Therefore, the previous deletions should not influence the evaluation of my current submission. Lisabofita (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning. This is a textbook example of BLUDGEONing, which can discourage others from participating in the AfD. At this point I would recommend stepping back and let the AfD run its course with new editors giving their opinions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can COI accounts even participate in these discussions? I guess they can as it's not an article page but I think closing admin has to be aware of the COI. – The Grid (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can as long as the COI is disclosed. A COI/PAID editor badgering every editor's delete vote could possibly be a breach of Wiki-etiquette, though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I blocked this editor sitewide due to disruption but made it a partial block *just* so they could participate here (the results weren't unexpected, but I thought it was fairer this way, if anything). See their user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I

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

BLP of someone who is either a non-notable local ruler, or possibly, per this source, a fraudster. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Royalty and nobility. Curbon7 (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Monarch for an ancient town. Not opposed to a redirect to an Aseyin of Iseyin article, but unfortunately that does not exist. There were indeed controversy regarding his installment after the death of the previous monarch, but all that has been laid to rest. Never really a "fraudster", more like multiple families using the media to protect their interest.HandsomeBoy (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on my works on monarchs from Nigeria, I find this to be a slim WP:GNG pass, especially from WP:BEFORE. Also, looking at WP:MONARCH. I have improved it to an extent too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:30, 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]

Horace Pierite, Jr.

(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]

Priyanshi Arya

(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]

Iyeth Bustami

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

Contested G5. The article was created by N. Alicia J, who is a sockpuppet of Asphonixm, a banned editor known for creating sockpuppets to gaming the system. WP:BMB specifies that bans apply to all editing, good or bad, implying that even constructive edits by banned editors are subject to be reverted. According to WP policies WP:G5 and WP:BRV, articles created by banned editors and where the banned editor is the primary contributor are eligible for speedy deletion, which can be applied to this article. Once deleted, the article may be recreated by other editor (except for sockpuppets), as there are no issues with the article content itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article that could then be re-created immediately seems pointless. The individual is an elected politician and would meet notability. I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to roll back edits, only to redo them... "subject to reversion" doesn't mean "shall be reverted". Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, primary deletion reason is Wikipedia:Banning policy. By keeping edits and article created by banned editor, then it'll defeat the purpose of ban in the first place. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. And I think banning policy is also quite straightforward on this issue, as it also mentioned A number of site-banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Unlike most AfD cases, this isn't about questioning the notability of an article, the real question is whether we'll enforce the banning policy? Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I care about the content of Wikipedia foremost. The politics that go behind it are secondary. Such users should be banned, absolutely. However, we do not need to revert every good addition in the pursuit of some form of justice. That seems counterintuitive to the actual purpose of the project: building an encyclopedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Refer to Arbitration discussion a ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I am not disputing their ban. Whatever they did, they probably deserved it; not my purview. My purview is keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that you are not disputing the ban, but I think you still missed the point of ban itself, banning policy explicitly states The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. WP:BANREVERT also states Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I am advocating to follow the policy, while you're suggesting to ignore policy and the your reason is to keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. However, if we delete and recreate the article, there'll be no changes on Wikipedia as that article would still be informational, and we are also take away the reward for sockpuppet for violating policy, which is aligned with WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, delete it, let me copy the exact same article with the exact same citations and re-upload it. What does this accomplish? Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first instance. The sockpuppet has created multiple articles, and all articles created after he was blocked were deleted under G5. And few "good" articles were re-created by other editor. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, the goal for deleting article created by sock isn't to punish the sockpuppet, but to take away the reward for violating policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we really punishing, though? The sockpuppets or the readers of the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not punishing anyone, we are preventing banned editor to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content (WP:BMB). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, recreating the article as it is without crediting the original, banned user breaks copyright. This means that whatever is written on the new version has to be something new. That's a larger hurdle to overcome than simply recreating it exactly under a different account. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually that's to remove any connection to banned editor. Afterall banned editor is not allowed to make any edit in the first place. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To properly contest deletion under G5, supporters must either present evidence of why it doesn't meet G5 criteria or offer compelling reasons to ignore the ban policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, they don't: If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why now we have this AfD. And those who support (or vote for "keep") should either present evidence of why it doesn't meet G5 criteria or offer compelling reasons to ignore the ban policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my arguments above. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From our discussion above, it seems you're not disputing the G5 criteria, so you understand that the article was made while the editor was banned, breaking the banning policy. But you're still suggesting to keep the article because it is "informational", and we should keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. You also mentioned that The politics that go behind it are secondary, which indicate suggestion to ignore Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BATHWATER. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. -- Mike 🗩 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not questioning about WP:GNG, but it's about enforcement of Wikipedia:Banning policy. Furthermore WP:RUSH also states if this page was created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines, it must be deleted in a hurry, which it is since it's qualify for G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the next bit which states this: This includes abusive practices like attack pages, autobiographies, spam and advertising pages, blatant copyright violations, and intentional inaccuracies. For all others, there is really no hurry to have the issues addressed.-- Mike 🗩 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the next sentence, as it mentioned example actions that disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines and IMO, the last sentence which starts by For all others.... refer to other deletion request for pages that is NOT created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines. banning policy is quite straightforward on this case Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. So, are you also suggesting to ignore WP:Banning Policy? Ckfasdf (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that we don't hurt the encyclopedia. WP:IAR states that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. -- Mike 🗩 12:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we have WP:IAR, however please also note WP:NOTIAR suggest "Ignore all rules" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies and "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. These editors don't appear to know that pages can be salted to avoid recreation in the future, saying Deleting an article that could then be re-created immediately seems pointless, which would not happen should the page be salted. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell would I want it salted when the subject is notable? The whole point is that we want an article about a notable singer and politician. We just don't want the banned user to get credit or game the system. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that now you grasp the intention behind WP:BANREVERT. If this indicates that you no longer oppose the deletion, could you please strike out your "Keep" vote above? Thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the thing you linked literally says: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement refer to an edit by blocked/banned editor, NOT page created by blocked/banned editor. For the later, please look up the third sentence of that section: Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ban policy is very clear about which types of edits by banned editors are still allowed: This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand). Ckfasdf (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Beason

