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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social-liberal conservatism

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

Article seems to be based largely on WP:OR. I'm only seeing passing mentions with a before search and the references in the article. Justi yaya 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 01:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The sources so far are abysmal. Additionally, the article was created by copying a declined draft and putting it into article space. ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As noted by User:Flux55, the author has also created a draft, Draft:Social liberal conservatism. If the article is deleted, the draft will still be in draft space for possible improvement of sourcing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources (if not all) don't mention the term the article is about. Two citations are the article's own draft. The penultimate one Politic-Ed.com, redirects to a porn site, despite the citations supposedly having been added within the last 24h. Amazing. Cortador (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. It doesn't redirect there for me. Although even that isn't much of an improvement as the site is just a thinly-veiled political blog. ''Flux55'' (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChilOut

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

Could not find significant coverage in the limited google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. Source 1 doesn't link to actual report, source 2 appears dead Source 3 doesn't mention this organisation and source 4 is a self published source. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns. I'll leave the status of a redirect to the regulars at WP:RFD who are well-versed in policy surrounding redirects, neutral as well as non-neutral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism against Joe Biden

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

The article looks to heavily fail to meet policy on neutrality (WP:NPOV), instead it reads almost like an opinion piece. Numerous claims look to be backed up by singular sources and/or "making sources fit the narrative". Can't move to draft due to existing rejected draft. Suggest this be deleted (relatively quickly given it relates to a living person). Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete/merge this clearly falls within Public image of Joe Biden and having its own article is WP:UNDUE - there isn't a separate article regarding racism towards Obama which was much more egregious. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP: NPOV does not mean false balance. Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless. WP: BLP also requires this. Article meets WP: GNG. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only medical experts who can actually make an assessment in a clinical setting literally work for the White House and their statements are super polished. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless

Exactly two medical professionals are cited for this claim. That is nothing close to widely.

Russian propaganda and members of the far-right have made multiple ageist attacks and age-related conspiracy theories against Joe Biden. is nowhere near sourced enough (the only source having been for believed Russian interference in 2020) to make the claim.

Psychologists, political scientists, economists, historians, and other medical experts have described these ageist claims as forms of disinformation and misinformation was sourced by a single article with an interview with older voters, so is completely WP:OR.

That is woefully failing policies on NPOV, for this very slanted article that read like "these are conspiracies that have been dismissed by professional associations", and is doubly concerning given the article is about the abilities of a living person. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns: There's already some coverage of the topic there, could just add the decent bits of this article to this existing coverage (and redirect there) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above is fine, this is an extension of that idea, not otherwise widely discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article fails WP:NPOV and the content spread is one-sided, but in the main article, it can work. Conyo14 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I rarely support deletion, but the current title is not acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the title being unacceptable, but WP:NOTCLEANUP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be cleanup, but think it'd have to be a merge without leaving a redirect because of how openly non-neutral the title is. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good point. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are allowed to be non-neutral; see WP:RNEUTRAL. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are allowed in extremely limited circumstances, namely according to the reasons listed which revolve around verifiability of a common non-neutral name. "Ageism against Joe Biden" is a made-up descriptor by an editorialising user. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what RNEUTRAL says (and whether this should exist as a redirect is really better to discuss at WP:RfD, assuming this gets closed in favor of deletion or redirection). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
uh, it quite literally does:

"The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms."

So the article of this title very much doesn't fall into the acceptable realms of "non-neutral redirect" given "Ageism against Joe Biden" isn't a common term or substantiated in reliable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2 clearly allows situations similar to this. Again, though, this isn't really a debate for AfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It allows it but it's still within the confines of the non-neutral term being a common subject or term used in reliable sources. That doesn't apply here for "ageism against Joe Biden". Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted above. This is a weird niche of anti-Biden disinformation, and it does not seem to warrant standalone coverage. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns per HotMess and others above. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above SKAG123 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to suggested page, or Delete. As it stands, the page appears to fail NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing useful here.Riposte97 (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the last two relists. No point relisting again as the community doesn't seem to care if the article is deleted. Keep and redirect !votes are also not seconded in two weeks. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze STV

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

The article in its current form contains several unsubstantiated claims, e.g., about Schulze-STV satisfying Droop-Proportionality or monotonicity. Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze. As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional". Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" (arXiv:1804.02973) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports. Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkusSchulze: am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article? While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles. We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion. However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Single transferable vote: where it is already mentioned. A well written article about this largely impractical voting system, but no notability to support a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this would really be a valid redirect, since Schulze STV is quite different from regular STV. Jannikp97 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many single transferable vote algorithms, and Schulze is one of them, which is why it is listed in that article. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do really think that is true. STV usually refers to a precise family of rules. Schulze STV does not belong to that family, despite its name. Jannikp97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tucker Carlson. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Carlson Network

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

No evidence of sufficient non routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tucker Carlson. In future it might have the notability for an article but I don't think it does at the moment. The coverage is either the launch announcement, or mentioned as part of his Vladimir Putin Interview. It's worth merging to Tucker Carlson in my opinion but is too soon for it's own article. Shaws username . talk . 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tucker Carlson for reasons given above. Doesn't really have an identity independent of Carlson at this stage.

Jbt89 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tucker Carlson per nom. and Jbt89. Sal2100 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above; this simply is not a 24/7 television network and should be written currently as if it is one. This is the 'one guy with a podcast and a website' type of network that should not be using WP:TV templates. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth it spreading the Russian propaganda Kasperquickly (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Tucker Carlson - WP:TOOSOON, it could possibly warrant a its own article in the future if it really blows up. However, no way to know that right now. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tucker Carlson: it's not "not" notable, but it's only notable within the context of tucker carlson. per above, WP:TOOSOON. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. On a pure nose count this might be a "no consensus", but as always, this is not a vote. The majority of "keep" arguments do not argue for a reason to keep based in policy, and I think there is some well-founded doubt about how they arrived as well. On balance, the majority of argument seems to indicate that the source material, including that suggested for addition during the discussion, does not pass the notability threshold. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Heckler

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. He's worked for some notable politicians, though I can't find reliable, secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search to confirm many of the unsourced claims made here. All I can find is passing mentions of him in articles about Florida politics. He may well have worked for some US presidents and senators, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Florida. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much coverage about him, he's mentioned in a few sources given already in the article, but these aren't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 3 seems to be about him, but that's all there is that's sigcov. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. Is a lawyer, a party hack, and a fundraiser - none of these are actually notable, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability does not derive from being a lawyer, but from his influence and political activism, of which fundraising is a part. Uppagus (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claims made here by Wikishovel and others. The subject has an entire Wall Street Journal profile about him and is mentioned on the White House website when he was appointed to serve last year on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Not to mention he has been deputy national finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and Biden Victory Fund for many years. Also look at the awards section. It is clear these items sufficiently demonstrate notability. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being named to a planning council for a government project doesn't get you notability. Rest is routine political work. Deputy finance guy for a national campaign is office work. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigcov is demonstrated by source 3 and 11. I also see that he was cited as a top fundraiser for President Biden and was part of a team that hosted him in Miami recently. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Andrewjacobson6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I wrote this on my talk page, but maybe it should be here.

I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether. I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia. I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable.

If he was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, his appointments have been noted by the White House, and his work has been covered in all the Florida newspapers, it is hard for me to understand the arguments cited above about not being worthy of a Wikipedia article. Strange. Also the fact that the person who wants this article deleted worked pretty hard to make it better. There is always room for improvement and as I have learned since starting to edit here, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. When more information and sources become available, they can be added. But I can't see a reason why this article should be deleted altogether.--Hazooyi (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there aren't many extensive stories just about him. Doing those things shows he COULD be notable here, but we need sourcing. We don't have enough for sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His fundraising and activism has made him influential both in state and national politics, all this besides his official and presidential appointments, mentioned in the article and reiterated by the editors above.

Uppagus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - Notable and definitely of interest to readers following American politics today.Developer19801 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass notability for coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigal1746 (talk • contribs)
Keep Per Developer19801, and Since the us elections are getting closer, the role of Alex Heckler in the Democratic campaign is not insignificant.HaOfa (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the sources, he clearly fails WP:GNG. Almost all of the coverage is self-promotional, the rest is mere mentions. Inclusion in a "Top 100" list does not count, unfortunately for the person claiming source 3 is good, and the WSJ profile was from 2007 and while I can only access the top part, seems like an interview/man on the street type of article. Even if it's not, it would stand alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heckler is a Known attorney, political fundraiser and philanthtopist. He was an intern at the White House under president Bill Clinton and Chair the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).Mhagay (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's all in the article. Being a "known attorney" or fundraiser or philanthropist doesn't make someone notable, though? Being an intern to Bill Clinton might make you notable if there was WP:SIGCOV of what you got up to while in the White House, but usually doesn't... Are there any policy-based reasons for keeping this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: It should be noted that of the seven 'Keep' !votes, most don't present policy reasons for retention, all have under 1,000 edits, one has less than 200 edits, four have less than 100 edits, one has less than 10 edits. It's a little odd that all would find their way to a random enough AfD of a little known party activist? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, he is not a little known party activist. Being from Ireland does not necessarily indicate an expertise in American politics. If editors have responded here, it's probably because his role in American politics is not a secret. Hazooyi (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why to delete this article. From what I could see, Heckler's activities extend far beyond just being a simple lawyer. He is the Managing Partner & Founder of LSN Partners LLC, a bipartisan consulting firm, including government affairs, regulatory matters, economic development, and emergency management. His roles include serving on the Biden-Harris 2020 National Finance Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the United States Conference of Mayors (https://www.usmayors.org/). He was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council), where he continues to fight against antisemitism. In the context of public universities dealing with contentious speakers on campus, Heckler has advocated for viewpoint-neutral policies. (User:Shulelevin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin (talk • contribs)

@Shulalevin: I'm curious: what prompted you to post here today, after three months of inactivity? Wikishovel (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikishovel, well, I was I am curious why would you ask that and whether you ask other editors such questions. Shulalevin (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would ask the same question of User:Andrewjacobson6, whose post above was their first edit, five minutes after account creation. My guess is that there's an online discussion forum or social media thread someplace, where this AFD was mentioned. There's nothing wrong with your having posted here on that basis, but if someone involved with editing the article was WP:Canvassing for support there, then that would be a problem. Wikishovel (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We ask because we care about wikipedia's reliability and standards, this isn't a "game" to be won. We treat every article fairly and in a neutral fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point of this page is to cite relevant policy justifying that the article in question be retained, or deleted. All of what you've written above is contained in the article body. We already know what it says. There's no point in just copying it over here, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Getting it back on the log, comment TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events (i.e. this individual easily passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC). Such sources include a ~2,250-word profile in The Wall Street Journal from 2008 and coverage in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from 2004 and also from 2008. There is also some less substantial coverage of him in The Miami Herald (regarding his non-political work), NBC News (2003, 2013; each regarding his role as a fundraiser), The Tampa Bay Times (regarding his appointment to Chair of the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors' Association), The New York Times (with coverage of his 2007 wedding, as well as more passing mention in 2011 regarding fundraising). Appeals to WP:NPOL are a bit spurious; his notability does not come from holding or running for public office, and he himself is not a politician in a plain sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree the coverage is as significant as you make it out to be beyond the WSJ article, though there are a couple articles that are paywalled for me. It's not enough for me to change my vote, though. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure of the significance of those references. Most are from at least 15 years ago, and passing mention of being appointed to an administrative position of a body for which he does not qualify for membership (the DGA) also does not signify notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note on relist I had closed this as delete, but per Red-tailed hawk's note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Heckler re: the edit conflict, I have relisted it for further discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per c. Being a "party hack" doesn't have bearing on notability/notoriety. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable activist/operative. No significant news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by Red-tailed hawk, particularly features in the Wall Street Journal and South Florida Sun-Sentinel, show that the subject passes the GNG. Coverage is sustained over much of the early 2000s due to the subject's activities as a lobbyist and fundraiser. Jfire (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG given the coverage outlined most granularly by Red-tailed hawk above, including citations that are not yet listed in the article itself, such as coverage by the New York Times of his wedding, suggesting he is a notable figure. These items make clear he is not just a lawyer or fundraiser but a figure recognized by both the political and media establishment. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second "keep" by User:Andrewjacobson6 struck. We all get to post a recommendation once at an WP:AFD, and then comment on the recommendations made.

A reply would also be helpful from you, and from article creator @Hazooyi:: was there a discussion about this AFD elsewhere, online or offline, that prompted you to create an account and immediately post here? @Shulalevin: has also not yet answered a similar question above. Wikishovel (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume that the article creator, who was active a day before this was nominated for deletion, and who also was given a notification about the deletion on their talk page, was not inappropriately canvassed to this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm asking the article creator if they know anything about offline canvassing for this AFD, from which it appears that User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin responded. Wikishovel (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me, I am sorry that I didn't answer sooner. I am still not familiar with all the terminology you are using. I have been reading up on Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly, but I'm not sure what you mean about "canvassing." I started editing Wikipedia a few months ago and until now felt like it was fun and a great learning experience. But now all of a sudden I am being attacked from all sides and my work is being disparaged and treated like garbage. I have worked hard to create an article on a person whose name kept coming up and had none. Why all this "assumption of bad faith" to use some Wikipedia lingo I have seen being used? I don't even know any other Wikipedia editors. Now it's not so much fun anymore. It feels like a threatening and unfriendly place. I do wish I could say nice to meet you...--Hazooyi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying your work is garbage, and I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm trying to work out why there are some odd responses in this discussion. Did you mention this deletion discussion elsewhere online? That's what I'm asking you.

I'm also asking User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin to reply to my questions to them above. Wikishovel (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of discussion do you mean? Where would I mention it? I have never had any contact with anyone on Wikipedia except for someone who wrote to me on my page about something they thought should be changed in an article I edited, and I said they were welcome to make that change. The only others who have contacted me are you and Bastun, to leave me messages that I can only understand as a wish for me and my work to disappear from the stage and leave Wikipedia to those are apparently smarter and better at editing than me. Not encouraging to say the least. And the continuing hostility towards anyone who thinks the article has some value is making me rethink if I want to contribute here...And by the way, after hearing all the criticism against this article, I went to look at others that were targeted for deletion. Amazingly, articles of two sentences and one reference at most were considered fine and the motion was to keep them. So really, it seems as if this article is being singled out in a strange way. If you are asking how people got to the page about this individual, I wonder how you got there? Is there some kind of red button that goes off when someone creates an article related to American politics?--Hazooyi (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says at the top of this page: You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. If you ask me, you have no right to interrogate anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazooyi (talk • contribs)

I'm not interrogating you. I'm asking you if you mentioned this AFD elsewhere online: on social media, maybe? Because that would explain User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin showing up and posting as they did. If you did that, because you didn't know it was against Wikipedia's rules, then that's OK. I just want to know. Wikishovel (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rogue "keep" comments coming out of the woodwork appear to be the most notable thing this guy has done recently. It reads very much like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Not everyone that knows or works with a sitting president meets notability guidelines. WP:RESUME

Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other delete votes provide the same explanation that I would for deleting, so see above. Slightly offtopic: The "Keep" votes, on the other hand, are laughably transparent new-account sockpuppets from a UPE farm, and if this guy Heckler didn't pay someone online to create this article and make an effort to see it not deleted, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your over-generalization about keep !voters. I'll AGF that you overlooked the fact that Red-tailed hawk is an administrator and I am an editor in good standing, and we've both provided policy-based keep !votes. Jfire (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Congress of Republicans

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

I don't see any reason to think this organization is notable. It doesn't seem like their initial split from the party was very widely-covered, and they certainly haven't gotten much news coverage in the last decade. It seems like they're basically just a minor Republican club, and those don't automatically get Wikipedia pages. Also, appropos of nothing, this article is written like a press release. I'd support either a delete or a redirect to California Republican Party. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see Republican Party (United States) organizations and Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States by political party - I don't think these are split from the overall national party, or even state party, as much as they are local groups of the same party. They cater to the local area Republicans, much like fan clubs. The ultimate goal would be to boost the overall state and national parties, but focusing on local politics — Maile (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. I misread the article and thought they split from the CAGOP when in reality they split from the California Republican Assembly. That actually strengthens the case to delete this page, as the California Republican Assembly doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I certainly don't see any indication that the California Congress of Republicans is as notable as other groups on that page like Log Cabin Republicans or the Freedom Caucus. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Republican Assembly? — Maile (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to my knowledge. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eugene Jarecki#Public policy. (non-admin closure) TLA (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Death Clock

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

fails WP:NSUSTAINED, see also Talk:Trump Death Clock#Is this still active? FMSky (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect at most. No sustained notability. Barely had any when it was active. All sources, save the last, were published within two weeks of each other, and most of them are actually op-ed pieces, one written by the guy who sponsored the billboard in the first place, Eugene Jarecki, so questionable sourcing at best. If there's anything to WP:PRESERVE, it's at most a redirect to Jarecki's article, where it's mentioned. oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Clever idea to bring forward a serious problem and better than the simplistic national debt billboard, But I'm not seeing the notability for a standalone article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jarecki's article per above. It fails WP:SUSTAINED and, if I recall correctly, was never a permanent fixture. Rather, it was one of many things displayed on one of the digital billboards in Times Square, with an accompanying website. (The national debt clock nearby, incidentally, is a permanent fixture that has its own dedicated display, which kind of underlines the sharp contrast with the "death clock" here.) Epicgenius (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eugene Jarecki#Public policy per all above. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Sal2100 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect by above. AnOpenBook (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eugene Jarecki: The Jarecki article currently only has an uncited paragraph. The cited content here should be moved over. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Terrisa Bukovinac. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used by those folks who want to expand the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising

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

Fails WP:GNG. No source article covers the history or "biographical" information about THIS ORGANIZATION; the sources only cover ONE EVENT WP:1E; the organization itsself is only briefly mentioned in the sources, most of which are poor sources (WP:NATIONALREVIEW), or WP:PRIMARY sources like the justice department releases, or self-sourced.

THE EVENT **MAY** be notable, but NOT the ORGANIZATION. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 19:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete this article. The event that discovered the five late-term fetuses is absolutely notable (I appreciate the proposer for recognizing that), and if the event was the only thing related to this organization, then I would probably agree that we can instead have an article specifically for that event. However, there are two very notable events related to this organization. Other than the discovery of the 5 late-term fetuses and hundreds of early-term ones, there is also a separate case where members of this organization were arrested for violations of the FACE Act, which has garnered a LOT of notability. They bombarded and blocked abortion clinics, and are equally, if not more notable than Democrats for Life of America.

I agree that some of the sourcing must be fixed, but I ask that the person who proposed this recognize the fact that there are numerous events that have made this organization notable. I also ask that the proposer give this article a chance to have its sources improved before it is nominated for such a deletion.

I understand the proposers concern and argument, but I ask that the proposer consider mine as well. DocZach (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just updated the article to remove the Natioof-olitical-warnal Review citations. DocZach (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: The issue of abortion is an ongoing tug-of-political-war in the United States. And as illustrated above, the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is no less important than all the other articles of various aspects of the issue. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability WP:N has nothing to do with what you think is important. It has to do with whether or not the subject is covered in Reliable Sources. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP: The subject is covered in reliable sources, and there are over two MAJOR events that this organization is known for. Maile didn't say it's what he thinks is important, he said that the PAAU article is simply not of less importance to other relevant articles on the issue. For example, there's less notability and sources for the Center for Reproductive Rights article, yet that article is still allowed to remain.

Your proposal is incorrect because you claim that the sources only cover ONE EVENT, when in-fact, there are at least two major events covered by reliable sources. The FACE Act incident, and the discovery of the bodies are SEPARATE incidents and events.

The poor source you claimed was in the article was removed and replaced, and therefore, because [1] the proposal is false in that it claims there is only one event covered, and [2] the sources in dispute were fixed/removed/replaced, this proposal should should be closed and a SPEEDY KEEP should be enacted.

Per Wikipedia:Speedy keep, number one and number three apply here to justify a speedy closure of this nomination to maintain the article's existence. The proposal is erroneous in that it falsely claims the organization is only known for one event and that the sources only reference one specific event (which is false). And furthermore, the proposer claims that there is no "biographical" information of this organization, which is FALSE.

THERE IS A BIOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION OF PAAU RIGHT HERE, CONTRARY TO THE PROPOSER'S CLAIM:

NEW YORK TIMES: "Kristin Turner, the communications director for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising. Some relative newcomers to the anti-abortion movement include young women whose activism is not connected to religious belief. [...] Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, whose goals include educating the public about 'the exploitative influence of the Abortion Industrial Complex through an anti-capitalist lens.' [...] Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, founded last year, emphasizes “direct action,” including “pink-rose rescues,” in which activists enter abortion clinics to distribute roses attached to anti-abortion information." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/03/us/pro-life-young-women-roe-abortion.html

DocZach (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To editors coming to this deletion discussion now and after, please stop Bolding and CAPITALIZING words. As an admin that has closed hundreds of AFDs, this wordplay is just distracting and doesn't make your opinion any more important than other editor's opinions. It's not how flashy your words are but the argument you are putting forth. So, please, no more bolding or ALLCAPs in responses here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My apologies. I am used to emphasizing the important points of my arguments with formatting, so that's my bad. @Liz DocZach (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see extant sourcing in the article covering multiple individual events. Taken as a whole, this appears to be sufficient coverage to form the basis of an article on the group itself. There are POV/copyediting issues like the mission statement in the lead sentence, but those are cleanup items that don't drive a need for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's some coverage that isn't limited to the "115 fetuses" incident, so it's possible it scrapes by GNG. Is there a potential merge target? I almost !voted delete per WP:TNT because the article was a POV disaster, but I just tried to fix some of it so it's less an extension of the group's own website. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: At risk of partly duplicating my comments below, the group's founder (Terrisa Bukovinac) does have an article that was kept at AfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT as above. The article creator seems intent on forcing the POV and BLP problems into the article. I see now that it was even declined by MaxnaCarta at AfC specifically for POV reasons, but the article creator just moved it into mainspace anyway. If other users were substantially involved, I wouldn't push for deletion, but since it's such a borderline notability case and the article is in the state it is, IMO we should just blow it up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VQuakr. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ - The topic of abortion is notable, and it has an article. An Organisation dedicated to deal with a notable topic is not necessarily notable. This is akin to me founding an Apple iphone club and then claiming notability for an article because I was involved in the theft of iphones from a warehouse and am called on for comment. The coverage does not cover this organisation indepth. Not every pro/anti abortion organisation is notable. They must meet NORG like any other. The events the organisation is tied to aren't relevant. What is relevant that there is significant, sustained coverage detailing the organisation in-depth. There isn't any. It's trivial mentions and quotations - these do not constitute significant coverage. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote to a redirect as an ATD — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to remind everyone that this article qualifies for a SPEEDY KEEP, considering the fact that the proposal itself is deceptive and incorrect. It claims there is only one event, when that is obviously false if the proposer took a minute to read the article. And furthermore, the proposer lied about there being no biographical coverage. @Rhododendrites, your idea of a POV issue seems quite strange to me, and I need you to explain further. And in regards to @MaxnaCarta, the events the organization is tied to is absolutely part of what notability consists of, and I already provided sources showing in-depth explanations of the organization itself. So your question about "What is relevant that there is significant, sustained coverage detailing the organisation in-depth" was already answered, please look above. DocZach (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does not qualify as a speedy keep, no matter how many times you bold and capitalise the two words. I also take issue with you calling the nomination deceptive. It is not. AGF. At any rate, I believe the nomination is absolutely spot on. The event is notable, the organisation is not. Also, merely the event being notable doesn’t necessitate a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. You should have listened to the two declines made at AFC before moving it to main space. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To second this: the nomination clearly does not meet any of the narrow criteria listed at WP:SKCRIT. @DocZach: please have a look at WP:REPETITION. Repeating yourself makes it less, not more, likely a reasoning will be accepted. Also the POV issues are quite blatant and have been immediately apparent to every uninvolved editor that's looked at the article, myself included: as of right now there's even a mission statement in the 2nd sentence of the lead! VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the mission statement from the second sentence of the lead. DocZach (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: So from the RS's currently in the article, we have two sources that provide slightly more information about the group than this example quote typical of all these sources, which only mention the group as a side comment in the 5 fetus event, for example "...Lauren Handy, a well-known local antiabortion protester and director of activism for Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising."

1) The NYT mentioned above, with some small comments about the org, and 2) Vice [1] mentions PAAU 15 times but never profiles the organization, other than to say that it is one organization re-doing the "rescue" idea, uses TikTok, and is small: Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising is still not one of the major players in the anti-abortion world; it has just over 4,300 followers on TikTok. (The similarly youth-focused Students for Life has over 54,000 followers.)

Can any editor who supports keeping this article provide quotes from Reliable Sources that provide more info about this organization to show WP:NORG: "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avatar317 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The relevant notability guideline here is WP:NGO:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

In addition to the sourcing in the article and discussed here, I'm also seeing significant coverage from KFF Health News (KFF being Kaiser Family Foundation after a rebrand, and also republished by The Daily Beast). The piece is focused solely on the group, and talks extensively talks about the group, its strategy and tactics, its leadership, and to some extent its public reception. This doesn't seem like a WP:1E-sort of thing, so the only question that took me a while is whether this meets criterion No. 1 of the NGO guideline. And for this reason, I'm refraining from leaving a bold !vote, since I'm not quite able to get a good handle on whether this group is active outside of the DMV area or if this is a local group that happens to be active in the nation's capital.

On a separate note, I do note that the group's founder (Terrisa Bukovinac) has an article, so in the event that we feel that this NGO is non-notable we might want to merge some content to the article on the founder. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my !vote above: For the record, I'm not opposed to redirecting to Terrisa Bukovinac. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a redirect to Bukovinac is probably a better option than keeping a stand alone article about the marginally-notable organization. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the already borderline notability, and taking into account the subject's own request, I find that WP:BLPDELETE / WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE apply. This bio entry of a living person should not be recreated unless there's evidence of significant upward movement to the subject's notability (as WP:NPROF or whatever). El_C 06:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ivan Katchanovski

AfDs for this article:

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

Katchanovski is notable neither as an academic nor as an author, and is not known by the wider public for any reason. His sole claim on public attention is as the origin of a WP:FRINGE theory that the Maidan massacre was a false flag operation. The conspiracy theory has subsequently been disseminated by Russian propaganda sources. The biographical article on Katchanovski is a WP:COATRACK for this contentious political viewpoint, and should be subsumed into the main article on Maidan casualties, should anything be worth rescuing. Nangaf (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been re-nominated for deletion as previous discussions did not reach consensus. Since those discussions, further developments have rendered Katchanovski's conspiracy theory even more dubious: most notably, that a Ukrainian court has determined that 40 of the 48 dead were shot by the Berkut, and that causes of the remaining 8 deaths cannot be conclusively determined. Nangaf (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOLAR as it is widely cited in academic studies. I show below the most cited:

Quoted in Google Scholar 1664 times, with h-index 22 and i10-index 36.[2]

"The separatist war in Donbas: a violent break-up of Ukraine?" Cited 151 times.

"The paradox of American unionism: Why Americans like unions more than Canadians do, but join much less" Cited 133 times.

"Regional political divisions in Ukraine in 1991–2006" Cited 95 times.

"The future of private sector unions in the US" Cited 85 times.

"Divergence in growth in post-communist countries" Cited 84 times.

"Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova. With a Foreword by Francis Fukuyama" Cited 80 times.

Widely quoted in Google Books.[3]

Widely quoted in Google News.[4]

Over the past year, he has been the main source for the Yaroslav Hunka scandal, and has been quoted all over the world.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

All important Western sources mention him frequently:

The Guardian [18][19]
The New York Post [20]
Reuters [21]
Al Jazeera [22]
Associated Press [23]
The Washington Post [24]
CBC.ca [25]
The Nation [26][27]
France 24 [28]
Radio Free Europe [29][30]
Radio Canada International [31][32]
Le Figaro [33][34]
The Forward [35]
National Post [36]
The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles [37]
Courthouse News Service [38]
Die Weltwoche [39]
La Razón (Madrid)[40]
CTV News [41][42][43]
CP24 [44]
Panorama (magazine)[45]--Mhorg (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Academic citations are not sufficient evidence of academic notability: Katchanovski does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC.

(2) Press citations are not evidence of notability: this is a biographical article, yet none of the pieces you mention are about Katchanovski himself. Nangaf (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, his work was cited, although not necessarily "favorably". Does it mean he is notable enough? This is a replay of previous nominations. There is only one difference right now: the subject of the page has strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the BLP page about him. Well, if he feels this page should be deleted, I think it would be fair to agree and delete. But if he wants to keep it, let's keep. I know, this is not really a policy-based argument. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with keeping or deleting this page, whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, there is a section of WP:BLPDELETE which discusses the wishes of the subject as being a consideration. Such wishes can be used as a tie-breaker, much the way you are arguing, if I understand what you are saying. jps (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. This is Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relatively_unknown_subjects: Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Based on that, I would encourage the subject (who currently edits as an IP) to request to "delete" or "keep" their BLP page, whichever they prefer. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion terminates without consensus once again, then that could come into play. Personally, I do not doubt that the IP user is who he claims to be. Nangaf (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Based on his comments, he will want to keep the page to promote himself and his ideas. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

My Very Best Wishes and Nangaf deliberately flood my biographical Wikipedia article and talk page with deliberately false and libelous information against me as a Ukrainian scholar in retaliation for my peer-reviewed article that mentioned their systematic whitewashing of contemporary far-right, including their involvement in the Maidan massacre, and whitewashing of Nazi collaborators and mass murderers in Ukraine.
They libelously and falsely call my peer-reviewed articles “conspiracy theory.” They deliberately omit my peer-reviewed studies and their favorable reviews by over 100 scholars, experts, and media. They deliberately and fraudulently misrepresent findings of the Maidan massacre trial verdict even after I provided specific parts of Maidan massacre trial verdict and media sources showing specific parts of the verdict confirming findings of my studies. They libelously and falsely link me to Putin.
None of my information and reliable sources that I provided was included in the article and none of the false and libelous claims were removed even after I provided all the sources. Nangaf responded saying “sue us.”
In addition to been libelous, such deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of sources qualifies as fraud in academia.
They also deleted any favorable information, such as my prediction of the Russia-Ukraine war and my calls for EU membership of Ukraine. The article also deliberately omitted my role in in the SS Galicia veteran in the Canadian parliament scandal, my previous affiliation with Harvard University, that I one of the most cited political scientists specializing in Ukrainian politics and conflicts, and that mt research-based interviews, publications, and comments appeared in thousands of media reports.
Either remove the libelous and false information about me or delete my article immediately.
I always told my students to never use Wikipedia for such reasons. Ivan Katchanovski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.47.71 (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I actually removed "conspiracy theory" in my recent edit [46], even though it is indeed a theory about a conspiracy allegedly committed by Maidan leadership. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libelous and false claims calling my academic studies "a conspiracy theory" were posted on my article and talk pages and various other Wikipedia pages, and remain there with the exception of this edit.

The article deliberately includes only all the negative sources that they could find. 174.92.47.71 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to be Katchanovski. You have requested that the article be deleted, if various criteria are not met. These facts may be relevant to the current discussion. The accusations you have made are not, and may contravene Wikipedia policy. They have been reported. Nangaf (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Here's another one of these discussions where h-index and Google search arguments are thrown around without much contextualization. I really don't care for how many Google Scholar hits someone has: if one can prove that a scholar is cited a few times and indicate how that citation takes place, then there's an argument, a much stronger one than "oh this guy has 1664 hits". Look at those hits closely, and one finds that (as is frequent in for instance sociology) these citations are just that--citations in long lists of other citations (the usual boring literature review), with no actual work being cited or assessed. Sure, he's cited a bunch, and those citations prove he's got a job etc., but if he's going to be notable via NPROF you can't just say "he was cited": you have to prove that his work was meaningful. That really goes for passing the GNG as well. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bog-standard citation index--if this counts as notable for academics then almost anyone at a research university is getting a Wikipedia article. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence given this subject satisfies NPROF or GNG. Per the above comments, a list of Google Scholar hits without any context doesn't prove much. Also of note is that the WP:BURDEN for establishing verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and I would argue, in this case, wants to keep a BLP about someone who probably isn't notable. I also want to add that what the article subject himself wishes isn't especially pertinent to a deletion discussion, and we don't keep BLPs just to spite the article subject when they are angry with us and making demands. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 18:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Bellevue mayoral election

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

Local election for a small city with very little outside coverage, failing WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:GNG. The largest newspaper in its metropolitan area (the Omaha World-Herald) has only a handful of articles and none since the result was determined, failing WP:LASTING. Sounder Bruce 02:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nebraska. Sounder Bruce 02:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not sure why this election was singled out for an article; I have never seen any articles about elections in cities of similar sizes. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable election, fails the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Slacks

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

At best, a bit of overly enthusiast in-universe writing or an attempt to promote the film.[47] Created in 2004‎, tagged with needing additional citations since 2010, and only sourced to the sites connected to the film and geocities-ish sites. But this is just a non-notable character from a small, independent film. I searched Google, ebsco, proquest, newspapers.com, proquest, and archive.org. From the Vimeo listing (my emph) Iranian-English director Kivmars Bowling has found a new way to bring period drama to a modern audience and bring this original story to life. [48] Nothing in the archived director statement or any other marketing materials claims the movie is based on a real person (press kit: [49]). The movie was in production when the article was created (see [50] from the film's blog: The script was written in 2002/3 and we shot the film in England in 2004.). Our article links to [51] which has documents that purport to be official government documents but are likely made for the film). (I think the movie is of questionable notability (zero published reviews) but the claim that it was the last movie be filmed with "Kodachrome 40 Super 8 film" [52] is interesting but I can't find any independent, reliable sources repeating the claim. I think creating a fresh article on the film if sources are found would be the path forward.) Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, History, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's an article, written in an in-universe fashion, about a non-notable fictional character made to promote a movie. No reason to keep this. You could probably request speedy deletion under G11 or maybe even even G3. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StreetcarEnjoyer I considered that but perhaps doubted my ability to be sure I was correct. I also don't think it's "unambiguous" for G11 and G3 is probably a bit edge too. I don't have any objections to an admin deleting it that way since I doubt we'll need a deletion discussion to keep it deleted. Skynxnex (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything about a film or whatever this stub is supposed to be about. Plenty of hits on Donovans, nothing for this thing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article about a fictional character in a movie I can find no RS independent coverage for. ResonantDis_tortion 11:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't obvious reading through at first, so worth noting the film and character have the same name. The character is non-notable and the film wouldn't pass WP:NFILM. hinnk (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Luna

AfDs for this article:

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

No consensus at last AfD, low participation. It is hard to read through the fact that this is written by a nearly-WP:SPA in a promotional way, but it doesn't appear that there are the sources available online to establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so I really hope we can now find a consensus, either way. Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: There are a number of references in the article, and in the last AfD, Jfire offered several more: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]. Boleyn, why do you feel that these sources don't add up to notability? Toughpigs (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any mentions of this person from Atlanta, multiple Gsearch hits on a person in the LA area that lost their son. Delete for not meeting notability requirements. The one source used calling him "controversial" is not the best, but it's about all we have. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oaktree b, that comment and vote makes no sense, as there are dozens of articles on Luna from Atlanta, and there were six already in the wiki article even when it got AFDed. Persingo (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- same as I voted in the prior AfD. There's enough sustained coverage in Atlanta-area papers to satisfy WP:GNG. See the newspaper coverage above. Jfire (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Targeted keyword searches yield abundant significant coverage in reliable sources. Just searching with the added keyword "Atlanta", I find dozens of good results, for example: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. Persingo (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified here and in the last AfD. Toughpigs (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would go along with a keep per WP:HEY, if and only if the citations and sources found were added to the article, with some content for context. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Types of nationalism

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

I wonder if there’s any appetite for this proposed deletion. To my mind, the article is a complete mess. Not only is it almost entirely a synthesis of material, but I’m not convinced it warrants an article even if that problem were resolved.

All such an article would do is summarise the "types of nationalism" contained within the Template:Nationalism_sidebar, but given those types already all have their own articles, does that information actually need to be repeated here in an article of its own? Yr Enw (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this kind of thing is difficult, IMO. It is clearly true that scholars have defined the topic in different ways and have focussed on different aspects. But I don't really think it is the role of Wikipedia to tie these things together, and it is hard to see how to do that without WP:BIAS and WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, we do have "overview" articles on various topics and I can see that this could be useful for at-a-glance basic information and navigation. It's also possible that printed overviews of the topic exist, so perhaps we are not here creating something new. I'm not sure how to resolve these tensions. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study. For example:

Wirth, Louis (May 1936). "Types of Nationalism". American Journal of Sociology. 41 (6): 723–737. doi:10.1086/217296. ISSN 0002-9602.
Maxwell, Alexander (November 2010). "Typologies and phases in nationalism studies: Hroch's A-B-C schema as a basis for comparative terminology". Nationalities Papers. 38 (6): 865–880. doi:10.1080/00905992.2010.515970. ISSN 0090-5992.
Hall, John A. (1993). "Nationalisms: Classified and Explained". Daedalus. 122 (3): 1–28. ISSN 0011-5266.
Symmons-Symonolewicz, Konstantin (January 1965). "Nationalist Movements: An Attempt at a Comparative Typology". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 7 (2): 221–230. doi:10.1017/S0010417500003625. ISSN 1475-2999.

As such, the article meets our inclusion guidelines. Editorial concerns like WP:SYNTH can be dealt with via normal editing. The problems are not so bad that wholesale deletion is warranted. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomy of nationalisms is not really what that article deals with though. At present, it’s entirely repeated information or synthesised material. Yr Enw (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, in your mind, is the distinction between a taxonomy of nationalism, and the existing article, which, for example, has divisions of "ethnic nationalism", "civic nationalism", and "ideological nationalism", subdividing the first into "expansionist nationalism" and "romantic nationalism", and the last into "revolutionary nationalism", "liberation nationalism", and "left-wing" or "socialist nationalism". You don't consider that a taxonomy? Jfire (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, of course that's a taxonomy, but you said "Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study" and the article doesn't deal with that. In other words, the article presents a taxonomy, but it isn't about how typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have been dealt with in the literature. But that isn't the only issue with the article. Even if we dismiss that semantic distinction, the divisions in the article all have their own articles anyway, which renders this specific article redundant per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Yr Enw (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it needs expansion and explanation, I don't see how this fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a WP:REDUNDANTFORK than failing notability. Yr Enw (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. This isn't Wikipedia's finest article. At the same tie, sidebars are slimy things, and there's evidently scope for different types of nationalism to be afforded more discussion than a mere listing, as the sidebar offers. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National recognition of Meitei culture

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

This is basically a synthesis created for purposes of WP:Peacock. PepperBeast (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really seeing why this page is needed or meets the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wp:n. It is all puffery. RangersRus (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The article is cited with numerous sources for each paragraph, supporting all the claims. None of them are fake claims. Anyone can scrutinise it. There's no question of WP:NOTABILITY in this case. If anyone believes that the article is suffering from WP:PEACOCK (or the so called WP:PUFFERY), then he/she can rewrite the article to correct the problem or, if unsure how best to make a correction, the article may be tagged with an appropriate template, such as {{Peacock term}}. Deletion isn't the solution in case of the rationale given for this AFD. --Haoreima (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The only thing clear in this discussion is that this article needs rewriting. But after two relistings, I don't expect further participation in this discussion so it calls for a closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Commission

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2008. A sort of list of quite different organizations that happen to share a name. WP:N is not established, as this article cites no source that discusses the topic of "constitutional commission" as such, rather than individual ones. Perhaps this could be made into a WP:DAB page. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (maybe delete). The most newsworthy Constitutional Commission today is that of Chile (see 2023 Chilean constitutional referendum). It is not mentioned. Athel cb (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to DAB:~~ I disagree that "Constitutional Commission" is not notable; it's just another term for a type of constituent assembly. But, this page is more similar to Constitutional Convention and Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), so it should also be a dab. If there were actual content here, beyond unreferenced descriptions of a few commissions, I would propose merging it with constituent assembly, but we don't have that. Alternatively, we could merge Constitutional Convention, Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), and this page into one disambiguation page, since they're all basically the same kind of thing, and have the other two redirect to the one page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of James' !vote, I would say that the information that he's provided should be added to constituent assembly in its own section. I still don't see the need for a separate article, unless and until that article is too long and we need to spinoff a new article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my discussion with James and his !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but quite possibly split State constitutional commissions in the United States and others. Constitutional commissions (plural) satisfy GNG. There are sources that discuss "constitutional commissions" (plural) as a group. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least Australia and the US) in scope: [77] (see pp 19 to 21; also published at 19 Public Law Review 308). It deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. It seems to indicate that "constitutional commissions" in that sense are not just a name. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least the whole of the Commonwealth) in scope: [78] (see pp 239 and 240; see also p 62). Again it deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. I think this source, in particular, is broad and general enough to make dabification unnecessary. The following deal with state constitional commissions (plural, because multiple states have them) in the US: [79] (see s 546 to p 575) [80] (see section on "constitutional commissions") [81] (see pp 423 to 429) [82] [83]. The following deals with ten constitutional commissions for multiple countries in former British Africa: [84] [85]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in former British colonies generally: [86]. James500 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) The following deals with constitutional commissions in British decolonization: [87]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in transitional states: [88]. This source is completely international in scope. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should point out that WP:GNG is solely a test of the volume of coverage that exists in independent reliable sources, not the length of any Wikipedia article. If a sub-topic satisfies GNG we do not have to wait until the article on the parent topic becomes too long in order to create an article on the sub-topic. That would be a serious nuisance to editors, and GNG was created to prevent nuisance arguments and nuisance disputes about whether the parent article is or is not too long. I should also point out that that approach is likely to result in the parent article becoming unbalanced, to the point where the sub-topic is given disproportionate space in the parent article. The whole point of GNG is to stop this kind of thing. [I should also point out that Constituent assembly is already 38kB long. It is already fairly lengthy, and does not need to be "stuffed" with even more sub-topics.] James500 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough point regarding article splits and based on source 2, I'm persuaded that a constitutional commission is sufficiently distinct from other forms of constituent assemblies. That said, the several articles we have on this topic are a mess and there should be some sort of discussion about how to reorganize these articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at this moment this page presently needs to be rewritten. I think that anyone who has read the sources should be able to the rewrite the article. I expect that it will be rewritten soon. I do not think that a discussion is necessary to decide how to reorganize this article, because I think it is obvious how this article should be reorganized. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article needs to be improved as there are clear issues with the article (for example empty headings), besides that, I would vote keep

Mr Vili talk 04:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Patriotic Movement

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

Duplicate page of Somali National Movement just incomprehensible. Same names of orgs in Somali. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Africa. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also have serious WP:COMPETENCY concerns about the editor working on this, evident by them adding their article to the deletion discussion page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reverted Grozny77 (talk · contribs)'s attempt to duplicate the article in the nomination page. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. The Somali Patriotic Movement was a distinct southern grouping that was part of the coalition that overthrew the Barre regime in 1991. There's ample sourcing available.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Ahmed Ali, Fatuma (2022). "The Somali National Movement Engineering self-determination of Somaliland". In Bach, Jean-Nicolas (ed.). Routledge handbook of the Horn of Africa. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 89–97. ISBN 9780429426957. However, it is believed that these suppressive efforts by Barre's regime did not stop the SNM from waging its armed resistance in northern Somalia, but it is also made it see the opportunity to support other clan-based rebel groups to take up arms against the regime. These included the United Somali Congress (USC) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) supported respectively by the Hawiye and the Ogaden clans. (p.93)
^ Hunter, Brian (1993). "Somalia". In Hunter, Brian (ed.). The Statesman’s Year-Book. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1181–1183. doi:10.1057/9780230271227_160. ISBN 9780230271227. After 12 years of civil war involving 5 factions, prominent amongst them the United Somali Congress (USC), the Somali National Movement (SNM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), rebel forces had fought their way into Mogadishu by the end of 1990. (p.1181)
^ Mukhtar, Mohamed Haji (1996). "The plight of the Agro‐pastoral society of Somalia". Review of African Political Economy. 23 (70): 543–553. doi:10.1080/03056249608704222. The Somali Patriotic Movement, representing the Ogaden clan, operated in the Middle and Lower Juba valley (p.550)
^ Duursma, Allard (3 April 2022). "Non-state conflicts, peacekeeping, and the conclusion of local agreements". Peacebuilding. 10 (2): 138–155. doi:10.1080/21647259.2022.2032946. For example, following heavy fighting between the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement/Somali National Alliance (SPM/SNA) in the Kismayo area, UNOSOM together with local clan elders mediated negotiations between the parties which led to the signing of the Jubbaland Peace Agreement on 6 August 1993. (p.153)
^ Osman, Abdulahi A. (2019). "The role of inequality in the collapse of the Somali State". Journal of Somali Studies. 6 (2): 51–74. ProQuest 2328867061. The Somali Patriotic Movement was an armed faction of the Ogaden, a sub-clan of Daarood clan. It was headed by Col. Mohamed Omar Jees, who was a great supporter and an ally of the late General Mohamed Aideed. (p.66)

There's clearly versions of the article in its history which do not include material copied from the Somali National Movement article. Given the editor responsible for the present problems is now blocked, simple reversion to a previous version of the article is possible, no TNT necessary here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be passing mentions and not SIGCOV as required for orgs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn, which version do you propose restoring the article to? -- asilvering (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the organization is completely different from the SNM and deleting the page for a historically significant armed movement (look it up, the SPM as one of the major rebel groups that overthrew Siad Barre) because some guy made dumb edits to the page isn't a good idea. It needs cleanup and additional sources added, not deletion. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above arguments. Bulbajer (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm going out on a limb and closing this as Delete as there have been two relistings without further participation. But I find those arguing that this article is inappropriate are more persuasive even though I don't see a consensus to Delete (or a consensus for any outcome). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar)

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

The Nationalist Congress Party of India has recently undergone a split, forming two factions. The faction led by Ajit Pawar has been recognized by the Indian Election Commission as the legitimate heir to the NCP name. Sharad Pawar's faction has been order to take a new name for upcoming 2024 elections. Since the Sharad Pawar faction no longer has the right to use the NCP name, this article claiming NCP lineage seems to be problematic at best. A new article about the new faction can be started when they've chosen a name, but that new article should not make it appear to still be the NCP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No,We will redirect this page after name is selected. Qzgjeth (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After NCP name and Clock symbol given to Ajit pawar, ECI has given Sharad Pawar faction name "NCP - Sharad Chandra Pawar" , so this considers as different political party, like Kerala congress has many factions and name Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Qzgjeth and Mahesh Chhanga 78: The problem is that the article's content refers to the NCP, whose continued existence falls under the Ajit Pawar faction. This new party is a new thing, and while we can note that it devolved from the original NCP, it has to be written about as a new thing, with no history past the 2023 split. Implications that this new thing existed prior to 2023 are incorrect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this page should have only name NCP and original NCP history with president as Ajit pawar and NCP Sharad Chandra Pawar on separate page Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What legal rights to a political party's name someone has doesn't matter for Wikipedia. What matters is what reliable sources refer to the party as. The AfD doesn't make a case for deletion, it makes one for renaming the article. Cortador (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cortador: In this case, I believe WP:TNT applies. The article is false from its outset. The bulk of the content and citations of the article are about the legitimate Nationalist Congress Party, not this offshoot organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article can be recreated when whatever name they've chosen is finalized. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Election Commission has approved a new name — the ‘Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar’ — for NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s faction.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sharad-pawars-group-now-called-nationalist-congress-party-sharadchandra-pawar/article67821766.ece Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Reliable Sources like The Hindu, Hindustan Times and many other news portal cites that The Election Commission has approved a new name — the ‘Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar’ — for NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s faction and also sought a ‘banyan tree’ as its election symbol. Source:[89] [90] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel Messi Lover (talk • contribs) 8 February 2024 1:20 (UTC)
Comment The point of this deletion discussion (at least my point in initiating it) is not that the new party is not notable, but rather that the article, being an almost verbatim copy of the Nationalist Congress Party article, is completely incorrect and will need to be rewritten from the ground up. If the article is retained, that will still have to happen. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this could be included as a footnote in the main Nationalist Congress Party article Block345 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campism

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

I'm looking at the article here, and the longstanding one at third camp, and I can't come to the conclusion that the concept of "campism" is notable in a distinct way. The sourcing in the article is as follows:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
New Politics (1)	Why not?	For sake of argument, why not?	Seems to be about the subject of campism	✔ Yes
New Politics (2)	Why not?	For sake of argument, why not?	Seems to be about the subject of campism	✔ Yes
Negation Magazine	Why not?	~ I'm somewhat skeptical; this looks more like a group blog than a magazine with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking.	This discusses the third camp during the cold war. It doesn't discuss the term "campism" in a significant way.	✘ No
Democratic Socialists of America	Why not?	This is the blog of a political organization. It also appears to have the standard opinion piece disclaimer of "The views and opinions presented in Socialist Forum reflect those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of DSA".	This does not discuss the term "campism" in a meaningful way, though it does go into the history of the Trotskyist third camp.	✘ No
Fidel Castro's speech to the U.N.	? Cannot tell, since the link is broken, and the archive doesn't actually point to the speech.	If this is merely a political speech to the United Nations by Castro, that isn't the sort of thing that makes a WP:RS.	? Source link is broken.	✘ No
Third World Quarterly	Why not?	Why not?	While this gives historical coverage of the concept of "third-worldism", it doesn't so much as mention the concept of "campism".	✘ No
Open Democracy	Why not?	Per WP:RSOPINION, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces... are rarely reliable for statements of fact.	? Moot as clearly not reliable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this brings us is two sources from the same group publication (New Politics), but WP:SIGCOV notes that [m]ultiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. As such, we don't have multiple independent reliable sources based on the citations in the article itself. Outside of this, I was able to find some coverage of the term "campism", but it was entirely from unreliable sources like Counterpunch (RSP entry) and Paul Mason's substack (a blog), or from sources that had nothing to do with the descriptor as it pertains to third world theory (Hindustan Times).

In light of this, and the history of the term, I would advocate that the article be blanked-and-redirected to third camp, which seems to cover the relevant concept within third worldism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for your notes! I've updated the article to use several more scholarly and WP:NEWSORG sources (and fixed the Castro link). I would strongly oppose deletion: I think the article's sources, at present, meet WP:GNG. SocDoneLeft (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SocDoneLeft and added references. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Not only are the sources already in the article sufficient to meet the GNG, but there are other quality sources, just for instance: [91]. Central and Adams (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — This article is poorly formatted and seemingly miscontextualizes sources to articulate this topic via an almost exclusively Trotskyist view. This topic itself is fairly notable, but many of the people who employ the term "campism" are not Trotskyists. SociusMono1976 (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion. Per WP:Draftify the route from AfD to draftspace is that the article is deleted (because the subject is not notable) and then someone requests undeletion to draft space in order to try to improve it:

Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion, indirectly following deletion and a request for undeletion.

If the topic is notable, as you say that it is, it's not a candidate for deletion and therefore not for draftification via AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Draftify is not a direct outcome of a deletion discussion, it can be. The deletion policy is quite clear that Recently created articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting house

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

Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Kentucky, and Virginia. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Seems like it could be a sentence in Polling station. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into polling station It's a good stub, but it probably works better as an article section than its own separate article. Nate • (chatter) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge, the two sources are primary and don't support most claims in the article, not worth transferring to another article as it stands. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this technically a list article, since it provides navigational links to notable voting houses? SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to patrollers/closer: see User talk:Rechtman#Nomination of Voting house for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Voting House for comments from User:Rechtman (main contributor to the article), who has not commented here, and others' responses to them. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found at least one article on the concept: [92] along with primary sources showing the building of a voting house was a "municipal improvement." Also serves as a navigational aid to notable historic voting houses. Probably keepable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per User:SportingFlyer, but without User:Rechtman's concept of Voting Rights Acts or other racial access, since there is no source. The title phrase is generic, and the RS ref SportingFlyer found is about a WPA project specific to Rowan County, Kentucky and with the goal of expanding voting access overall (and maybe for political aims). Other refs (some of which might be circular citation):

"Rowan County Voting House – Morehead KY". The Living New Deal.
"Knapp Avenue voting house to be sold". The Daily Independent. June 15, 2015.
"Brushy Voting House #6". Clio.

and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name.

Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as [93]). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title (Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky)?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed.

"Rowan County, Kentucky WPA Stone Voting Houses". National Park Service. Retrieved 2024-02-04.

Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge with the polling place article Fine,Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon.~~ The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it.James.folsom (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @James.folsom: does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DMacks:Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking.James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built.James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you !voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could it be useful to merge this with the 3 articles about specific voting houses? It would then be an article that would discuss the remaining ones under page.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polling station with slight merge. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found the documents SportingFlyer and DMacks posted, and as SportingFlyer said the article serves as a navagational aid to the sources used for it, the majority of which seem to be old newspapers and so unlikely to be digitized. A search on the National Register of Historic Places ("voting house" as a search term in the table) also shows 10 different listed voting houses, [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] the statement of significance being that

"The # 4 Hogtown Voting House meets criterion A and is a significant physical representation of the New Deal. It was constructed by the WPA and used exclusively as a voting house during the period of significance. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House has retained a majority of the original materials and is recognizable in function as a voting house. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House is located in its original setting and location, andhas retained its integrity of association as a building constructed by one of the New dealera agencies."
(the other statemesnts just change the name of the place)

To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username . talk . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it [104] announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g. [105] [106] [107]) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country [108]. A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB. Shaws username . talk . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places.James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is greatly improved over what it was, I like Jengod's approach on this. Let's let it live and mature now.James.folsom (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of major improvements, including sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ipigott and james DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bearian Mr Vili talk 00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I can tell, the article seems notable enough, and it has multiple references supporting its inclusion. The article could, however, use some improvement. 20 upper (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The sense of the discussion was that while the subject potentially had a claim to notability, the existing sourcing did not provide significant coverage to validate the claim. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohinder Kaur Midha

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

WP:BEFORE only shows her appointment as the mayor WP:BLP1E? Fails NPOL and GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read it properly. References have been provided for each claim. You are merely targeting articles that belong to Dalits. Clearly, you are racist and casteist. Dev Mahey (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Mahey, Please see WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. Baselessly making accusations of racism and casteism is a quick way of getting blocked. Curbon7 (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL - She is the first lady of Dalit origin who was elected as mayor of any council in England. Have a look at independent sources from different news articles.

https://www.thequint.com/south-asians/mohinder-midha-elected-first-dalit-woman-mayor-uk

https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/in-mohinder-midha-s-victory-a-watershed-moment-for-the-uk-101657898971258.html

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/mohinder-k-midha-is-uks-first-dalit-woman-mayor-398111 Dev Mahey (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mohinder Kaur Midha passes NPOL. According to WP:POLOUTCOMES(explanatory essay), Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Right now, the article only mentions, 'Mohinder Kaur Midha was the former Mayor of the London Borough of Ealing'. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are routine news articles with no significant coverage apart from the Hindustan Times article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could be a claim to notability based on being the first Sikh to hold the position, but without sourcing, there is no article. Coverage is scant and none in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Could not find sources outside of her being the first female Dalit mayor in the UK, which like Oaktree b said, could be a claim to notability, but it is rather specific and I do agree with Jeraxmoira's WP:BLP1E assertion. Not to mention that the only keep vote here is from a blocked sockmaster casting WP:ASPERSIONS, so their comments should really be discounted. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could be wrong, but I think non-elected mayors of London Borough Councils are little more than ceremonial mayors serving one-year terms in rotation, whereas council leaders are the ones with real executive power. In WP:POLOUTCOMES (which Jeraxmoira cited above), this would then be more akin to In general than Mayors, and so the subject would be even less likely to meet common AfD outcomes. I think the subject is worth a sentence in Ealing London Borough Council, maybe even British Indians, as the first Dalit woman to become a UK mayor, but I'm afraid I don't think WP:NPOL is met. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, opinion remains split between keeping and draftifying, but no one is suggesting that this content needs to be deleted outright, or that the subject is either devoid of current documentation, or unlikely to become unequivocally notable. BD2412 T 02:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Halifax municipal election

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future election that there's just nothing of any real substance to say about it yet. The election is scheduled for October, which means absolutely nothing is happening with relation to the election yet as of January -- none of the races have any declared candidates yet, and with just a handful of exceptions even the incumbent mayor and councillors haven't announced whether they're running again yet or not, and we're months away from even being able to identify any of the issues that people will be basing their votes on.
Future "next" election articles are permitted at the federal and provincial levels, because there are always things for such an article to write about -- ongoing polling on the performance of the incumbent government, scandals, by-elections, and on and so forth -- but at the municipal level we just don't start articles about future elections until much, much closer to election day, because there just isn't anything meaningful to say about them, beyond "this is a thing that will happen", until much, much closer to election day. As of right now, the only other future municipal election in all of Canada that has an article at all is the imminent mayoral by-election in Mississauga, where we have actual known candidates and polling to write about, and even if the exact date is still up in the air we know that it has to happen by the spring at the latest.
So this can certainly be sandboxed in draft or userspace as a base, if the creator wishes, but there's no need for it to exist as an article until there's a lot more content to write about it than just "incumbent has not yet announced whether they're running again or not" over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halifax Regional Council: while this doesn't qualify as WP:CRYSTAL, the nom is right about TOOSOON. There is no encyclopedic information about this now, and not much is likely to turn up before October 2024. There's no need to keep the page as a placeholder until then. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'd expect there to likely be meaningful content for an article by about July or August rather than literally having to wait until election day. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Until more news comes out about the thing, likely this spring, probably in summer for sure. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's going to be notable at some point, it's very very likely to happen, and there's enough sourcing at the moment where an article may be justified. Can't really argue to keep it out of mainspace for a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The election is later this year so it should be notable enough for an article. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator) – most (65%) of the incumbents have announced whether or not they will run again, so I don't think the above characterisation of the existing article is quite accurate. I already find it useful as a reference as to who is re-offering and who is not. I appreciate the concern about this article being premature or lightweight and will keep that in mind when creating articles in the future. But in this case – news outlets are already coming out with pieces on this election, so the article may as well remain to be built upon in the coming months. Ben MacLeod (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the arguments above aren't doing a lot to persuade me P&G-wise, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as this will clearly be notable within six months (the WP:G13 timer). There is not SIGCOV currently, and anyone advocating to keep this article should be able to point to some. "It will be notable" is not a reason to keep an article, because it is not notable at the current moment. But drafts need not be notable, and given that this article will certainly be notable in the not-too-distant future, incubating is the best way forward. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 21:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: per OwenX, Oaktree b, and HouseBlaster. This will be notable in short time, but there's no reason for a mainspace article until there's actually significant coverage of the election. Until then, once draftified, I think redirecting to Halifax Regional Council makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Global article that's been referenced is significant coverage of the election. No one objects when the Toronto election article is created 15 months before the election there. This one is a lot sooner than that! Like it or not, there is news already about the election, and the plans of most of council. -Nfitz 03:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until more sources become available. There is no harm done in keeping it in draft space until we see WP:SIGCOV. Pretty much all sources right now are about candidates announcing if they are running for reelection or not, not about the election itself. Some of the arguments for keeping it are personally not very convincing (WP:TOOSOON, WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ITSUSEFUL...). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but in the month that this article has been going through AfD, at least two further news articles (incorporated into the article) have been released on the election, I think in response to the mayor announcing that they would not stand for reelection. It's each to their own as to when "enough coverage is enough coverage", but I'm minded to think that said threshold will be met sooner rather than later, and I don't really see the usefulness of bouncing the article to draft and then back to mainspace in the time until then. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Bharti-Bharat-Kamdi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Baş

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

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

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

Brad Chambers

(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. [109] 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 [110] 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]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, never held office. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 16 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]
Delete: The person fails WP:NPOL, like previous AfDs, this article is being created because of the general election 2024 in India. Many similar articles have already been deleted. Similar AfDs include: Kompella_Madhavi_Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. GrabUp - Talk 10:30, 16 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]
  I can agree to that if there are additional sources to be found. Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:28, 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]

TheTechie, I urge you to read this discussion for more than 2 seconds. Respectfully, it is clear you have no idea what is going on here. This is an article on a notable topic which was created by a banned sockpuppet. The editors above are debating whether WP:G5 should apply or not, not that it shouldn't be re-created. Curbon7 (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plainly notable, banning policy discussion is TLDR. Desertarun (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun: This AfD is not questioning about notability, but it's about whether we should or should not follow the Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing into the hands of the sock by using up community time on this AFD. Just let people vote. Desertarun (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun: It's true about using up community time. That's why page created by sock is eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Ckfasdf is WP:Bludgeoning the other users on this page. Desertarun (talk) 01:31, 16 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]

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

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]
Comment - For those claiming the subject does not meet WP:GNG, here is the source assessment table.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/cpm-next-gen-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-9256427/	WP:RSPS	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://hindi.news24online.com/india/pratikur-rahaman-who-cpim-candidate-contest-election-against-abhishek-banerjee-in-diamond-harbour-seat/660274/	The source is a major news channel.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://eisamay.com/west-bengal-news/24pargana-news/diamond-harbour-left-candidate-pratikur-rahaman-know-details-about-her/amp_articleshow/109069775.cms	The source is a major Bengali newspaper.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.moneycontrol.com/elections/lok-sabha-election/lok-sabha-elections-2024-who-is-pratikur-rahaman-the-cpm-candidate-taking-on-abhishek-from-diamond-harbour-article-12594511.html	? The source is a well known financial news website run by Network18, which has partnerships with CNN.	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail.	? Unknown
https://indianexpress.com/elections/diamond-harbour-lok-sabha-constituency-two-time-sitting-mp-abhishek-banerjee-to-face-challenge-from-cpims-pratikur-rahaman-and-bjps-abhijit-das-9317741/	WP:RSPS	~ The article has a paragraph on the subject.	~ Partial
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/how-young-leaders-are-spawning-a-generational-shift-in-cpi-m-1927728-2022-03-21	The source is the highly regarded magazine India Today.	~ The article has a paragraph on the subject	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Not just WP:GNG but there is also WP:NBIO for biographical articles. The guideline mentions these conditions too.

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

To this end the last 2 sources meet the requirement too. Therefore with these conditions and with the availability of these sources, mere handwave arguments with guideline links asserting the subject is not notable should not be made. MrMkG (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With your source analysis above, it becomes obvious that you do not clearly know how GNG works or what a reliable independent significant coverage is. Don’t worry, that’s the essence of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in essence another handwave comment and now in a patronising tone. Are you trying to say that major newspapers, news channels, etc are not reliable independent sources? Are you even familiar with Indian sources? Or are you trying to say that the coverage is not significant, that there is something inaccurate in my description? MrMkG (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG. These sources only provide passing mentions with a single paragraph about him. Additionally, these sources merely announce his candidacy against TMC leader Abhishek. I've already voted against many articles created due to the 2024 General Elections; these candidates are not elected as MPs yet and do not meet WP:NPOL. Being a vice-president of a student organization does not meet NPOL criteria either. Furthermore, this coverage cannot justify notability. We can wait to see if he wins and becomes an MP or, in future elections, an MLA; then he will automatically become notable. GrabUp - Talk 10:14, 16 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, 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]

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

Kelly Tshibaka

(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

[1] Ahmed Ali, Fatuma (2022). "The Somali National Movement Engineering self-determination of Somaliland". In Bach, Jean-Nicolas (ed.). Routledge handbook of the Horn of Africa. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 89–97. ISBN 9780429426957. However, it is believed that these suppressive efforts by Barre's regime did not stop the SNM from waging its armed resistance in northern Somalia, but it is also made it see the opportunity to support other clan-based rebel groups to take up arms against the regime. These included the United Somali Congress (USC) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) supported respectively by the Hawiye and the Ogaden clans. (p.93)

[2] Hunter, Brian (1993). "Somalia". In Hunter, Brian (ed.). The Statesman’s Year-Book. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1181–1183. doi:10.1057/9780230271227_160. ISBN 9780230271227. After 12 years of civil war involving 5 factions, prominent amongst them the United Somali Congress (USC), the Somali National Movement (SNM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), rebel forces had fought their way into Mogadishu by the end of 1990. (p.1181)

[3] Mukhtar, Mohamed Haji (1996). "The plight of the Agro‐pastoral society of Somalia". Review of African Political Economy. 23 (70): 543–553. doi:10.1080/03056249608704222. The Somali Patriotic Movement, representing the Ogaden clan, operated in the Middle and Lower Juba valley (p.550)

[4] Duursma, Allard (3 April 2022). "Non-state conflicts, peacekeeping, and the conclusion of local agreements". Peacebuilding. 10 (2): 138–155. doi:10.1080/21647259.2022.2032946. For example, following heavy fighting between the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement/Somali National Alliance (SPM/SNA) in the Kismayo area, UNOSOM together with local clan elders mediated negotiations between the parties which led to the signing of the Jubbaland Peace Agreement on 6 August 1993. (p.153)

[5] Osman, Abdulahi A. (2019). "The role of inequality in the collapse of the Somali State". Journal of Somali Studies. 6 (2): 51–74. ProQuest 2328867061. The Somali Patriotic Movement was an armed faction of the Ogaden, a sub-clan of Daarood clan. It was headed by Col. Mohamed Omar Jees, who was a great supporter and an ally of the late General Mohamed Aideed. (p.66)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates