Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics References

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

Tony Curzon Price

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Politics, Economics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Adarsh Liberal

AfDs for this article:

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin ( talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Internet celebrity. Although, that seems to have a potential move afoot to rename it "Influencer". IMO, "Influencer" and "Adarsh Liberal" have a lot in common - they're both flash terminology of the moment, used to define any number of personalities. — Maile ( talk) 03:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Popular culture, Internet, and India. Skynxnex ( talk) 04:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you both for your input. JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Victoria Curzon-Price

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are all primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. Her one-year tenure in an apparently quickly cycling sub-national (canton) government body doesn't add anything to make this subject notable. Other than the Mont Pelerin Society which she led for a while, none of her other orgs are actually notable; see their AfD discussions. Cheers! JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Libertarianism, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep.Being elected to the Swiss equivalent of a state parliament makes her automatically notable. Many references at this Google Scholar search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Victoria+Curzon-Price&btnG= Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Very decent GS record passes WP:Prof and WP:Politician is passed as the legendary DGG said in the first AfD. Xxanthippe ( talk) 04:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC). reply

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

Liberales Institut

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Institut Constant de Rebecque

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2017 if ever. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Andh Bhakt

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

Lack of Notability . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood ( talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - I don't see significant coverage. There can be "blind followers" of just anybody. Implying anything like "only Narendra Modi has blind followers" is an absurd POV. Ratnahastin ( talk) 02:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (3rd nomination). Ratnahastin ( talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Western Canada Youth Parliament

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar ( talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. LibStar ( talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though there's lots of sources, upon closer inspection most of them are low quality/unreliable (LADbible, National Today, SportsKeeda, Leaders.com, Market Realist, TeamBoma, Financhill), self-published like podcasts, YouTube videos or Bloomberg company profiles or books he has published, which are not independent. The Yahoo Finance articles are reprints of PRnewswire (a press-release service) and Moneywise (which looks like a low-quality source). Even most of the articles by reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, Toronto Sun, CBS News, Los Angeles Times) aren't really about Bet-David and thus don't count for significant coverage.

The Fortune article is an article that Bet-David wrote rather than a profile, so I don't think it counts for notability either. The Barron's and The Real Deal articles covers a house he purchased, which maybe counts for notability, but the focus of the article seems to be on the house sale price rather than David himself. There is no consensus on the reliability of Entrepreneur magazine (see WP:RSP) and concerns that the publication includes promotional content/undisclosed paid articles. The previous AfD from 2018 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Internet, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Plenty of articles written by this fellow, nothing about him... Even the last AfD is well-reasoned; the sources given there were PR or reprints of PR items. I can't find anything we can use. The sources now in the article are articles written by this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Germany, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG and reads a bit like a drafted CV. SportingFlyer T· C 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dumo Lulu-Briggs

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, ~~Lists of people~~, Politics, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Candidates who are not elected to office fail WP:NPOL. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL for not being in either the federal or state cabinet, or any of its equivalents. Fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage in sources presented. A WP:BEFORE also doesn’t help. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 09:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

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

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus ( talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.-- David Tornheim ( talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 ( talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак ( talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The Snyder quote you added [1] clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context [2] ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 ( talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue— blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак ( talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc. Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy. I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?-- David Tornheim ( talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff— blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential. In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.-- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda— blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?

I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."

Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.

I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.

Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [3] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.

It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.

For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.

( [4], [5], and even [6]) — blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: To Improve the Article: Please help identify any WP:OR/ WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN. Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?.-- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alphonse Crespo

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and all other notability metrics. Clear promotion and cruft (primary sources, Amazon...) JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Medicine, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: PROMO, sources that I find are social media or profile pages. Long way from GNG here. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FUCM

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

I wasn't able to find any coverage and the article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. The article was created by User:Bamatfucm, and one of the founders of FUCM is Bam. toweli ( talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. toweli ( talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails GNG. I can't believe that an article with poor sources and no inline citations has lasted this long for over 16 years. LibStar ( talk) 05:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Only published independent sources I could find were: [7] [8] [9], which don't establish notability.

Traumnovelle ( talk) 06:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Education, Europe, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I've been able to locate a few sources on Sweetser. Per this book, Sweetser's (1888-1968) was a journalist and League of Nations' staff member whose dense and global relations almost completely escaped historians' attention, so it seems like he was an important figure but just hasn't been written about too much. I was also able to find some biographical coverage in a few different pages of this book. Additionally, this contemporary journal article provides coverage of him and one of his books. If this article is kept, this brief note contains biographical info which can be used to source it. There are around 2,000 mentions of him on newspapers.com for the period between 1915 and 1945; I haven't gone through all of them of course, but [10] [11] [12] were some big mentions that came up. Additionally, his obituaries ( [13] [14]) provide further biographical information which can be used to source the article if it is kept. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities

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

Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, but article requires significant improvement.

Coverage that is at least potentially RS (not necessarily complete) which is not currently included in the article:

FortunateSons ( talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Ladsgroup^overleg 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The subjects passes the WP:GNG criteria certainly. Besides the sources listed by FortunateSons there are other reliable sources like Newsweek (another article by Newsweek), the hill, and Fox News. Moreover, the supreme leader is considered notable enough so his letters sparks significant coverage by the sources. Btw, I created the page. -- Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 31 May 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 May 31. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Education, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete this does seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS at the moment, needs sustained coverage. SportingFlyer T· C 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Khamenei's letter went out on May 30, and you say on May 31 that there is not "sustained coverage"? VR _{(Please
ping on reply)} 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
No, I said it needs sustained coverage, and the article's pretty bad. Furthermore, all of the sources found so far are from last month - it certainly hasn't been very SUSTAINED yet... SportingFlyer T· C 22:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. BD2412 T 01:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, it passes WP:GNG. As more news comes in, it can be improved to pass the enduring notability as well. Ghazaalch ( talk) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Hosseinronaghi ( talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
keep ofcourse https://search.brave.com/search?q=khamenei+letter+american+student&source=android many sources have written Baratiiman ( talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
This is not Fawiki [15] Baratiiman ( talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:NOTNEWS This article is not important enough to be on Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia's article). It's more like propaganda. Déjà vu • ✉ 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
For those who point to WP:NOTNEWS; The letter was issued on 30 May 2024 with a handful of reliable sources covering it deeply (listed by me and FortunateSons) hence establishing the WP:Notability. Now let's see if NOTNEWS is even applicable here:
Original reporting: Easily rebutted. The current article is written based on secondary reliable sources, so there is no original reporting.

News reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I wonder how users realized, less than 24 hours [16] after the official publication of the letter, that the subject does not have an "enduring notability"! This is while some sources are published after 48 hours ago [17], let alone those published some hours ago [18].

Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary: Easily rebutted. The current article is not even about an individual.
WP:GNG is passed and the enduring notability assessment requires more time to pass. -- Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note to the closing admin: Multiple users are coming from Fa wiki with some having their first AFD !vote here. There seems to be an attempt aimed at defecting the consensus building process here. -- Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also notice this one please. -- Mhhossein ^talk 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei No idea why this is a standalone article, if it's so notable just add it to the existing biography. -- TylerBurden ( talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Such interactions by the head of state of a theocracy to a significant section of Western society is quite rare. As a comment it would be nice to have this in Wikisource if applicable. Borgenland ( talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge about one sentence into Ayatollah Khamenei, where it is entirely missing, as an unjustified SPINOUT. No objection to delete either, yet merge is the optimum. gidonb ( talk) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: Ali Khamenei is already ~10,000 words in prose. According to WP:SIZERULE it is somewhere between "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" and "Probably should be divided or trimmed". So merging an article there would not be advisable. VR _{(Please
ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Khamanei's previous such letter ( To the Youth in Europe and North America in 2015) turned out to be an enduring article. His current letter has not just been covered in the US and Iran, but also India, Australia, Tanzania, Israel, Turkey etc. Since the letter was only published 3 days ago, coverage at this stage will obviously be only news articles. VR _{(Please
ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Ali Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. The Banner talk 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or Merge. WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:NOPAGE. this article only makes sense of broader contexts and is better covered in the responses section of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses or in Ali Khamenei User:Sawerchessread ( talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

International Socialist League (2019)

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

In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.

Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Grnrchst ( talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Stuart Goodman

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

Essentially a resume in prose form. He's held some sub-cabinet state government posts and been the Arizona lobbyist for some companies. No notable accomplishments in those positions are listed. List of military service, education, job history. The references are all directory type listings confirming he held those positions but nothing more, except one ~100 word prose article saying his firm was hired to represent Apple. This wouldn't seem to meet the "significant coverage" standard of WP:GNG.

Article was created 10 years ago by an account that never did anything else, and hasn't gotten any content edits or inbound links in a decade. Those are not criteria for deletion, of course, but they do suggest that there's just nothing to add to take this beyond prose resume form into encyclopedia article. Which is what is suggested by the apparent lack of sources with non-routine coverage which could be cited. Here2rewrite ( talk) 01:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, no indicia of encyclopedic notability here. BD2412 T 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Most of what is claimed in the lead, was during his late 20s-early 30s. He was 23 when he was "Associate Director of Government Affairs for the Arizona Multihousing Association" Most likely titles that were non-notable - and possible volunteer - positions. User:Arizonapolitical never wrote anything else for Wikipedia, but this article. Possibly the same person as the article subject. — Maile ( talk) 02:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete No significant coverage (but a bunch of quotes and cursory mentions) in the Arizona Republic. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete No SIGCOV, no independent, secondary, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 03:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Just directories/lists as references. Three of them don't even work anymore. Sadustu Tau ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nominator; listed sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Waqar 💬 09:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing much in terms of notability-lending refs. Reads like a promotional CV. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arenza Thigpen Jr.

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was originally deleted in 2022, and despite many sources, none appear to provide WP:SIGCOV. If they mention him, most sources quote Thigpen briefly or he appears in a photo. Several sources are primary. As for the "Voice of San Diego" source that purports to describe him as the "Michael Jordan of signature gatherers," it's (1) a WP:INTERVIEW and thus a primary source, and (2) the quote is actually Thigpen describing himself (“There’s an inner circle of the Michael Jordan(s) of signature-gatherers. I’m not trying to toot my own horn, but I am one of them."). Bottom line: sources don't support WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG from the sources provided. SportingFlyer T· C 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Unreliable sources that didn't establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources aren't enough for WP:N. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - per WP:TNT. Right now, it's a huge mess of irrelevant and non-essential links, a wall of citations that don't prove anything close to significant cverage. Bearian ( talk) 15:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

La guerra civile

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

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Italy. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Washington International Diplomatic Academy

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

Sources provided are primary and/or non-independent. A search does not uncover any further SIGCOV in independent sources. Organisation seems unlikely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Triptothecottage ( talk) 22:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Schools, and Washington, D.C.. Triptothecottage ( talk) 22:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Sources all go back to the organization itself (eg a New York Times op-ed authored by the org's executive director). No sources support WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in independent secondary sources is fleeting. Cited sources include an opinion piece that does not appear to make mention of the topic ( [19]), press releases from the organization itself ( [20], [21]), press releases for a counter-protest against an action called by ONP-LP ( [22]), and mere mentions in higher quality sources ( [23] [24]). Searching online, on Google Scholar, and on Google Books for various permutations of the organization's name and acronym in English and Polish, I was not able to find significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment I do not want to directly participate in the vote since I am the person behind the article, and I want to apologize since I created this article when my experience was somewhat lacking, and I relied heavily on translating the page from Polish Wikipedia.

I would argue that the quality of the sources for the party is less of the problem of the party being that irrelevant (it participated in elections, which makes it more important than half of the 1990s Polish parties that have articles), and has more with me not doing a good job here. I apologize for my shortcomings and I will try to improve the article in the coming days.
I managed to find following secondary sources that give more information on the party beyond a mere mention:
- Lakomy Lilianna. (2008). Komunikacja perswazyjna w języku polityki na przykładzie polskich kampanii prezydenckich. Praca doktorska. Katowice : Uniwersytet Śląski;
- Jacek Harłukowicz. (2005). Kandydat szuka niszy. https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kandydat-szuka-niszy-6037504817279617a;
- Paweł Malendowicz. (2013). Polonia amerykańska wobec członkostwa Polski w NATO i Unii Europejskiej. Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej. Bygdoszcz;
- Jarosław Tomasiewicz. (2002). Powrót Ligi. Sprawy Polityczne;
- Marcin Kornak. (2008). Katolog wypadków – „Brunatna Księga”. NIGDY WIĘCEJ nr 16.
Thank you. Brat Forelli🦊 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, the article was clearly improved to a good standard. Polish kurd ( talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - after improving article, I believe that the amount of references providing non-trivial mentions is sufficient to keep it.

Brat Forelli🦊 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, article seems relevant to me and I believe the references should meet notability requirements. I also believe it has been improved and well worked on. Mevoelo ( talk)

Keep Has contested multiple national elections and received 60,000 votes in one of them. Clearly a notable political party IMO. Number 5 7 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Article has been expanded since nomination and cites RS. It would be good to hear from the nom if they find this satisfactory now? @ Rosguill _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 04:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I tried following up on the sources identified by Brat Forelli above--the only ones I was able to access were Lakomy 2008 and Harlukowicz 2005--Lakomy 2008 does comprise significant coverage, but Harlukowicz appears to be just a mere mention. So, I still haven't actually seen enough coverage to meet ORGCRITE, but it is possible that the other sources cited that I was unable to access have such coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency

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

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood ( talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Very strong keep

No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter ( talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter ( talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter ( talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat ^{(
talk,
contributions)} 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 ( talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T· C 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Victoria Starmer

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

I'm not seeing evidence that the subject is independently notable of her husband, Keir Starmer. The existing article can be adequately summarised at his article. Still, we might expect more coverage if Starmer becomes Prime Minister, so it may be a question of WP:TOOSOON. Consequently, I would be content with Draftify as an alternative to deletion, assuming more sources may become available within six months that nudge the subject past the notability threshold. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Law, Politics, and United Kingdom. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

At least, hopefully this AfD can resolve the notability tag currently on the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ IgnatiusofLondon, hey there. As creator of the article, I have no objection to draftifying it. I found as much as I could on the subject while keeping in mind that it is highly likely we will get more information in a couple of weeks. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 09:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

While understandable, the issue is that this exercise, completed too early, leads to trivia-collecting articles that violate policy. For example, the article contains the name of her sister, which likely fails WP:BLPNAME. There's no reason for her sister to be named if there is no independent notability. There is no deadline. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Keir Starmer. This is the only way I can think of given there's no way for making this article notable. Galaxybeing ( talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Galaxybeing, for now at least. Hence why it should be draftified. Omnis Scientia ( talk) 16:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I suppose if Keir Starmer becomes prime minister in a month, his wife will then meet notability guidelines? TrottieTrue ( talk) 00:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think we should draftify the article. If Keir Starmer becomes PM after the gen election in July as widely expected, then Victoria Starmer will likely pass the notability criteria as the spouse of the PM and the draft can go into the mainspace. Until then, I don't think she is sufficiently notable enough for a standalone article. ThatRandomGuy1 ( talk) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

What's the harm in keeping it if the husband's going to be the PM in a month. Isn't it busywork for the sake of protocol? galenIgh 04:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus among editors to Delete this article. Best to start over in Draft space once more reliable source are found that provide secondary, independent, significant coverage. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alex O'Connor

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO or WP:ENT. He hosts a podcast that has interviewed many notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The best independent, secondary coverage I can find of O'Connor himself in a WP:BEFORE search is the Oxford Mail story about Hitchens walking out on him during a podcast, but this amounts to WP:BLP1E. The rest of what I can find is all WP:PRIMARY, including YouTube clips of him appearing on GB News, Uncensored, this clip on Daily Caller of Hitchens walking out, etc. Wikishovel ( talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Religion, Internet, and England. Wikishovel ( talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: No coverage used in the article now in RS and I can only find coverage in Catholic Answers, which I'm not sure is a RS and likely somewhat biased. Agree that the rest of the sources are primary. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't seem to have a claim to notability, either in anything he's done in the coverage he's received. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The sources are often primary, but they are better than no sources at all. There will probably be more non-primary sources that will come along in the future as well.-- Los Perros pueden Cocinar ( talk) 07:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Sources are not sufficient, and nothing sufficiently independent and reliable is available. Certainly the subject works with many notable people, but he himself has not generated sufficient secondary sources. As for the above comment, better sources may or may not appear in the future. It is of course possible that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, but we cannot include this as a factor in our current discussion. Heavy Grasshopper ( talk) 11:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The subject is poised to achieve notability according to Wikipedia's standards in the near future. Hitro talk 15:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep I have found another reputable, secondary source convering his controversy with Hitchens. In addition, I would dispute the idea that notability is not inherited in this context. Alex O'Connor is an interviewer. An interviewer's notability should be, at least in part, determined by the notability of the people he has interviewed. Also, there are a number of primary sources that take the form of interviews on other news outlets and podcasts. These, despite being primary sources, still indicate that the subject is notable enough to be chosen for an interview by the likes of Piers Morgan, Jordan Peterson, and more. There are also several secondary sources from religious magazines and news websites that can contribute to his notability, although they may have a reputability issue. FaunuX ( talk) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — FaunuX ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Please see WP:BASIC, which explains that on Wikipedia, " Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." What's the new secondary source please? Wikishovel ( talk) 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

[25] https://dailycaller.com/2023/10/12/enjoy-society-commentator-interview-death-drug-decriminalization-peter-hitchens/ FaunuX ( talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

If you'd like the religious sources as well, there's [26] https://5pillarsuk.com/2020/05/23/prominent-atheist-youtuber-refuses-to-apologise-for-somali-women-in-bags-slur/ https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/dawkins-dodges-a-debateagain/17078.article [27] https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/821-the-lesson-to-learn-from-matt-dillahuntys-rage-quit , all of which reference Alex O'Connor in some way.

Additionally, to quote wikipedia guidelines on interviews with regards to notability, "if the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent, contributes to the claim that the subject has met the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline". In the case of many of Alex O'Connor's interviews, the subject of the interview is something along the lines "Alex's views on TOPIC". If a reputable journalist does an interview with the subject of Alex O'Connor's views, then this would contribute to the notability of Alex O'Connor's views, and by extension the notability of Alex O'Connor. FaunuX ( talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for hunting for secondary sources. I actually mentioned that same Daily Caller source in the nomination above, in the sense of "this is all we've got", because Daily Caller is a deprecated source on Wikipedia: please see WP:DAILYCALLER.

Regarding the religious news sites, 5pillarsuk.com is a news blog, and I could find nothing on their site about editorial oversight etc. Premier Christianity and Catholic Answers appear to be WP:Reliable sources, but the Premier article is about Richard Dawkins, with O'Connor only mentioned a few times as the interviewer. The Catholic Answers article is a panel discussion about Matt Dillahunty, and O'Connor is again only mentioned a few times during the course of the discussion. What's needed is what I failed to find: solid coverage of O'Connor himself, in reliable sources. Wikishovel ( talk) 08:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, my apologies. Did you see my second paragraph about how, as per wikipedia guidelines, interviews can contribute to notability? FaunuX ( talk) 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes thanks, but I'll defer to other editors on that. Wikishovel ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom - a review of the sources shows the sources fail WP:GNG, not secondary or sigcov. SportingFlyer T· C 18:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: A celebrity can be famous but not significantly covered in newspapers if not blog. The State of the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Michel Pontremoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy ( talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

1978 West Virginia judicial elections

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

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and West Virginia. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius ( talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 ( talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 ( talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 ( talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [34]. James500 ( talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 ( talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
- @ Curbon7: There are some other alternatives. We could move this to 1978 West Virginia elections and create empty headers tagged as needing expansion for other elected offices (there is also a 1978 United States Senate election in West Virginia); or, we could merge all three articles in this nomination into a 1970s–80s West Virginia judicial elections article, or just a West Virginia judicial elections article, with links out to articles covering years not in this article. BD2412 T 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  I wouldn't oppose creation of West Virginia judicial elections and a merge to that. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  Merging Supreme Court elections may be appropriate, but not the trial court elections. Even for current elections like 2020 West Virginia elections, we only have the statewide elections, not the non-notable local-level ones. There are so many of those that are simply not covered. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  That makes sense. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo

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

this article can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 ( talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Weak merge. The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to keep. Esolo5002 ( talk) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can keep it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep per Toadspike — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep When I created this page, Cuomo was considered to have a big future in government and politics. Within a few years, his career was essentially totally over. I still think there is historic validity to a Political Positions page and it will shorten how much text is on the page, but there is no great strength to the page existing on its own anymore. PickleG13 ( talk) 23:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep since the main Andrew Cuomo page could do with being shortened and cut up already. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress

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

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 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 May 23. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus ( talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. -- Soman ( talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. -- Soman ( talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
- Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus ( talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment - Draftify is not intended as incubation for expansions. This article is a mini-stub, but a perfectly legitimate stub. There is no material in the current version of the article that warrants it to be draftified. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. -- Soman ( talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Systemic vulnerability

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

Likely not notable, the listed reference is the only one I can find that has the same use of systemic vulnerability, others refer to "systemic vulnerability" usually in information technology. Love, Cassie. ( Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Love, Cassie. ( Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment I found this [35]. Maybe it helps? Conyo14 ( talk) 04:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Relying on a single source is the very definition of original research, for which we have never been the appropriate forum. Bearian ( talk) 15:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [36] [37] [38] Soni ( talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni ( talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T· C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni ( talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus ( talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

delete Again, two years off is too far in the future, judging from the information given. In any case it should be 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election given that it has a date. "Next election" articles are either speculative or misnamed and need to be suppressed. Mangoe ( talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete There are no good references discussing this future event. It currently has no value and WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^(
Talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni ( talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion. Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T· C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -

If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.

This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni ( talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [39] [40] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T· C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.

I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".

I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [41] [42] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni ( talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus ( talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni ( talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe ( talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni ( talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe ( talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Per comments Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

India-Latin America relations

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles. Ratnahastin ( talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 ( talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion. Ratnahastin ( talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak keep or Merge the article is well formatted and cited with many references which covers this topic in depth. It does spun around the topic, passes general notability. However if merging is an option then I'd not oppose it merging in Foreign relations of India. Based Kashmiri ( talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. The page is well written and has many reliable sources with significant coverage on the India-Latin economic and trade ties and history. Passes WP:GNG. I am also not opposed to Merge to Foreign relations of India. RangersRus ( talk) 13:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Per nom. Duplicative of other articles. No point. Yilloslime ( talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America

48JCL ( talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z ( talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

2028 Tasmanian state election

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

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade ( talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight ( talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?

Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @ AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 ( talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight ( talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Tasmaina only had an election 2 months ago. Significant coverage of the next election is years away. Similar AfDs of premature election coverage has appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane ( talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: This is ridiculously WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep The next election is not set in stone at 4 years away as the Tas Parliament states Term: the length of time House of Assembly elections - since 1976 this has been a maximum of four years. and that's why I do agree with previous comments that it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election instead. It should be noted that both previous elections went early at about 3 years each 2018 Tasmanian state election and 2021 Tasmanian state election. And with a hung parliament as described in the article that potential is high again. MyacEight ( talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename to Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. SportingFlyer T· C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade ( talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as not too soon, but consider moving to the less definite title. Bearian ( talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Also, can not redirect to [[Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia[[ as that page is a redirect itself. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Executive Committee of Gagauzia

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian. Anonimu ( talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - there appears to be coverage in English-language scholarly sources ( [43] [44], both paywalled but which had substantial text matches in Google Scholar results snippets), and likely more in Romanian, Gagauz, Turkish or other languages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Donna Smith (politician)

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

Neither being a county supervisor in a largely rural county of less than 100,000 people nor running for the US House of Representatives give automatic notability, and as far as I can tell she received only WP:ROTM local coverage throughout her career. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Iowa. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Neal Potter

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was a county executive, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass the second clause of NPOL ("local political figures"), where the inclusion test hinges on the depth and volume of reliable source coverage about him that can be shown to support an article with. But except for one obituary upon his death, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with no other reliable or GNG-building sources shown.
As his career was several decades ago and thus might not Google well, I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Arlington-area media coverage from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Bearcat ( talk) 11:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: Try https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ > https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/27/ > his name in Maryland newspapers. The Frederick News-Post seems to carry the most coverage, with hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Darrell Leon McClanahan

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

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile ( talk) 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Din Mohammad Jurat

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

Article subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The only source of which I can find about him on Google was about him being sacked as an advisor. Nothing else more than that. Also the creator of the article seems to be a newbie which I guess hasn't practiced about the wikipedia article wizard before contributing to wikipedia. You can also visit here for further reference. Most of the reference used on this particular article headline are not corresponding to the original source. Maybe he had to fake it to make it look like its an independent reliable source. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep This article clearly meet the Wp:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

please have a look at these reliable sources.

- BBC (1) (2) (3) (4)
- CNN (5)
- New york times (6)
- VOA (7)
- Radio free europe (8)

Parwiz ahmadi ( talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All the link you have provided still doesn't address why he was nominated for an AFD. The only reasonable news was that he was sacked. The rest of the news has nothing to do with him apart from him being sacked. Editors should take note that the article creator was the same person who voted this keep.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

What about this one ?

https://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=795&task=view&total=1733&start=766&Itemid=2 Parwiz ahmadi ( talk) 22:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Shahzada Ahsan Ashraf

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

Back in 2018, there was a brief discussion about whether caretaker cabinet level positions automatically confer WP:N. The consensus was that they do not, and one has to pass the GNG to have a bio. Based on that discussion, the subject of this BLP does not fall under WP:POLITICIAN and must meet GNG, which he currently does not. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Mamadou Baïlo Diallo

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC. Being a counsellor of the National Transition Council doesn't make one presumptively notable under NPOL so there's literally nothing to establish notability here. BEFORE doesn't help. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 22:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect: to National Council of the Transition. He may pass WP:NPOL as a member of the National Council of the Transition, which is the acting legislature of Guinea, but regardless the article must still surpass WP:NOPAGE in order to be a standalone article. He seems to have a fairly common name, so locating sources has been tricky. I found one source which mentions a vote he did: abstaining from voting on the Initial Finance Law (LFI) 2023 [45], but could not seem to locate much else. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Joshua Michael McConkey

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

WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist now. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Carolina. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per Bearcat. I came across this article previously and would have nominated it for deletion but did not then have time to do a proper before. JSFarman ( talk) 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, Nebraska, Ohio, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete completely non-notable former congressional candidate. I was about to nominate for deletion when I saw it was already nominated. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 08:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP additional categories and notoriety, WP:AUTHOR award-winning published author WP:ACTOR credited actor 57.140.28.16 ( talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP: Additionally, He is a Colonel and Commander in the United States Air Force. 136.54.185.219 ( talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment He does not meet the inclusion criteria as either an actor or a writer. He has two (very) minor acting credits (as "Westlake Party-Goer" in Buck Alamo, and an uncredited role as "Launch Room Control Operator" in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). The Independent Press Award is not credible; it is sponsored by an organization (or person) that charges $125 to enter a book in any of 150 categories and sells book reviews. JSFarman ( talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP: As do all Book Contests, there are entry fees. The book beat thousands of entries from across the world. The Independent Press Award is credible.

Writers are not automatically notable just for winning just any award that exists — the award itself has to pass notability criteria as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it, which means the reference for the award win has to be media coverage treating the award win as news, not the award's own self-published website about itself. And actors are not automatically notable just because acting roles have been had — a person gets over notability criteria as an actor by having reliable source coverage about their acting roles shown in media, not just by having an IMDB profile. Bearcat ( talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR, and has coverage well below what is needed to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL before being elected, nothing else to meet WP:GNG. Melcous ( talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Chandni Mistry

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a local councillor; there is additional local coverage from the same newspapers already referenced, but no additional national coverage. She was a councillor for less than a year, was investigated for electoral fraud but no action was taken, and she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. She is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but I don't believe that contributes to notability (see brief discussion from 2011 here). I do not think she meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Tacyarg ( talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg ( talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This wikipedia page has already been granted a B class Wikipedia status as defined The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. This therefore is relevant page and is particularly important given that this page represents the youngest BAME councillor in the history of the city. This seems like a malicious second attempt to request deletion of the wikipedia as the country falls into a general election. All aspects of the wikipedia page have been properly referenced as approved by various sources. With reference to Royal Society of Arts, the individual is listed on their pages. Handedits ( talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC) (

Confirmed sockpuppet of Gowikipro, see investigation) reply

Hi, regarding your use of the word "malicious" to describe my deletion proposal. I reject this. I have no conflict of interest regarding this councillor or the article about her. I'm not sure what you mean by second attempt, but if you mean the AFC decline in November, that was another person. I have not opened a previous deletion discussion about this article. Tacyarg ( talk) 12:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - local councillors do not meet WP:NPOL so notability would need to be established thorough WP:GNG. There is coverage in local papers but no significant coverage beyond that. BBC coverage is about the controversy over residency which at best makes this WP:1E. -- Whpq ( talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not much to establish notability. An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL at a low level though may be in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 00:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Does not fulfill NPOL and not enough coverage to meet GNG. Charcoal feather ( talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Ivan Portnih

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

Fails WP:NPOL and there is literally no source to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical data, etc. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect >>>> List of mayors of Varna. Djflem ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rashad Aslanov

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

Current sources in the article don't pass WP:GNG and I couldn't find sources through a WP:BEFORE which discussed him in-depth. Suonii180 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. Suonii180 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Death of Li Keqiang

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

Only two Chinese supreme leaders ( Mao & Jiang) have articles about their death, and his funeral was far less grand than these two. Even the death of Hu Yaobang (which triggered June 4th) don't has article about his death. Coddlebean ( talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Coddlebean ( talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Coddlebean, which deletion criterion is met here? You used similar argumentation at the Early life of Mao Zedong AfD quite recently, and that article was speedily kept because you did not provide a rationale. Folly Mox ( talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep I agree with @ Folly Mox your nominations need to provide a clear rationale. Saying x similar article exists or y similar article doesn't exist isn't a rationale for deletion. The article is both on its face impressively sourced and in need of cleanup, but I don't think there's any discernible policy-based rationale here. Oblivy ( talk) 01:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3 – I don't see anything resembling a rationale for deletion in the nomination statement. The article looks fine at a quick glance. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: per Mx. Granger; WP:CSK#3, as the nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Also, I disagree with the example the nominator raised. Death of Hu Yaobang [ zh did exist in zhwiki, and it is clearly notable as well since it is literally the triggering point of the June 4th Incident with many in-depth analysis from academic or media sources. The fact that it does not have an article in enwiki is simply because no one had created it yet, and this argument is clearly a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#3 as no valid deletion rationale is provided. I also concur with Mx Granger and Prince of Erebor above. S5A-0043^Talk 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Scott Keadle

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP does not meet GNG for WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Only elected office is hyper-local county commissioner which would not normally qualify as notable outwith exceptional circumstances.

Somewhat of a perennial candidate, but given that they generally failed to get past primaries (much less general elections) and lack the WP:SIGCOV that would be needed for a perennial candidate to be notable (c.f. Howling Laud Hope or Count Binface), I don't believe they're over the line.

Promo/Peacock in "Community and family" section implies originally written by someone associated with his campaigns. That can be fixed/rewritten, but he's not notable to start with.

A previous AfD in 2013 came to no consensus, seemingly based on currency/recency of elections. But 12 years later I don't see that any enduring notability has been demonstrated. Hemmers ( talk) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, North Carolina, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable county commissioner/congressional candidate. No real claim to notability BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 08:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Nina Menegatto

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

This page is really bad, it's presented as an actual biography of a politician/monarch when the country in question doesn't actually exist. It presents the subject as holding actual positions and titles, which do not exist. Not to mention that the page uses a few primary sources from the micronation itself. Presenting a micronation roleplayer as a real head of state is misinformation at best. Di (they-them) ( talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Italy. Di (they-them) ( talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
weak keep - there are a few fairly long media reports in addition to those on the page. There may also be more in non-English publications. On that basis, in my opinion the GNG is met. JMWt ( talk) 06:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge the content from reliable secondary sources to Principality of Seborga. Insufficient independent coverage for a stand-alone article per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. Celia Homeford ( talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep as subject meets GNG (mostly established in non-English sources: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55], although English sources also exist: [56] [57] [58]). Notability is not determined by the validity of her claims/titles/positions/offices. Many articles exist on pretenders and claimants to defunct and non-existant monarchies. The question is if Menegatto is has received significant media coverage, and the answer to that is yes. -- Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 ( talk) 14:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Principality of Seborga. She is no more notable than her so-called predecessors, Giorgio and Marcello. Keivan.f^Talk 19:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect Per the user above. Wolverine XI ^{(
talk to me)} 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect I sincerely disagree with Di's and Celia Homeford's arguments, however I believe it indeed deserves a redirect as per the user above. Demagoras^talk 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect I don't see how she's notable on her own. She can be adequately covered on the main page for Seborga. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of United States vice presidential firsts

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN, seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTTRIVIA as well. I'm not seeing any corresponding content at Vice President of the United States that would make retarget or merge appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and United States of America. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete I do not see an excuse of this WP:OR WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 23:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. You can always find weird, arbitrary firsts for just about anything, but there's no reason to dump them here. For example, Daniel D. Tompkins is the only vice president to have served two terms in the 1800s and first to die within a year of leaving office. First bald VP? First left-handed VP? First VP over 5' 10" tall? Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Category:Lists of firsts shows a lot of these types articles exist. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States presidential firsts was kept, an argument made that the media covers that. So I searched for "First vice president to" [59] and found news coverage of various things. The media covers the first vice president to do anything. Individual things listed can be searched for as well. Any history book about a vice president, will mention what they were the first to do. Dream Focus 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Just list things that a reliable source in the news media or a history book or a government website mentioned was a notable achievement. I added some references earlier, quote easy to find. Dream Focus 22:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Catfurball ( talk) 21:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Although this list has issues, I don't think it can't be edited with reasonable effort. It's well sourced or easily sourced. Have we considered alternatives to deletion? Bearian ( talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. and Redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Chris Miller (West Virginia politician)