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's a county commissioner, which is not a level of office that confers an automatic inclusion freebie just because he exists -- county commissioners would have to pass NPOL #2, where the notability test hinges on having a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to mark them out as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office.
But two of the five footnotes here are primary sources (his own LinkedIn, his own "staff" profile on the self-published website of the county government) that are not support for notability at all, and two (actually the same source, reduplicated as two separate footnotes for no obvious reason) are just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a news blurb about his predecessor -- and the only source that's both third-party and about him is also a short blurb, and thus isn't enough to get him over the "notable because media coverage" bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oregon. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find routine news reporting or PR items. Black History Month proclamations and the like. I agree that the position held by this person is not enough for POL notability and we don't have sourcing to meet notability guidelines otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serving as a county commissioner isn't enough for inherent notability and I don't see any evidence he meets GNG otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

AfDs for this article:

(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]

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]
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)[reply]
Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. Haruka Amaranth 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]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Darby

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

Could not find evidence that the article passes WP:GNG J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and Australia. J2m5 (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not running for one and losing — but this makes no claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason independent of unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some news coverage cited on this page, but I don't see enough to consider him notable. And, as Bearcat pointed out, his unsuccessful candidacies do nothing to establish notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. No real substantial coverage besides running for elections. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 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.

Pratikur Rahaman

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This is also written promotionally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are there in the article which show GNG is passed, there are full length profiles of him. What is promotional in it? MrMkG (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another case of WP:BLP1E.Only passing mentions on sources before 2023. Fails GNG and WP:NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:11, 6 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!} 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 1 is fine, but I can't find anything else in RS we can use. I don't see any other sources in those used that are reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Delete as BLP1E. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 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]

Endri Shabani

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 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]

Shravan Kushwaha

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Being a candidate in the imminent general election isn't a pass for WP:NPOL. Getting his wife elected to whatever position isn't a pass either. Subject was never elected for any political position and the general election is yet to happen. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mukhia is a constitutional post in India. This is head of local government and this person has serves in this office for years and now aiming for higher office. We have Ritu Jaiswal who also remained mukhia. So I don't think it violates any policy.Admantine123 (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admantine123 No, local government heads are not considered inherently notable under WP:NPOL regardless of how many years they spent serving, AFAIK. So, that doesn’t count for this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources per GNG. According to WP:NPOL, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". I think this says it all! The sources cited don't even give enough proof of notability. They only give a mere "trivial" mention of his candidacy. That's clearly not enough! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 01:06, 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!} 00:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Economics, and Paraguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Its not just mentions, its entire interviews on national newspapers that are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia.Jeanette la Perdida Martin(que?) 21:00 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree with your take. Interviews by him on reliable sources do not count towards WP:GNG because they are not independent of the subject. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - a click here : https://www.google.com/search?q=amilcar+ferreira+economista&rlz=1CAUFPX_enUS1089&oq=amilcar+ferreira&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.5623j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 confirms he is notable,m while a click on news here shows no links but only because it searches for "Amilcar Ferreira - Wikipedia".Jeanette 20 years inventing nicknames Martin(que?) 22:48 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, interviews are not independent and do not demonstrate notability. BEFORE found name mentions, interviews, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 10 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]

Azhar Mashwani

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 11:52, 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]

Kelly Tshibaka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Ossanda Liber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Politics

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates