Eric Hovde[edit]

Eric Hovde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is of his campaign and does not establish WP:GNG apart from his candidacy for office. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conservatism, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Subject does not yet demonstrate notability outside of the context of the 2024 election that he is running in, making this a WP:BIO1E consideration. If he wins in November, he'll be notable. If he loses, will he really be? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as subject is currently de facto expected primary winner barring death or a complete collapse of their campaign before August; the article needs more development. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination says the subject "Does not meet WP:NPOL," but that doesn't really tell us anything. That standard identifies cases where we can presume a politician is notable, but it doesn't say that other politicians are not notable. Nor is this a case of WP:BIO1E; by its own terms that rule ("cover the event, not the person") loosens considerably as the coverage of the event or person grows. Here, we're talking about sustained coverage of not only the race but of the subject himself.

Moreover, it's clear that the subject is notable for his involvement in a variety of endeavors with no substantial connection to the current campaign, such as:

• his efforts to drive a dive bar out of business,
• his economic forecasting,
• his investment activity and
• his Obama-era analysis of banking policy|.

70.167.90.50 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driving a dive bar out of business doesn't get you an article. Being in investment person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete So it's PROMO. Outside of politics, he has barely a paragraph about his financial career, so I'm not seeing notability. He's not notable as a hedge fund person, there is only confirmation of political campaigns. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable as demonstrated through the over 22 sources cited. However the article needs work and should be fleshed out in regard to his business endeavors Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Had this person become a perennial candidate, complicating an appropriate alternative to deletion?Djflem (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has run for office twice--once in 2012 and once in 2024--so no. Marquardtika (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: article seems premature, could change as the campaign goes by. Though the article should definitely be deleted if he loses the primary in August, unless a suitable reason to keep it (or make a full article) emerges. Talthiel (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hovde has been in Wisconsin politics for longer than just 2024. He can also be considered a humanitarian, given his charity organization. I would also argue that Wikipedia is a site for information about people of importance. This page can be used to help people learn more about Hovde, not just as a politician but as a man as well. In short, Hovde is an important figure for his charity work and his political campaigns, and I argue his page should stay up as more people would continue to add to the page. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Allah word socks controversy[edit]

2024 Allah word socks controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YEARTEST, etc. This is a minor news story that spread because of social media, and will be forgotten about in ten months, never mind ten years. WP:NOTNOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a serious matter and this is involving religious issue. Why you wanted to nominate it for deletion. What's your problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.191.165 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: Almost TOOSOON to establish notability, some press coverage, but it was only 10 days ago. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This controversy is an important issue in Malaysia. Somehow, it will be remembered by the majority of Malaysians (notably the Malays). Thegreatrebellion (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify unless and until it meets WP:NEWSEVENT. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We don't know whether it fails the Ten Year Test. There might be some things that point in that direction, and some things that do not. Can it not be moved to just "Allah socks"? Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the incident has caused international media reports.[1][2][3] MikadoYuga (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Thegreatrebellion (talk · contribs), recent information on the issue should updated.–Fandi89 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appearing in the news is not sufficient coverage to warrant an article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. Unless this has lasting ramifications and long term retrospective analysis, this is not a notable historic event, just a news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QubeTV[edit]

QubeTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has been 6 years since a WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• keep (Disclaimer: I'm the primary author of the article.) The situation is essentially the same as with the prior nomination. There are multiple reliable sources focusing on the website. That the website is now defunct doesn't alter the notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another failed YouTube clone, and our standards have changed since 2009 so this doesn't pass N under current guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which aspect has changed since then that you see as as a relevant difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The two sources we have are the equivalent of WP:ITEXISTS without any further explanation (with the Daily Show mention clear opinion) and there was no follow up or additional sources added. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The Washington Times article includes specific discussion about the goals, and dicusses the founders and their motivation. Similarly the Richmond article has a lot more than just existence. I'm struggling to see what aspect here is somehow different not about the general notability criterion. (And since ITEXISTS was an existing argument to avoid since well before 2009, that hasn't changed either.) JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is not too much coverage to meet notability. It's defunct anyway, so no one is really going to be reading about it.Royal88888 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEFUNCT is a specific policy. Something being defunct is not a valid deletion argument. Notability is not temporary. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: "Has been 6 years since a GNG was raised" is not a thing. If the subject was deemed notable six years ago, then it's still notable; articles aren't re-reviewed every six years. There is no deletion rationale for this nomination, and it should be withdrawn. Re: Royal88888, "no one is really going to be reading about it" is also not a deletion rationale. See WP:ATA, specifically WP:DEFUNCT. Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Striking, misread the nomination as "6 years since the last AfD nomination".[reply]