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

Non-notable former political candidate. No in-depth coverage outside of his gubernatorial campaign, no real claim to notability. All campaign-related coverage of him is fairly WP:ROTM stuff that you would expect of someone running for governor. Now that his campaign is over, I can't imagine very many people will be searching for him. I'd support a redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 02:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Lean delete. His unsuccessful candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor is not all that notable, although his ownership of several automobile dealerships (not just Kia) has made his television ads rather ubiquitous (and somewhat amusing, IMO) throughout the region for a number of years. I doubt that there is enough coverage in the news besides his political candidacy to demonstrate notability, however. I'm not certain of this, and would be perfectly satisfied if anyone can produce additional evidence of notability. But just owning the dealerships and having thrown his hat into the ring for the Republican nomination (in a particularly nasty campaign season in West Virginia) does not seem like enough. P Aculeius ( talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete and redirect: as a West Virginia resident myself, I can attest to the fact that Chris Miller has not gained hardly any notability even in his own state; let alone on a scale sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I would support deleting and adding a redirect to 2024 West Virginia gubernatorial election. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 18:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Follow up: the only thing about Chris Miller that MIGHT be in any way notable (on a local/regional scale mind you) is those Dutch Miller commercials that are constantly on the airwaves all over the state. But even then; it’s the company (Dutch Miller Automotive) that might be notable in that case; not necessarily the person running it (Chris Miller). I still reiterate my support for deletion here. Although I wouldn’t be opposed to someone creating an article about the Dutch Miller car dealerships though. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 05:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 ( talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Miskin Abdal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli ( talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian ( talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli ( talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian ( talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli ( talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian ( talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli ( talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [65], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes ( talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian ( talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian ( talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors. HeritageGuardian ( talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.

1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation " https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book " https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to /info/en/?search=Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian ( talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Leonid Cherneha

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

This article says nothing other than the subject being a mayor, which fails WP:NPOL because mayors are not presumptively notable if they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG which is where this subject is lacking. Did not occupy any office that would help them pass any of WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage in reliable sources that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But neither the content nor the sourcing here are up to the level of what's required. Bearcat ( talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: I was usually prone to keep, however I would not be surprised if it's going to be redirected to list of mayors of Odesa because he is listed as a mayor of Odesa there. After all, he was listed in the Russian wikipedia where he was the mayor of Odesa. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar

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

I believe this is similar to Sanjog Waghere. A WP:BEFORE search on Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar has a lot of reliable sources, but they all focus on his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election, making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG/NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

* Delete: As per my check, I searched for coverage about the subject other then the candidacy, but I can’t found any. These sources are because of his candidacy. WP:BLP1E simply apply here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. But I found someone who is saying “I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability.” Here. GrabUp - Talk 09:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. Candidacy in general election is not notable. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as doctor and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus ( talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak redirect to Guntur Lok Sabha constituency#General Election 2024, mostly on WP:NOTPROMO grounds. Otherwise keep. I do not think the grounds for deletion raised above are policy-based. (1) NPOL avoids extending a presumption of notability to candidates, but recognizes that they are still notable if they meet the GNG. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that GNG-compliant sourcing is available. (2) The question is therefore whether BLP1E applies. But BLP1E does not apply, because a candidate in a general election for a national legislature is not someone who otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. As WP:LOWPROFILE reminds us, [p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. (3) The remaining question, although not raised above, would be whether BIO1E applies. IMO it would be questionable to interpret "one event" in BIO1E/BLP1E so broadly as to encompass an entire election campaign; that would go well beyond any ordinary or on-wiki understanding of "one event". In any event, if BIO1E does apply, it counsels us to redirect to our coverage of the event, not to delete the page outright. -- Visviva ( talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

~~Provisional Delete~~ per nomination. User:Visviva makes some good points about candidates with significant independent coverage meeting WP:NPOL, but all I can find apart from routine coverage of his candidacy is a few fawning pieces about how rich he is, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. That said, results for his constituency will be in this week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday according to the press, so it would be helpful if the reviewing admin could keep the AFD open until it's clear whether he's won or not: he'll obviously be notable if he wins. Wikishovel ( talk) 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Changing to Keep per User:Ab207 below, now notable per WP:NPOL. Wikishovel ( talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: The person has won the election. Passes WP:NPOL. Ab207 ( talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nomination: Per [66] Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Won election pass NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 02:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Daniel Ruiz II

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

Chiefs of staff do not count as a political office for purposes of NPOL, and it doesn't seem like there is sufficient coverage to meet the standards of WP:BASIC unfortunately. Deprod by Clearfrienda, not sure which sources they were referring to, perhaps the AP? Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: In cases where there is some substantial coverage I usually object with PRODs in case there's a chance they can be kept. In this case, there's this local 12news.com article and this ktar.com article which both go WP:INDEPTH. There are some less-significant mentions in this NYT article, this kold.com article, and this azcentral.com article. I'd lean towards delete but it's a close call. Clear friend a ^💬 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Anja Hirschel

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood ( talk) 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Could potentially redirect to Pirate Party Germany and add a mention there, but I can't see any coverage meeting BASIC. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Tagesspiegel and SWP sources are sufficient for general notability. Cortador ( talk) 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Pirate Party Germany: Not much for GNG and NPOL. Considering WP:ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 06:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Brad Chambers

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

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

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

@ Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [67] AHoosierPolitico ( talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [68] Oaktree b ( talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk)

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Struck TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T· C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment does not appear to be presumptively notable under WP:NPOL; cabinet level positions are the widely agreed threshold (see detailed discussion here for state-level executive branch NPOL thresholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer), however, Commerce does not appear to be part of the current Governor's Cabinet in Indiana. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Goldsztajn: and @ TulsaPoliticsFan: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [69]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico ( talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Good find! I'll strike my keep vote. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Pinging @ TulsaPoliticsFan in fairness to the GF responses to my contributions, see developments below. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [70]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico ( talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ AHoosierPolitico Agreed, the Governor's cabinet includes a seat for a representative from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. According to the article you've linked, which includes the headline "Lathrop elevated to cabinet", it is Ann Lathrop, Chief Strategy Officer, that took the cabinet position; so the President/CEO of the IEDC does not necessarily appear to automatically take the seat. From that article, there's nothing explicit that indicates Brad Chambers previously held the Cabinet seat. I have no problem accepting an NPOL pass if there's sourcing that explicitly shows Brad Chambers held a cabinet seat. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Goldsztajn Perhaps I should have referenced a different article, as Governor Holcomb's decision to appoint Lathrop to his cabinet, in addition to Rosenberg as secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Ecomomic Development Corporation, was unique. As the state's new release on the appointment notes, "Lathrop will join Rosenberg on Gov. Holcomb’s cabinet." [71] For sourcing that he held a cabinet-level position, see this article. [72] "Chambers signed a two-year contract with the state when he accepted the cabinet-level position in June 2021." Best, AHoosierPolitico ( talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for finding the extra sourcing, that's enough for an NPOL pass for me. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
The trouble with an NPOL pass is that it necessarily assumes there will be GNG coverage, which is almost always true. Problem is there's not - he's basically just covered by his failed gubernatorial run. SportingFlyer T· C 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer I disagree. If you search "Brad Chambers" during the timeframe that coincides with his tenure (July 2021 - August 2023), you will find consistent coverage in Indiana media. The article itself talks about some of what earned him coverage: the Regional Economic Acceleration and Development Initiative, the LEAP District, the Indiana Global Economic Summit, record-breaking committed capital investment, first-ever electric vehicle battery facility investments (Samsung SDI/Stellantis and Samsung SD/GM), etc.
Keep (edit conflict) Actually I'd say this is a GNG pass, per NEXIST. Indepth, SIGCOV reliable sources, for example: Brad Chambers' company received 'bailout' from Indy after missing loan repayment deadline (Indy Star, April 25, 2024), Former Indiana Commerce Secretary Brad Chambers joins the crowded Republican race for governor (AP News, August 18, 2023), Chambers loans his gubernatorial campaign another $2 million (NWI Times, March 24, 2024), GOP Ind. governor hopeful donates to both parties (The Indianapolis Star August 29, 2023), Fishers Mayor: Brad Chambers is leader Indiana needs (Indianapolis Star, April 4, 2024). We need to be mindful about misapplying WP:ROUTINE; our job is ~~not to judge editorial content, our job is~~ to assess whether content is indepth and reliabale, not judge editorial decision making. Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Claudio Ferrada

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

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

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

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

Keep - arguably the post of Presidential Regional Delegate is enough to pass NPOL. The post has its own article in Spanish wikipedia, Delegado presidencial regional de Ñuble [ es, Delegado presidencial regional de Chile [ es. -- Soman ( talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: the WP:BURDEN of demonstrating notability is on those asserting keep. What another language Wikipedia chooses to do is fine, but not applicable to en.wikipedia pillars, polices, and guidelines. In almost four weeks of waiting, nobody has stepped up to add sufficient sources to meet ANYBIO, GNG, BLP, NPOL or any other relevant SNG. Even the page creator has no special attachement to the page. BusterD ( talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Edward J. Crawford

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona ( talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny ( talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:

Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.

Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family

Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.

Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him

tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.

Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.

Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.

texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him

Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny ( talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:

Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.

As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg ( talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, same comment as Daniel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per Dclemens1971. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability, and most sources that don't fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTION are either less-reliable or primary sources. B3251 _(talk) 04:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. I agree with the source analysis by Dclemens1971. This is an enormous amount of trivia accumulated to synthesize an apparently cited biography of a relatively unknown living person. Right out of one's own scrapbook, perhaps. I generally feel some sympathy for the subject; sometimes it's a bad idea to have article about oneself. But in the case of this subject, I have no particular sympathy, because five years apart, two separate new contributors decided to create largely the same page about the same subject, using many of the same sources. And both of the pages came up for deletion. What a shock it was to discover the last such page creator, TheCarFanatic was blocked for likely covert advertising! This might bear some further examination. BusterD ( talk) 17:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
- Note: For those who think it's completely risk-free to try create a Wikipedia article about a living someone (perhaps as a business card), these two deletion procedures will be available for anyone to find later when someone inevitably DOES attempt to search for this namespace. Readers of the future may make their own judgements when they see it deleted twice, and no reputation-cleaning firm (including national security agencies) can get the AfDs deleted, so the stain is set, so to speak. BusterD ( talk) 18:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Anatoliy Korniychuk

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

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

Source eval:

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

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

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

Request to close as Draft: Based on the response from the author here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs, I request an uninvolved editor close this as Draft to give the author time to work on sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Don't BLP concerns apply to the drafts too? Traumnovelle ( talk) 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes and no. Yes BLP still applies to drafts, no it is not anywhere near as rigorous as what mainspace requires. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Keep: as I found the source here as he should pass W:NPOL through an archived source. Ivan Milenin ( talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak keep - the above source does name Korniychuk (with the Russian spelling, Корнейчук Анатолий Васильевич, not currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article) and thus meets WP:NPOL, although coverage in sources is nevertheless lacking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this now pass NPOL via the source Ivan found? Is NPOL the right criteria here (nominator indicates GNG and NBIO)? Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 01:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Pls clean up is better here. I don't see why the nominator's rationale wasn't about NPOL: because the article passed it. SIGCOV is then possible. Per WP:BASIC, a Minister of Agriculture of the Autonomous Republic is notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 06:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects