Points of interest related to Politics on Wikipedia:
Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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[edit]

Ami Dror

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [1] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [2] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [3] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [4] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [5] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [6] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [7] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [8] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [9] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [10] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [11] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [12] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [13] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

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

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [14] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [15] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [16] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [17] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [18] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [19] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [20] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [21] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [22] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [23] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [24] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [25] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [26] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [27] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

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

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

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

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Indian general election in South India

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why this article is needed independently from the main article. Cortador (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already articles for each state in Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory, not sure why this is needed. Reywas92^Talk 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkjutt Jammu

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close, sockpuppetry and no valid rationale for deletion, same as last AFD by another sock of this master: see SPI for details. Wikishovel (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete it~~ Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article suffice to meet the GNG. If nom's claims about the article's inaccuracies are correct then fixing them is a matter of ordinary editing. Take it to the talk page, not to AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, this article is with wrong redirection like Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal,Ankur Sharma (politician). Nishalover (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT. Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many organizations in the local language of Jammu that have the same name. The problem with this article is that this article is about political Party whose name is IkkJutt Jammu.Apart from this is an Ekjut Jammu Party whose name has been changed to Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal. These two are different .But this article has redirected Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong.The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu.Delete the article if not So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Competitive Technology

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Per @Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see. Fugabus (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heights and weights of US presidents

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Roden

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

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

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"NYS Assembly Bill Search"	Primary source			✘ No
"Opt-Out Organ Donation"	Primary source			✘ No
"The Ins and Outs of Organ Donation"		~ Blog from medical institution	Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"College Students Push for More Organ Donations"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"New York State Legislature Passes Living Donor Support Act"		Press release		✘ No
"Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"Youth Coalition For Organ Donation Strives to Save Lives"		Press release		✘ No
"TEDxTulane"	TEDx Talk by Roden			✘ No
"WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award"			Nomination for non-notable award	✘ No
"Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"Loyola team wins honorable mention in the global “Students Reinventing Cities” competition"	University press release			✘ No
"ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden"	Podcast with Roden			✘ 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)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Politics, and New York. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.

The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.

The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.

The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.

The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.

The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.

The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.

The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.

The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar. Evanroden1 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept. GraziePrego (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello

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

Not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the deep reasoning you presented. -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring forward to this page the pre-existing discussion relating to deletion of this article from the article's talk page. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would be aware of this discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is/are "they"? Can't you communicate more precisely? Whoever you mean by "they", are you saying there is no value in this ancestor page explicitly referencing previous discussion? Is it better to expect editors to find prior discussion for themselves (or not) instead of expending a few mouse clicks to put prior discussion in front of them? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A plausible target for merging would be Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation. SWinxy (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the immolation really a "reaction"? I thought the trial merely provided a highly visible venue with numerous television reporters present. Is there some other connection? You can reach and say that both subjects are attention-seeking paranoids complaining of conspiracies and unjust persecution by parties including past and present U.S. presidents, but the particulars of the alleged conspiracies seem sufficiently different. Anyway, Agree, not notable 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep. You may be correct in saying that the self-immolation isn't a valid or rational or something-else reaction to Trump's criminal trial - fair enough - but how does that make it "not notable" in itself? Clue - it does not. This discussion is about wiping the self-immolation out of (Wikipedia) history: it is *not* about whether or not it is a valid/meaningful/rational *reaction* to any trial. That is a notion introduced after the event by @SWinxy. You have sadly and blatantly been led by Swinxy and you have conflated two objectively unrelated things leading you to "agree" that Azzarello's impromptu cook-out is "not notable". Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flusapochterasumesch: To clarify, I wasn't trying to conflate the issues, I just thought the fact it wasn't a reaction was a bit non-obvious and so justified a response. The non-notability seemed so obvious to me I didn't think any detailed justification was required, so I just said "yes, of course @ElijahPepe is right." I did not mean (but wasn't clear in my writing, sorry) to imply that the long rationale justified my agreement.

The reason I think it's obviously non-notable is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The incident is shocking enough to have received a burst of attention, but it seems obvious it won't be WP:SUSTAINED#SUSTAINED, won't be important history, and thus will fail the notability requirement. Full discussion of what it takes to make a single event notable at Wikipedia:Notability (events).

“

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

”

clearly applies here. If there are grounds for "additional enduring significance", please specify; I can't see any. This is one case where the disconnectedness is relevant. If the immolation were indicative of the public's depth of feeling about Trump's trial, it would be relevant to that larger, notable, issue. But someone photobombing the reporters in a particularly gruesome way has to be independently notable. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree. Also, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Cwater1 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It read to me like Azzarello chose the location to grab publicity, not as a "reaction" or protest for or against the proceeding or defendant. -A876 (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation or to List of political self-immolations. The sources aren't there for this article. However... maybe best to wait a week or two before nominating for deletion, as notability at that point tends to be a bit clearer for events like this. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I'm biased since I created the article about Aaron Bushnell but I already see enough news about this incident that I think it will warrant an article. That being said, only time will tell. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been covered by multiple reliable sources and was not a reaction to the trial itself.

MountainDew20 (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the incident is beginning to gain notability and sources are coming out [28][29][30][31][32] Wafflefrites (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As MountainDew20 stated, the event has been covered by multiple reliable sources and is gaining notability. MemeGod ._. (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the sources I've read, Azzarello seems to have had a complex political motivation behind his actions that went beyond merely reacting to Trump's trial. Only time will tell, of course, but it's a reasonable assumption that this incident will continue to be notable enough to deserve it's own article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I've read, I feel it's safe to say that Azzarello's motivations were indeed complex; however, the extent to which they were political is open for debate. Mental illness is tragic. DS (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying but politics and mental illness are not mutually exclusive topics, and both of them are complex. 208.38.225.32 (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York or List of political self-immolations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and an event is not notable simply because it happened and was reported on in the news. An event's notability is also not affected by whether it happens in relation to an actually notable event (such as the Trump trial) or simply because it feels "significant". Create the article when there's sustained coverage beyond standard news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absurd to propose this being deleted wholesale when it's undeniably internationally notable.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Literally only 1 day has passed since the event. Not even the initial news coverage has passed, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since no actual rationale for deletion was given. Cortador (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or more likely reassess in 7 days. Notability is unclear at this point. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rare media case where graphic detail was caught in real time. I have also seen criticism in how security was handled around the scene. But most of all, this appears to have WP:DEPTH especially how the NYT went into detail about Maxwell's life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headline news on all major media outlets. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We're about 24 hours on from the self-immolation event, and the individual has now died. If this WP article didn't already exist and there was a debate about whether to create an article, I would be profoundly apathetic. However, the article does exist and the debate is about whether or not to delete it. In my opinion, it's a perfectly written/structured article that very succinctly details the event. It mentions exactly when and where it occurred - outside of a New York court - and it mentions a notable case being heard in the court at the time of the event. The protester chose his time and location to link his protest to the ongoing trial - going by the protester's writings it is clear that he believed his protest "mattered" in the context. However, it appears the protester was severely mentally unwell - while he perhaps thought the world would applaud his "stand" and understand the "importance" of his actions, it seems he was utterly wrong. The article doesn't give any validation to the individual's apparent reason for his protest, which I think is absolutely proper. Will the protest change anything? Probably not. Hopefully not. And the article doesn't suggest it will. I guess what I am saying, to summarise, is that this was a significant event, but it had no notable outcome (except the death of the protester and some burn marks on the sidewalk). Self-immolations in the past have changed the course of history. This one hasn't. There's something notable about the fact that a person's mental health led him to believe that burning himself to death for his "beliefs" would effect change and give him a place in history. I suspect it will: but only from the perspective of research & discussion into how contemporary society (and the internet) contributed to such erratic and meaningless self-harm. Also, books will no doubt be written about the trial in the court near to where Maxwell killed himself. And some of those books will no doubt mention Maxwell's suicide. Creating an article on Maxwell's pointless protest would be pointless. But deleting the existing article would be more pointless - it has value and it detracts from nothing/no-one.--Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject is undeniably notable and has had significant coverage. A Google search for "Maxwell Azzarello" on the news tab currently returns "about 7,840 results". Even if Google's result numbers are not accurate, you can clearly see that there have been dozens of articles in different publications, all of which are about this incident. GranCavallo (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, wiki is not a newspaper, will not pass the 5 year or even 1 year test. We do not cover every time someone with mental health issues tries to take their life in a spectacular way, and just because it grabs headlines for a day does not make it notable for the purpose of this project. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I second Dreameditsbrooklyn's arguments. —Agentbla ^(talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly significant coverage, I would argue that this does pass the 5 year rule when looking back at the overall Donald Trump trial. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York or List of political self-immolations. This event doesn't have sufficient independent notability to merit a full article. I know it has independent coverage, but there isn't much more to say about the event than what there already is in the article. Unless some major bombshell drops, there won't be more to say in the future. 187.190.191.57 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID NAADAAN (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not notable?! This is international news in multiple languages. ~~Have we become this jaded?~~ At the very least, merge it with the Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person, article is exploitation of an unwell person.→StaniStani 16:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is a person who deliberately committed suicide in a difficult, inconvenient and highly public fashion, for the explicit purpose of drawing attention to his ideological beliefs -- what is the exploitation? Acknowledging his existence is exploiting him? jp×g 🗯️ 18:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this go against WP:NOTCENSORED? I don't think the article shouldn't stay up just because the deceased has been deemed "unwell". Yannkemper (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to both of you. Notability or the lack of it is of course a Wikipedia policy. Basic human decency is of course not a Wikipedia policy.→StaniStani 04:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying nothing about policy: I am saying that your claim is false and your argument is bad. To reiterate, your argument here is that you think this guy was nuts, so "human decency" dictates that we go out of our way and bend the rules to prevent anybody from reading the thing that he thought was so important he set himself on fire to get people to read? What in the world are you talking about? Decency dictates we do the exact opposite of this. jp×g 🗯️ 07:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To establish notability on fr.wp it is necessary to have two secondary sources (at least national press) primarily focused on the subject of an entry which are separated by at least two years. On en.wp, insofar as the person is recently deceased and was low-profile before the event WP:BLP1E still applies in order to protect family from unwanted attention. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTPROMO (articles seem to be focused on his substack) all apply and override newspaper coverage the day of and the day after the event. If two years from now, there are scholarly (or even journalistic) treatments of this event we could revisit the question of whether this passes the so-called 10-year test, but for the time being BLP concerns and violations of 3 different subsections of WP:NOT "trump" newspaper coverage (even if international) on the day of the one event. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't fr.wp and WP:BLP1E wouldn't apply because the person is no longer living. I want to point out that WP:10Y is neither a policy nor a guideline. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reread WP:BLP1E (you are wrong) and WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mixing this up with WP:BIO1E, there is in depth coverage of this subject as per the references used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I see where you a coming from. You have perhaps not put as much importance as I have on the fact that the person's name is in the title of the entry. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither BLP1E nor BIO1E applies here as this article is about the event. The point of those is that if someone's only known for one event, we should write our article about the event, instead of about the person. That's how this article is written. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article title should define what the article is about. If the entry is not about the individual, it should not contain the individual's name. If it were only about the event, it would be titled "Self-immolation in Collect Pond Park".-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:BIO1E. An event like this makes headlines for obvious reasons, so the amount of coverage is not revolutionary. Is every mentally unwell person who deliberately sets themselves on fire worthy of a Wikipedia article now? 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — There is already a section in the article Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York ("#Self-immolation") where the whole thing can be inserted. Maxwell Azzarello's death was ghastly, needless, sensational, and intentionally carried out so that it would be associated with a major news story, but I don't think it is a notable news story in itself. It was just another poor victim of the conspiracy theory culture that has been festering in the US for some time. It deserves a mention as a further lamentable example of death by conspiracy theory, along with, perhaps, all the dead antivaxers who swore by Ivermectin, but I can't imagine that an article about Maxwell Azzarello could ever expand beyond what it already is. Kelisi (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. This is a Kenneth, what is the frequency? kind of subtopic, which appropriately appears in Dan Rather. Viriditas (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, etc. are meant for. With absolutely any article on a new topic, we get a choice between WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID. Best we can do is estimate whether the requirement of sustained coverage and is highly likely to be met and whether other considerations like WP:NOPAGE and WP:BLP push us to err on one side or the other. In this case, I'm just not seeing the level of coverage I'd expect for lasting coverage. There's not virtue to leaving a stand-alone article alone and waiting rather than merging it and spinning it out later if deserved. It's the latter that we should be deferring to anyway when there's an obvious place to cover it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event has attracted international coverage thus meets the criteria for notability. Spudst3r (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reason to think that this self-immolation is not notable if Aaron Bushnell's was.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds a lot like WP:ITEXISTS. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone needs to write an essay "Wikipedia is a Newspaper" because every time we have some event like this, someone rushes to write an article, others rush to insert all the news coverage, and the inevitable AfD is filled with outraged "keep" voters, because "of course it's notable". But arguments that it is covered by international news sources do not recognise that every single source being presented is a primary source, and does not count towards notability. Is this notable? Will historians be writing about this event or this person? Who knows. We are WP:TOOSOON by a long way and Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Or at least, that's the policy. But policy can take a running jump, because all these news reports mean it must be notable, right? ... right? I'll be outvoted. This will be kept. Maybe I'll just start essay writing. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, fails WP:GNG (primary sources) and also WP:N under arm 2 (because it fails WP:NOT). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:NOTNOTNEWS, which would mandate that everything that happens with at least one reliable secondary source must have an article written for it ... • Bobsd • (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, leaning towards delete, as per rationales above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough noteworthiness through the number of articles and enough content for the page from his substack/motivation that there's really no reason to delete Gabecube45 (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The idea that we need to delete this article due to humanitarian concerns is very unconvincing to me. To be clear: this is a person who deliberately committed suicide in a difficult, inconvenient and highly public fashion, for the explicit purpose of drawing attention to his ideological beliefs, and getting people to read what he had to say about the global conspiracy to destroy the world economy and install a totalitarian dictatorship. I don't think his claims are true, but whatever. Frankly, this is less destructive than the other thing people have been doing the last few years to guarantee notoriety and attention to their ideas, and we seem to love those sickos enough to write a novel on request whenever they do that -- at any rate, maybe I will change my mind on this and want to merge the article in a year or so, and I look forward to chiming in on that then. jp×g 🗯️ 19:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. Merge to List of political self-immolations seems reasonable since the fact has happened and he did espouse many beliefs that were political in nature. • Bobsd • (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, leaning on merge with reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York as per above. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reassess in the future. Easily fits WP:RAPID. We will know more in the future about whether this keeps popping up, but for now, I believe we should keep it. You can see the notability difference between Azzarello's immolation and an immolation like Arnav Gupta's due to Azzarello having publicized his own views and thoughts. But I still believe we should reassess this soon. Deleting it now is silly in my opinion. Ré union! 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E (BLP is extended to recent deaths). The New York Times analysis article provides a little information about his life, but in the context of his having become incoherent in recent years, and the article itself demonstrates that his action has no effect on the trial or the public discourse. The overwhelming majority of coverage is just the news event. The most this merits is a half line or line in our article on the trial, as part of a mention of the people who've been gathering with banners in the park, and I think if there is such a mention, it should not include his name. No mention in Self-immolation unless there is some lasting effect or discussion. Privacy concerns outweigh any argument for inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would pass WP:SUSTAINED given that major sources like the BBC are still talking about him 24+ hours later. [33]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an erroneous interpretation of WP:SUSTAINED. If news sources cover an issue for a few days, that does not mean that it is not a brief burst of coverage, brief bursts of coverage do not have to be confined to a single day. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the event received significant coverage in US major media outlets and also serious international coverage. Yodabyte (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
obvious WP:NOTNEWS delete All those crying "significant coverage!" are ignoring what policy actually says, particularly the part about sustained coverage. There's going to be a flicker of further over the next couple of days as reporters try to get a handle on the details of this guy's problems, but unless something surprising is revealed, he's going to be a minor sideshow in Trump's trial. The immediate rush to write an article on any news development, particularly something shocking like this, is just not what an encyclopedia does. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like there's a conversation worth having along the lines of: "Does setting yourself on fire guarantee your place in the historical record on Wikipedia?" Looking at similar articles, there's little coverage after a week or two beyond loop-closing stories and the occasional "remember when this happened" in articles about different subjects. There's also another type of brief mention when they come up: when someone else, seeing all the coverage this sort of act attracts, does the same thing and attracts another news cycle of attention. I know, I know, WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but let's not pretend decisions here don't matter, either.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have this sort of article; I'm arguing that if we find ourselves remotely in the gray area of notability (which is typically the case of any incident that just happened), then subjects like someone killing themselves as a protest are where we should be erring on the side of caution rather than "it's getting some news coverage; let's wait and see". FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've said the same thing about e.g. mass shootings, too... not that Wikipedia doesn't reliably rush to cover those as soon as the first tweets go out. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if this is the best place to mention this or the worst, but this led me to create a new version of an old essay. The old one was about crime articles. The new one is Wikipedia:Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm. Will be curious to hear people's thoughts on the talk page there (rather than here -- this page is busy enough already). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rhododenrites's reasoning sums it up. KlayCax (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York is not an appropriate target for a merge because Azzarello's self-immolation was not the result of Trump's Manhattan trial, but a broader populist conspiracy theory. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off topic, but it's pretty clear that the guy had a form of psychiatric illness, rather than conspiracy theories, per se. KlayCax (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge (to List of political self-immolations). won’t stand a five-day test, let alone the five-year test. - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell and Self-immolation of Wynn Bruce for recent non-previously notable figures who self-immolated and got articles as a result. Raskuly (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and other arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as to why this is not a valid line of argument. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear case of wikipedia editors' TDS. "but it's pretty clear that the guy had a form of psychiatric illness, rather than conspiracy theories, per se. " He clearly did not. He writings are (were, he died) clear and coherent. He posted a lot on stupidpol subreddit. He was funny and nice. 2A00:1370:8184:46D8:6C66:496A:DFA7:5A09 (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) — 2A00:1370:8184:46D8::/64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
None of this is a valid argument for keeping the article. And unless you knew him personally (which you obviously did not), you're really not qualified to make an unverified comment on his mental state of mind prior to his death. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aaron Bushnell can have his own article, but not this guy? I think not. 2604:4C40:2F:F8D4:E0D5:97CF:D6A0:44FB (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a fair comparison at all Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per WP:RAPID. I would not have created the article and I suspect, in the fullness of time, the article will be merged somewhere more appropriate per WP:RECENTISM, but we're kidding ourselves if we can assess whether this meets WP:GNG (that is, both notability and non-exclusion under WP:NOT) so soon. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cf. newly-created WP:MERITPRONGS IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable, and has enough media mentions to not fall under WP:RECENTISM. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should not be reporting the self-harm of a mentally-ill person. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great rationale /s Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per Ignatius. AFD is not a crystal ball; many people are saying that this article will or will not be relevant in a couple weeks' time, but at this point it's too early to tell. If the coverage as of now is indeed the only lasting coverage, this article should be condensed into a section on Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. If more, significantly different coverage comes along, then we should keep it.

-insert valid name here- (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section under Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. Maybe we could even put a link under Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell as it seems Azzarello was inspired by him. [34] Wafflefrites (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Self-immolation or List of political self-immolations Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. Per Rhododendrites, Dreameditsbrooklyn, and others above, I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reactions to the prosecution of Donald Trump in New York. This will probably be forgotten in a few days, won't get WP:LASTINGCOVERAGE and the few paragraphs we can really use will fit well there. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it merged somewhere, I don't think it should be there. If you read his manifesto, it is not Trump-centric at all, rather it's anti-crypto and other self-identified ponzi type schemes, which he saw as an overall conspiracy. List of political self-immolations is a better place (where it already is mentioned) • Bobsd • (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the list of political self-immolations. While this event is certainly getting a lot of coverage, it is too soon to predict if it will have lasting notability. That being said, since this event is ultimately entirely unrelated to any wider political issue and was fueled by a random conspiracy theory, I personally find it very unlikely that any further discussion of it will be occurring months or years from now. There's really not much to say aside from the fact that it happened and that it was shocking but ultimately meaningless. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you know that it was "meaningless" due to analysis in secondary sources, so this is a keep argument. Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources. No one has presented any. It is all news reporting, which is primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the numerous valid reasons already above the basic obviousness of WP:RAPID. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) "
Strong Keep I am actually surprised that this was even nominated for deletion. At least in its current state it is a well-written description of a notable, but separate, part of a historic event in US politics. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to analysis in secondary sources as a "meaningless" death. Abductive (reasoning) 20:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you had better read up on that. Abductive (reasoning) 21:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At AfD it is customary to discuss and evaluate the sources. Which sources are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, as its own Section of that Article. This information does belong on Wikipedia somewhere, but I agree that it needn't be its very own Article. Make it a Section of the one I just linked. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons provided before Xlicer1 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable very notable. It was headline of the news around the world, it was discussed on Twitter a lot. But after reading some of the comments about recentism / notability / etc I'm not so sure anymore. In general I think wikipedia should be more permissive, when in doubt retain. Stefek99 (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Freedom and Justice (Poland)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [35], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. As the polish version of the article was also deleted, its evident that the organization is not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added a couple of citations, so at least the article isn't completely unreferenced now. The problem with secret underground organizations is that information about them is difficult to find (by design), but there seems to be more discussion of Freedom and Justice recent years. In fact, this journal article was published in 2021, probably after the Polish AfD discussion. There is also this 2022 article. These are brief mentions at best, but I don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now. (The key seems to be to search for both "Wolnosc i Sprawiedliwosc" and "WiN" together.) A possible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to Cursed soldiers where this group is mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Martyr (politics)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Religion. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [36]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [37] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [38]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [39] [40]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is known as a bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Low quality article" is not a valid reason for deletion. Had you done a BEFORE, you might have seen titles such as Martyrs in the Making: Political Martyrdom in Late Medieval England, Politics of Death: The Cult of Nazi Martyrs, 1920-1939, Imre Nagy, Martyr of the Nation, or Heroes, Martyrs, and Political Messiahs in Revolutionary Cuba, 1946-1958. The article clearly fulfils GNG. --Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see no need to have separate articles for people martyred for religious reasons and people martyred for political reasons since the term still has the same meaning of persecution. The main martyr article still includes a number of political and other non-religious related examples, so if there's actually a distinction to be made, the split should be done more clearly. The book titles above can still be used in the main article. The main page has 30 times the viewers as this page, so why make readers go through another link for the full concept when length is not an issue? Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you that there should be a clearer split. Any mention of political martyrdom, including the Revolutionary martyr section, should be moved out of the Martyr article to this one, and just have a hatnote on the Martyr article pointing to this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Institute for Political and Legal Education

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [41], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

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

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

Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I did just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ephraim Israel National Convention

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [42]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [43], [44], [45]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

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

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

Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus, similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE. Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska: The standalone is not necessary and is not notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AmericaSpeaks

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

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

Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical pro-Beijing camp

AfDs for this article:

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

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

comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stowmarket Town Council

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

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

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

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

If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Montgomery mayoral election

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kanwali

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Either delete or redirect it to Dehradun Municipal Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards may qualify as legally recognized places per GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GEOLAND. TheTankman (talk) 19:35, 1 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!} 05:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get policy-based opinions with more elaboration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Ben Obese-Jecty

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Beaudoin

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

Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [46] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [47]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Verma

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

Case of BLP1E. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG as BLP is contesting in the 2024 Indian general election and has not been elected to any office positions yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know how these people create an article about a politician without reading Guidelines. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, same like previous AFDs Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. No in-depth coverage of the Subject and not yet elected as MP or MLA to pass WP:NPOL, If she wins the election and elected as a MP then he will automatically pass WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart

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

Fails WP:NPOL (WP:NSUBPOL), sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In short, the offices being occupied by the subject do not guarantee notability under WP:NPOL and fail WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics. His successor Jake Dan-Azumi also has a Wikipedia article. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Batmanthe8th Oh, thank you for bringing my attention there. Under what criteria do you think COSs are notable? They do not fall under any and have to pass WP:GNG which this one and the one you have pointed me to utterly fails. Even the COS page is AfD-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall accepting the COS page a while back on the generous side due to its notable role in Nigerian politics. I didn't nessesarily imagine the individual people getting their own articles unless they were notable for something else, though. TheBritinator (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pujan Malvankar

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

Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape") WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's the leader of the youth chapter of a state-level political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it could get him into Wikipedia if he were shown to pass WP:GNG, but does not automatically entitle him to a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because he exists.
But the referencing here is not getting him over GNG: it's referenced to one primary source, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article that doesn't even mention his name at all, and appears to be here just to tangentially verify that the political party he works for exists, none of which is support for his standalone notability as an individual at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual doesn't meet the general notability guidelines; there's no news coverage about him, only passing mentions. Additionally, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL since he hasn't been elected as an MLA or MP yet. Grabup (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with the typical flowery wording we see, boils down to "nice guy runs for functionary position in the youth wing of a political party". Very not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the leader is of a 'state level poltical party'.This is just to inform you,its not a state party Aam Aadmi party is a national paty (AAP). a Link for your reference https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/story/aap-national-party-status-how-to-get-the-tag-2358592-2023-04-11

If needed i shall add more references. Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/aap-requests-cm-to-postpone-exams/articleshow/88819441.cms Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it matters, he's a functionary regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's the leader of the youth division (not the entire party) of a state-level chapter of a national party, not of the youth division of the entire national party. So I said nothing incorrect at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for clarifying, the leader of the youth division of a state-level chapter is not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Hamza

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no reference to winning an election or being in a position of power in another party to qualify as a political activist WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [48] Did not win his election so no WP:NPOL pass, and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Avijit

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

Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being nominated for the general election in 2024 doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:NPOL. However, if the individual wins and is elected as a Member of Parliament, they would then meet the notability criteria. Currently, there's a lack of in-depth coverage on the subject, with the cited sources being primarily press releases. Grabup (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is national spokesperson of Indian National Congress and we have article like Nupur Sharma. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject starting from his grandmother Sumitra Devi (politician) to his mother Meira Kumar.-Admantine123 (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen O'Donnell

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

I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was red linked through Forum for Peace and Reconciliation long before candidacy for DEM, this being the major jumping off point for a page. That with work with the Safefood advisory board, founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement, seemed like valid notability. ChocoElephant (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rabbitt

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

Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. In terms of NPOL, the role of chair (mayor) of Galway County Council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article are either primary or the very definition of trivial passing mentions. In my own WP:BEFORE a Google search (which which returns barely 50 results) and a news search (which returns only opinion pieces and passing mentions) does not amount to SIGCOV. Certainly any more than we would expect for any other candidate for a local office. As we (quite correctly) do not have articles for Mayor of Galway County Council or Cathaoirleach of Galway County Council, I do not see how a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Or draftification or other forms of ATD. Hence the only action I can support is deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the provision of significant substance about their work in the role and significant reliable sourcing to support it — but this is just "mayor who existed", supported by a minimal smattering of primary and unreliable sourcing with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy referencing shown at all, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heights and weights of US presidents

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Epple

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

The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and California. Classicwiki (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate)

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

Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. Geotubemedia (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots as a viable ATD. Per nom. and others, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Clouston

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election. Rupples (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatko Radić

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

Can't see how this passes WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Most of the references in the article are to primary sources, and seem to largely be cursory mentions. Joy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Serbia. Joy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Radić was a member of the Serbian parliament. Politicians elected to national assemblies are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN. CJCurrie (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's still failing WP:GNG. I mean, seriously now, the Serbian Parliament described him like this: there is no biography, and there's just a single word for his profession. Sure, technically this passes the guideline on politicians, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English? --Joy (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes me as a misreading of the policy. WP:POLITICIAN indicates that all members of national assemblies are automatically assumed to be notable. WP:Notability indicates that an article topic is presumed to be notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." It is therefore sufficient that Radić passes WP:POLITICIAN; whether or not he also passes WP:GNG is immaterial.

Also, I'm inclined to think that an individual being notable on the Serbian Wiki (or the Croatian Wiki, or the Hungarian, or any other Wiki one could name) would generally make them notable on the English Wiki as well. CJCurrie (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say... I continue to be saddened by arguments apparently based on pure technicalities. --Joy (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Being a member of parliament of a sovereign state automatically passes WP:NPOL. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra @BlakeIsHereStudios can we reflect on the spirit and letter of WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG, please? --Joy (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to reflect on? He was a member of a national parliament. Slam dunk. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind of some of these fine linked guidelines: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person, when e.g. a redirect to List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2003–2007 would suffice. Oh, wait, we don't even have a list of all of them in there. The stated goal of the guideline on politicians is to ensure that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete. Having this standalone article adds excessive detail while we are clearly lacking the basic general coverage, which is incongruent. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate something I wrote above: WP:Notability indicates that a topic is presumed notable if it "meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." It is therefore sufficient that Radić passes WP:POLITICIAN; whether or not he also passes WP:GNG is immaterial. CJCurrie (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Blatantly obvious that it passes WP:NPOL and should be closed by WP:SNOW. CJCurrie has made some excellent points regarding WP:Notability. If the nominator has an issue with WP:NPOL, this should be discussed outside an AFD. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some really odd comments by the nom showing complete misunderstanding for how Wikipedia works. I assumed the nom was a new editor, then I see they've been here 22 years and is an admin! Nom says the subject fails WP:NPOL which explicitly says national legislators are notable. Nom says "Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person" - not making a great case for a lack of notability and then says "I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English?" which is a pretty extraordinary statement. So American or British backbenchers are worthy of coverage but not Serbian ones? Heard of WP:GEOBIAS? AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder what is extraordinary about wanting a politician's coverage to be commensurate to the person's significance? On the Serbian Wikipedia, there's probably a lot more content about Lapovo, so if they go into an appropriate amount of detail about whatever other local features, characteristics, people, ... they can go into the same amount of detail about the local politicians. Likewise, the English Wikipedia will contain an amount of information relevant to English readers that wouldn't necessarily be seen exactly the same on the other language Wikipedias. This is perfectly normal because it caters to the readers.

I'm still not sure in what universe an average English reader would be interested in how some guy spent four years in the Serbian Parliament after getting in as a substitute, apparently did not do anything worth mentioning other than get into a bar fight back home (!), and then was later candidate number 189 or 229 and didn't get elected there ever again. The fact he later finished third in a mayoral election with 600-odd votes, but did serve on the municipal council, is likewise largely meaningless. This is like a compendium of useless factoids about a person. Does nobody have any qualms that this violates WP:NOTWHOSWHO?

At this point I am genuinely perplexed why y'all care so much for keeping this largely trivial information in a standalone article and don't even want to bother coming up with a rationale on who are these readers who we would be serving by keeping this as is. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this will likely never be a Featured Article on the English Wiki, it still passes the threshold for notability. And while this is a separate issue, the information included in the article pertains to the subject's time in public life and is not just a random collection of facts. CJCurrie (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not random, but it is just that - information. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, not just information. We can summarize the relevant knowledge about this person's public life in a single list caption as it is now, perhaps referencing it to a couple of those primary sources and to the paragraph in that Politika summary article on parliamentary immunity in Serbia. If they ever do something else of note (WP:POTENTIAL), then they can still get a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd like to see this article buffed out a bit more with stuff he did in office, but the subject clearly passes WP:NPOL, which is not a merely arbitrary guideline but exists to help mitigate nominations such as this. These types of political figures tend to always (like in 99.5% of testcases) have coverage of their activities in office, even if you cannot see it using Google (i.e. in things like newspapers that have not yet been digitized; this is basically an estimator of when WP:OFFLINE coverage is likely to exist). If the current state of an NPOL-passing article does not yet surpass WP:NOPAGE, then it can be redirected to a list of legislators; this article clearly does pass that threshold. Curbon7 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Curbon7 would love to see 99.5% of these testcases, esp. in relation to Serbia where the political scene is generally well documented. --Joy (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: to my knowledge, no post-1900 WP:NPOL-passing politician has ever been deleted at AfD in the past 15 years on notability grounds. To repeat myself, that is not merely for no reason; a member of parliament will literally always have coverage of their activities, even if that coverage is not easily accessible on Google, whether that be in newspapers that have not yet been digitized or those that are in inaccessible or paywalled archives. Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should certainly be flagged for improvement, but members of national legislatures are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. The argument here isn't actually that politicians are exempted from GNG — national legislators virtually always pass GNG, and the real issue is that we haven't always invested sufficient effort into finding all of the best GNG-worthy sourcing to write the most substantial article with, and that's especially going to be a problem for politicians who served in countries where the strongest sourcing would be written in foreign languages that many contributors to the English Wikipedia can't read. But again, it's not that better sourcing doesn't exist, it's that Wikipedians haven't put enough work into finding it, which isn't the same thing — and that's precisely why we have SNGs alongside GNG, because the current state of an article is not always the end of the story in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat that's the thing. I couldn't find anything substantial about this person online, let alone proper secondary sources. For a 21st century Serbian politician, that's just not great. --Joy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what specific resources you actually checked? Do you have access to a proper database of archived Serbian media coverage from 15 to 20 years ago, or did you just do a simple Google search? A politician who was in office from 2004 to 2007 obviously isn't going to have a lot of recent coverage that would still Google well in 2024, but that doesn't constitute proof that at-the-time coverage didn't exist in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 — so you need to be more specific about where you searched, because stuff can fall through the cracks if we don't completely exhaust every possible resource. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, a general Google Search failed to produce much of anything about this Zlatko Radić. It found some others, but apparently not this one. I also tried with site:rs specifically, and in Cyrillic as well. If our readers have to have the skills of a private investigator to verify our article about something, then that's not really in the realm of general notability. --Joy (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The realm of general notability does not require all or even most of our sources to be recent news coverage that googles, and does permit older news coverage that has to be found in archives. So since Google is not a place where media coverage from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up, did you actually check any databases of archived Serbian media coverage where articles from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up? That doesn't require the skills of a private investigator to do, it just requires the skills of a marginally competent researcher. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar

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

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 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]

Anton Ojala

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

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, New Zealand, and Barbados. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sources exists; I've added 4 of them from local or regional newspapers where his work is the primary focus or prominent; reaches WP:BIO. 12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Klbrain (talk)
Delete I don't think any of the sources in the article, including the recently added ones, show WP:GNG, as they do not really specifically cover him directly apart from the fact he had a job. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Braxton

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

Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.
So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [49] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [50] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 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!} 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamako Noble

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

A hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.

The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the book above, he's profiled in Banjoko, Adisa (2004). "Political Activist, Shamako Noble". Lyrical Swords: Hip Hop and Politics in the Mix. YinSumi Press. ISBN 9780970177117. The book series Lyrical Swords and its author has been the subject of RS (see for example) He's also got coverage for his work as an activist in Berg, Laurie; Berg, Anna; Robinson, Pamela K.; Wills, Jane. "Economic Migrants: The Banana Supply Chain, and the London Living Wage: Three Cases Civil Society Activism on Poverty". In Kumar, Ashwani (ed.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2009: Poverty and Activism. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781446202562. All together, this clearly passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything which actually passes GNG here and I'm not sure the profiles above necessarily get there - perhaps a merge might work as an ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.

In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.

But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in

India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]

Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?

There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.

Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.

It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

Politics proposed deletions[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Politician proposed deletions[edit]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates[edit]