Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

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[edit]

2027 Serbian presidential election[edit]

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

It is still WP:TOOEARLY to create this article. There are no sources discussing the topic and the election can be held earlier than in 2027. For example, the article for the previous 2022 presidential election was created 1 year before the elections, considering that we had sources discussing the topic and potential presidential candidates. This is not the case for the 2027 election. Vacant0 (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space Braganza (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is eligible for an article at the moment if there are sources discussing it, but there currently are not any in the article, it's all about the past election. So if sources exist for "Next Serbian presidential election," that could be created, but the article on its face is TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (South Riding) colonial by-election[edit]

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other AfD - what's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1856 Cumberland (North Riding) colonial by-election[edit]

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

This is just a directory to two elections that happened in the same electorate in the same year. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Disambiguations, and Australia. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deletion rationale? The disambiguation seems fine to me? SportingFlyer T·C 11:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete: two topics; no primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Bern[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because of persistent issues that have not been addressed despite discussions on the talk page. The main concerns include: - **POV (Point of View) Issues**: The article heavily reflects the claims and views of the biographed person without sufficient neutral coverage. - **Lack of Reliable Sources**: The content relies predominantly on sources that do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. - **Notability Concerns**: The subject does not meet the general notability guideline as the article lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. - **Content Focus**: The article focuses more on claims made by the person rather than providing a balanced biographical account, which is a core requirement for biographical articles on Wikipedia. These issues combined lead to the conclusion that the article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form.

Looking into the bibliography at least four of them seems to be self-published, or published on "print-on-demand" publishing companys."Recito":

"Recito is an innovative publisher specializing in small print runs and making the publishing world accessible to authors. We work closely with our authors to create wonderful books, and because we are experts in small print runs, we can test the market with each book without having to predict the future or risk mistakenly rejecting a manuscript." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franke1281 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 June 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 June 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Engineering, Environment, Technology, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swadhin Axom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, India, and Assam. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete/Repurpose~~ Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks, the sources I mentioned do support it as an idea, and not as an alternative name. All sources are listed in the reference page. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.

You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.

Sources and GNG

Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism

Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once

Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once

Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once

Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.

Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech

Source 7 - Does not mention it

Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 11 - Does not mention it

Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement

Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement

Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it

etc. etc.

Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.

However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:

WP:V - Verifiability

Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.

For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.

I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.

A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida Nadu Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is WP:SYNTH. United Liberation Front of Asom could be a redirect target ... but this title is misspelled (Axom instead of Asom). Walsh90210 (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.

Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).

Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).

Both of the 3 papers are important sources

Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well

Ref:

Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.

Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.

Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.

Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.

Sharma, Monirul Hussain. The Assam Movement: Class, Ideology, and Identity. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources

You mentioned the following:

" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."

I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.

There is one article from a newspaper that briefly talks about this idea, but does not elaborate on it: https://www-asomiyapratidin-in.translate.goog/assam/parag-kumar-das-memorial-lecture?_x_tr_sl=bn&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :

However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.

Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.

The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.

This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.

Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.

ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sources Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka 09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Asia, and India. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not a notable organization. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed thank you. I wrote articles, about various organizations in NER region, to fill the gap between the region and Wikipedia. I agree that more sources would be needed Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesea (Western SouthEast Asia)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, Asia, India, and Manipur. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify The sources here don't really talk about ""Wesea"". For example, the page uses a lot of content broadly about Zomia, which passes WP:GNG. I can assume good faith on some of the paper sources, but I know a few of them don't mention "Wesea" at all. There needs to be a lot more work to make a page about the idea of Wesea using reliable sources and this article just isn't ready for wikipedia mainspace yet. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, it should be moved to Wesea, as the base title does not exist and the current title misuses the parenthetical for an acronym. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_21#Category:Wesean_National_Leaders is related to this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any evidence that any of the sources use this term. It is not made up by the article creator, but all the sources I can find are referring to rebel militant groups (Times of India discussing a group). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2018)[edit]

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

This fails WP:NORG all sources primary, or simply statistical in nature there is no indication this was ever notable and they sure aren't now since being deregistered. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the same party as mentioned here 1 2 3 re-registered, or is this yet another United Party of Canada? Cortador (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador Different iteration there is a draft currently on this new version that hasn’t demonstrated notability yet either. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Party of Canada (2009)[edit]

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

This fails WP:NORG all sources primary, statistical in nature, or records of legal proceedings against the party which would not lead to this party being notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election[edit]

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

Future event, more than three years away. The only reference is a speculative article with some rule-based candidate elimination and guesswork about who might run. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- this can be recreated when more concrete information is available. Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no point in deleting the next election as we know it will be notable, and we already have news coverage discussing it. If you think the coverage isn't sufficient, redirecting to 2027 United States gubernatorial elections#Kentucky is preferable to deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is illogical to assume that this election will not be notable, as it is scheduled to happen and it is already in the news. Also, the 2027 Mississippi gubernatorial election has a page, so it doesn’t make sense to have one with a page and one without NathanBru
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the election hasn't happened yet, there's strong evidence it will be significant. Scheduled elections that generate news coverage often become notable events. Deleting the article now throws away potential future value. Waqar💬 20:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of all "keep" !votes above. Sal2100 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Everything that has been said above, plus the article would have to be remade at some point if deleted, so there's simply no point. SouthernDude297 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TOOSOON does not apply here as it's a known, very likely upcoming event. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Kundan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairoz Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Being accused of sexual crimes doesn't add to notability. I don't see the notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more bugs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kundan and similar. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, White and Red Rally[edit]

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

On fr wiki, it just a redirect, on pl wiki, an AfD is ongoing. BEFORE shows very little, as does the article itself. Seems that this organization was either short lived or did not achieve much outside generating a little media buzz when it was founded. I don't see what makes it meet WP:GNG - perhaps it should redirect Jean-Marie Le Pen, as is done on fr wiki? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Gordon (anarchist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources here, as well as those found in a WP:BEFORE search, are primary in that they consist mainly of interviews and self-published works by the article subject. No in-depth, third party articles by reliable publications would be found. As an editor commented on the article Talk page, appearance in other language Wikis is not among criteria for evaluating notability for the English Wikipedia. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politics, Israel, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not yet a !vote): his Google Scholar profile [1] shows three publications with triple-digit citation counts; this sounds strong to me but how does it compare to others in similar topics? I found and added to the article three published reviews (in academic journals from mainstream publishers) of his book Anarchy alive!, but I didn't find reviews for his other books Routledge Handbook of Radical Politics, Six Zionist Essays, Hier und jetzt: anarchistische Praxis und Theorie (maybe a translation of Anarchy alive!?), and Anarchists Against the Wall: Direct Action and Solidarity with the Palestinian Popular Struggle. Another review of at least a second book would be needed for WP:AUTHOR for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wee note that Six Zionist Essays was written by a different Uri Gordon. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. Thanks for the correction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a couple of reviews of Anarchists Against the Wall, one in Fifth Estate (Spring/Summer 2014, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p34-35) and one in Social Movement Studies (May 2016, Vol. 15 Issue 3, p335-338). — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR, and the additional reliably-published reviews found by LittleDwangs, which I have found links for and added to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found the arguments by David Eppstein convincing.Whizkin (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per WP:PROF#C1 as discussed by David. --hroest 17:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR by sources indicated above. gidonb (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1, WP:AUTHOR as above — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Pawelec[edit]

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

The article of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Bilateral relations, Politics, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrio Cortes[edit]

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macleod Group[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searches are also not yielding anything. Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Politics, Sikhism, Colorado, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No sources provide him any biographical coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only mentioned in passing over 2 non-notable books. Orientls (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). "Sing, G.B. 1954–". Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields. Vol. 270. Detroit: Gale. pp. 396–398. ISBN 978-0-7876-9528-6. ISSN 0275-7176. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."
2. Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). "Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging the only AfD participant from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh who has edited in the last three years: David Eppstein (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources by Cunard only prove that this is a case of WP:BLP1E; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't "one event". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any "reviews" that would make him notable and in any case, it does not change the fact that per WP:BLP1E, we need to assess that "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and this subject fails that. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for WP:AUTHOR. These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Only 2 sources provided above includes a database of many non-notable authors and a 20 years old random coverage from Colorado's The Gazette, a local daily. None of this establishes WP:GNG, let alone gaining significant coverage from the expert sources of this field. Orientls (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Long (white supremacist)[edit]

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

I could not find in-depth coverage. He ran for public office but does not meet WP:NPOL nor WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conservatism, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that he doesn't pass NPOL or NBIO, but does clear WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in Atkins, Kinsella, Bartley, Sherren, and Perry and Scrivens, plus newspaper coverage. His notability seems to go beyond a single event so WP:BLP1E does not apply here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens. Some of the books linked go into a decent amount of detail. A non insignificant figure in Canadian white supremacist groups it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another obscure Trotskyist international, this one almost entirely associated with its founder Michel Varga. The article cites Robert J. Alexander's book twice: both of which are passing mentions, one in a section about the International Committee of the Fourth International and another which refers to it simply as the "Varga Fourth International". Alexander himself says that the makeup of the organization was unclear and that little is known about the groups that were affiliated with it. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, one of which is a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, the other is a Czech PhD dissertation that only references it once in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[2] There's not much on its French name either.[3]

As this organisation apparently has no significant coverage in reliable sources, and as Alexander seems to imply that its notability is inherited entirely from its founder, I recommend that this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and France. Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - last time this was listed for deletion, Soman found a long list of French works which mention the international. Unfortunately there was no analysis of whether they were significant mentions, but from what I can tell it does seem to have significant coverage in Benjamin Stora's La dernière génération d'octobre, a shorter mention in Pierre Turpin's Le trotskysme aujourd'hui, and it appears in the index of the Dictionnaire de la politique française and so presumably in one of the volumes which isn't on Google Books. There are some other hits in books with no previews, but I reckon that's enough for an article. Warofdreams talk 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of analysis was definitely an issue, because going through some of these now, it seems that most instances are only passing mentions and it appears there may have been false positives in others as well. Looking at Stora's book, the International League gets one single passing mention in a larger section about Varga, Turpin's book doesn't give much detail at all. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't coverage of this organisation, but I still doubt there is significant coverage. It seems that most of the mentions of International League occur when discussing Varga himself, there don't appear to be any that consider the organisation as an entity independently notable of its founder.

Of what I've seen in English and French sources, the information we could glean specifically on the organisation would never grow larger than a stub. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary International Initiative[edit]

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

This article has existed as a stub since 2007. It is yet another obscure Trotskyist international; this one didn't even last longer than a year before splitting! Its two cited sources are both (clearly unreliable) articles published by other obscure Trotskyist Internationals (the International Bolshevik Tendency and League for the Fifth International). A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, both of which are false positives.[4] I tried looking for it in one Robert J. Alexander's books, but only found a passing mention in a section about the International Marxist Group, without any real detail whatsoever.

As it doesn't appear to have any significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it meets our notability guidelines for organizations and I'm recommending it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Germany, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist International Liaison Committee[edit]

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

This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the two currently cited sources, one is from the organisation's own successor's publication; the other is Robert Alexander's book, which only mentions the TILC briefly in passing, in a section about the Revolutionary Workers League. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results: a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, and a Czech PhD thesis, which only references it once it in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[5]

As this doesn't appear to meet our guidelines on the notability of organizations, I recommend this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 01:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social policies of Phyllis Schlafly[edit]

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

Majority of article comes from WP:PRIMARY sources. Relevant info can be merged into Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints but there isn't enough to justify its own article. मल्ल (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent reliable sources for the subject. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a number of books listed as references, Feminism and the New Right and such. These are all primary sources? I wouldn't think that the political policies of one activist would merit an article separate from the article about that person, but if people have seen fit to write this much about them... It looks like the issue is notability. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She herself is clearly notable and significant, but this page does not meet Wiki requirements for the additional focus on policies. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This is an appropriate subarticle of Phyllis_Schlafly#Viewpoints. While primary sources are not prohibited from this type of page, there are also independent sources for appropriate coverage. If a standalone article is not appropriate, the main article should be expanded with some of this. Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost entirely sourced from Schlafly's own book. Her Wikipedia bio Phyllis Schlafly does a much better and concise coverage of her life and political advocacy, and is appropriately sourced. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Phyllis Schlafly per nom and above, doesn’t really make sense to be a standalone. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy @Alpha3031: who also flagged this page earlier. — Saqib (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [6] or [7] and Mexico for good measure [8]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [9] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).

Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Mushy_Yank about the validity of the two Ha'aretz, the JPost and the Politico item for WP:NORG, and there is also mildly critical coverage in a Hungarian news magazine. It's not a lot, and I do think it started as overly promotional and could use more balance, but it does clear the threshold set in NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NORG, along with the UPE concerns. I have no idea how two brief mentions in sentences in the Politico article can be considered SIGCOV, and the other articles are close to press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Eyes on Rafah[edit]

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

This article is about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) See updated comment below Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how this violates WP:NOTNEWS? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

routine news coverage of announcements. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.

The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:

Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this "AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.

The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:

The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mainly about the image and associated social media protest. It's perfectly valid to write encyclopedia articles about notable images. The AI image does warrant an entire article for itself, based on its cited coverage in reliable sources.

50 million people posting this image was also an event/phenomenon. It was directly compared to Blackout Tuesday by myriad reliable sources. Any deletion arguments here apply equally to Blackout Tuesday; neither should be deleted. The next significant coverage about the next social media protest in the future will surely mention both.

PK-WIKI (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article isnt about the image. Its about the phenomenon Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia article can be written about a notable image or photograph. We have thousands of such articles on wikipedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh496: What are you talking about? I don't understand. Obviously an image can have an article, just like any other topic on Wikipedia. C F A 💬 18:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is NOT centred on the image. It is centred on an internet phenomenon and not an image Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the GNG, has generated widespread coverage across a range of sources. For example, these sources are all entirely devoted to covering this event:

Associated Press
Al-Jazeera
NBC News
BBC
NPR (which calls it the internet's most viral AI-created image ever)
Vox
Time
Washington Post
Wired
The National (UAE)
France 24

Along with articles covering the phrase along with the image such as the NYTimes. No actual case for deletion exists here, this clears the GNG easily. nableezy - 16:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also news of "Where is Kate"? And that article is deleted. You have not said any reason how it supports wikipedia's scope to be here. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers notable events, this is one per the sources I just cited. nableezy - 17:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not always the case, as @Vegan416 has explained below Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. Vegan416 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is about routine news coverage, not full length articles about an event. It simply does not apply here, and no matter how many people parrot the same bogus claim it remains a bogus claim. nableezy - 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can hardly be described as an event... Vegan416 (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is based on nothing. The sources are clearly treating it as noteworthy event and are giving it in depth coverage. nableezy - 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find you more reliable sources covering in depth each and every ball game in the NBA or NFL or Premiere League or Champion League in the last 50 years. Yet we do not have wikipedia articles for each and every one of them. Vegan416 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nableezy's list of sources above. Additionally, most slogans don't receive even a fraction of the coverage this one has clearly received, especially through WP:RS. Pretty much reiterating what PK-WIKI stated earlier, but the AI-Generated image in particular has been widely publicized as a key example of performative activism and it's very clear that this entire slogan has met WP:GNG standards at this point. Most votes in favor of deleting the article so far have vaguely referenced WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS without making any sort of clarification as to how this article specifically violates such policies. I particularly don't see how this violates NOTNEWS, this is not "offering first-hand news reports on a breaking story" or constituting as a primary source. B3251_(talk) 02:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Having sources does not warrant having an article for an internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.
- The article is predominantly about an image. The image can exist on commons and information / events can be put in other places.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A political slogan is not an “internet phenomenon which did not last for over thirty-six hours.” Somebody in favor of deleting Blackout Tuesday, which drew many parallels with this, could use the same argument; that does not make it true nor does it warrant deletion for that article or this one. Unless we know where exactly information about this can be merged into, we shouldn’t be vaguely suggesting that it should just be moved somewhere else. B3251_(talk) 16:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a pro-palestine slogan, yes. But the reason it gaines coverage is because of the internet phenomenon. No materialistic action/event took place.

I have an opinion on where it could be merged - Rafah offensive where it gained traction. In the reactions section.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event is the 50 million people sharing it. nableezy - 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
44 million

It lasted for thirty-six hours! How is gonna pass any ten year test when it cant pass the ten month test?

Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently inclined to keep, but we shall see. Right now, the keepers are making a stronger case and backing it up more so than the deleters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nableezy's list, Huldra (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the exhaustive source list provided by Nableezy. A huge chunk of high quality sources that are explicitly about the image and slogan makes me extremely confused by the voters claiming this somehow fails GNG. How? Similarly, simply saying "This fails WP:NOT", isn't helpful, which part? NOTNEWS specifics "Routine news coverage", which these articles clearly aren't. The coverage here makes this an obvious keep. Parabolist (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify here, those in favor of deleting have not argued against this meeting GNG, but rather primarily NOT and NOTNEWS, albeit quite vaguely. B3251_(talk) 23:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to another article as per WP:NOTNEWS. Also compare with Yes We Can. Augu Maugu ♨ 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And right below that is Obama's "Hope" poster, which has it's own article. Parabolist (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Should be deleted also. No agitprop on Wikipedia. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nableezy's sources, some of which show significant socio-political commentary.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the amount of coverage provided by Nableezy. There's enough depth here to justify an article. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:GNG, Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per NOTNEWS and NOTDIARY. Closer to agitprop, actually. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per above. Lionel Cristiano^? 00:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major news outlets like Al-Jazeera, Time, BBC, and Washington Post have all covered the event. This coverage clearly meets WP:GNG. Waqar💬 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nableezy's sources User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is viral news that is making an impact worldwide. Ibn Juferi (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What impact exactly, elaborate? Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rafah offensive#International reactions in a new section entitled "All Eyes on Rafah." I am updating my previous vote struck through above. After reviewing the sources Nableezy provided and the other !votes, I agree that it meets the sourcing test of WP:GNG. However, we must also evaluate the need for a standalone page. Because this hashtag is a reaction to the Rafah offensive, it can best be understood in the context of that page per WP:PAGEDECIDE, and a merge best answers the test of WP:NOPAGE. Moreover, since we do not yet understand the WP:NSUSTAINED impact of the hashtag and whether it will be an enduring subject, merging to Rafah offensive allows future readers to have appropriate context. Should it be truly sustained, it can be broken out as a standalone article in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already do have sustained, retrospective coverage and analysis of the AI image in the weeks after it went viral:
- Bloomberg, June 17: ‘All Eyes on Rafah’ Campaign Presages a Wave of AI Activism
- Time, June 6: From Papua to the DRC, the 'All Eyes on...' Social Media Campaign Looks Beyond Rafah
These articles do not mention "the Rafah offensive" at all, making that merge destination inappropriate. The focus of the sustained analysis is on the AI image and the usage of the "All Eyes on..." snowclone phrase in other protests. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You havent answered properly. This does not need a standalone page. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO OBJECTION to this compromise. I have expressed my opinion elsewhere so please only count this as a reaction to a specific proposal. gidonb (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is about "All Eyes on..." images as an independent concept, then the sourcing is far thinner for a standalone page. The page would need to reflect that rather than focus on the Rafah image as the article does now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per NOTNEWS and NOTDIARY. Really? A MEME that is popular for five minutes gets a Wiki article? Perhaps a sentence on some other article, about the Rafah offensive? DaringDonna (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Masake[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. While the notability of Chapter Four Uganda is questioned, I simply may conclude redirecting there per this source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elnur Aslanov[edit]

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

Delete' being a department manager cannot make a person directly encyclopedic.--Correspondentman (talk) 10:41, 7 June 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 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politics, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has many sources, enough for Wikipedia:GNG, even searching for him unloads possible sources.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I somehow didn't catch when I first sorted this that {{subst:afd2}} does not appear to have been implemented here, leaving the AfD header incomplete. I have fixed this. (No opinion or further comment at this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement[edit]

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

Merge to New Democracy (Greece). On its own it fails WP:NORG, as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author note:

I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 .

As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.

(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the information!

I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.

I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.

ArchidamusIII (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nominator.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party[edit]

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the required to win an election to get listed on wikipedia, secondly as for the WP:GNG is concerned, this party is got some coverage from reliable independant sources. e.g:

https://www.urdupoint.com/politics/party/pakistan-falah-party-84.html

https://www.dawn.com/news/676942/another-political-party-is-born

https://pakvoter.org/political_parties/pakistan-falah-party/ Subhanyusha (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Subhanyusha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Subhanyusha, Unreliable sources except Dawn, and no sig/in-depth coverage in Dawn news story. — Saqib (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman has demonstrated sufficiently deep coverage of this party, I don't think those sources are generally unreliable. Whizkin (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) — Whizkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete poor sourcing, some serious WP:UPE vibes here don't help this article's case. The keeps in this case do not provide a sufficiently strong rationale for delete beyond poor quality sources.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece[edit]

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:

Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:

-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.

- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.

- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).

- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.

- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)

- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.

- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1^st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.

- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.

I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”; there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.

The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.

Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.

Regarding notability:

- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.

- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.

All of these articles were written in different years.

Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO

With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.

I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.

Regarding neutrality:

- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.

- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.

-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.

- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.

Regarding original research:

- The introduction relies on published research.

- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.

- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.

These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!

(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:

According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.

According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/

Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/

I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.[edit]

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.

To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.

Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.

The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.

Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.

Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.

Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.

Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.

As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.

The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.

Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us. As for Wired, it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic. Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source. Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with. I don't find much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price[edit]

(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]
Weak keep per The Telegraph (well beyond the Wikipedia:One hundred words suggestion for SIGCOV) and because we usually set the bar a little lower for sources that we might cite. (BTW, JFHJr, it's not necessary for an article to have a "particular claim to notability". Were you thinking about Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance, which is a WP:CSD thing?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No particular claim to notability is in regards to finding a more specific criterion than GNG. Where are the multiple independent (unrelated to the subject) reliable sources providing significant coverage? JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal[edit]

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]
Delete : Article cleary fails WP:GNG. Written in POV and fan voice.च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't merge, the term is too area specific to be known outside the area. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term gained some traction online [10] and [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable term from social media and memes. WP:DICDEF. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term has gained traction in the mainstream media and passes WP:GNG News Laundry ,Hindustan Times ,India Today ,BBC ,The News Minute,The Indian Express,Deccan Herald,The Economic Times ,NDTV ,Scroll ,News18.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently, all of the sources listed above come from the same time when the meme was trending. No evidence of lasting coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Pharaoh of the Wizards, passes WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a couple of sources that ensure the subject meets WP:GNG? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sustaining coverage, just another Twitter war only cared about by a small group of people who need to go outside. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberales Institut[edit]

(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]
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [12] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [13]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr (㊟) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [14] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [15] Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on both points.

1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.

2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''Wickster12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions[edit]

Politicians[edit]

James Clark (Politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As usual, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding the office, while a candidate gets to have an article in advance of the election only if he can credibly claim to have already established permanent notability for other reasons besides the mere fact of being a candidate per se. But this makes no such claim, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to claim that he would somehow pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after July 4 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides being a political candidate, I don't see notability. This reads as a biography, likely to help the political aspirations. I'm not finding anything beyond routine coverage of a political candidate, which helps inform the local populace, but not really helpful for Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: the page is less than 90 days old and the subject might meet WP:NPOL if he wins the seat in the upcoming election. Notability criteria are not met yet, neither per WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL. Broc (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ajay Kumar Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Sources are either routine converses or dependent on the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass NPOL. Sources are not strong and in-depth so fails WP:GNG. Also I question the reliablity of LiveHindustan. GrabUp - Talk 16:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the amount of substance that can be written and the amount of sourcing that can be shown about their political impact — but this amounts to "he is a mayor who exists, the end", and is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mayor of an area with a population of 700,000 plus people suggests notability, but I don't find coverage of this person. If sources can be located, willing to revisit my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Nicholson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject isn’t inherently notable based on NPOL nor passes any of the other basic and general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Massachusetts. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially "he is a mayor who exists, the end" — but mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on WP:GNG-worthy media coverage analyzing 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 there's no content like that here, and the article is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, with not even one bit of GNG-worthy coverage about him shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Primary sourcing from the town's website says he's the first Hispanic individual and the city's youngest mayor, which suggest notability. I can't find sourcing about this person, other than being appointed to a position in the fashion industry. Nothing for notability that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairoz Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I wonder how it passes WP:NPOL to exist here and that a WP:AUTOBIO by user @Fairoz22khan. If this to be here then why we are declining Draft:Varun Choudhary. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Being accused of sexual crimes doesn't add to notability. I don't see the notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, President of the student's union or a youth congress are not notable political positions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: more bugs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Kundan and similar. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Kundan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia[edit]

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

On the face of it, this is a politician who should pass NPOL. But, I couldn't find any reliable source online that shows that he won the 2017 election in Uttar Pradesh. The results from the Election Commission of India show that a different person (Ashish Kumar Singh) won the Bilgram-Mallanwan Assembly constituency seat in 2017. My searches online didn't find any sources that would show that the subject passes GNG. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Strange that it was created in 2018 with blunder. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Benazirabad[edit]

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

Fails GNG - non-notable office Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Datu Mombao Romato[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. As mayor, does not meet NPOL presumed notability. Could not find any sources suitable to satisfy the GNG, references are to facebook posts and reports (primary). microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as of now, not enough SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Was only able to find five mentions of this person, all of which were mere mentions in lists. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrio Cortes[edit]

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

Does not have references even though it is a biography, the only thing I could find were news outlets talking about his son, Demetrio Cortes Jr. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a couple passing mentions in books, but nothing to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchan Gupta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journalist, articles depend on totally one reference, fails WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, News media, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article relies almost entirely on one source, and therefore fails General notability guideline. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. C. Janardhan Reddy[edit]

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

PROD contested without improvement. Does not meet WP:NPOL as a district level official. Only 1 source, which does not have WP:SIGCOV on him. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of an Indian state legislature he definitely does pass NPOL and as he’s also a state minister there’s really no question about it. Mccapra (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boyina Naga Navadweep Sai (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page about a person took Oath as Cabinet Minister of Andhra Pradesh on 12th June 2024^[1]^[2]^[3]

Wikipedia & other editors , this not illegial matter, it is very useful to the viewers. They can know who is this particular Minister

The photo of this person is already existed in Wikimedia commons. So I created this page.

So Wikipedia and editors please don't delete this & please don't nominate for deletion.🙏

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andhra Pradesh is an Indian state with a population larger than the average country, or of any US state. This chap is a lot more than a "district level official". Ϣere SpielChequers 22:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the member of Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly, so he passes the WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a council of minister for the state of Andhra Pradesh he is one of the important persons of the state and I believe people should be able to learn about him. Shannu Nadh (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [...] a district level official, excuse me? Did the nominator even read the article? Indian state legislators, especially state government ministers, clearly meet WP:NPOL#1. Since the nomination, further sources have been added. Also, is the article mistitled? His assembly profile gives his name as B. C. Janardhana Reddy. Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Joseph (politician)[edit]

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

Member of a Parish council, whose sole news articles about his recent decision to run in the current election. If he wins, automatically notable, but at this point he is subject to general notability policy, and has no indication of passing Brislian (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft per WP:TOOSOON. All the coverage is specifically related to one event WP:BLP1E, if he does get elected he will be notable as you mention, thus drafting is best for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond running as a candidate, the individual is not notable. TOOSOON applies. Can be re-created after the election win, if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Delete per ~~WP:TOOSOON, and~~ nom. and others ~~above~~. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Changing above !vote from "draftify" to "delete" per the rationale of Antonine below. Sal2100 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a blatant example of not notable. WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply here as otherwise you could apply to all the other candidates standing in the general election, but the editorial guidelines are quite clear that only notable people get articles. Simply standing for election in a national contest does not automatically make someone notable, so this should be an automatic deletion as a simple case of not being noteworthy. Antonine (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails multiple categories related to BLP articles. Textbook example of not notable and not meriting an individual Wiki article. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous votes. Unelected candidates are not inherently notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ocheretny[edit]

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Farah Dualeh[edit]

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

This is possibly a hoax. I've moved the discussion over from the hoax talk page to save time. This is my reasoning:

While attempting to WP:DEORPHAN the article on Ahmed Farah Dualeh, I noticed an inconsistency. The article states that he is the President of Jubaland, whereas Jubaland has Ahmed Madobe as the president in the infobox. The results of my research were: Google: I could not find any reliable sources to support the claim that he is the president of Jubaland, or even that he exists. Most sources are either clones of Wikipedia or social media accounts. JSTOR: Searching "Ahmed Farah Dualeh" in quotes had zero results. Searching "Ahmed Dualeh" in quotes had a six results. Some of the results are about Elmi Ahmed Dualeh, which I initially believed that "Elmi" was some sort of Somalian title, which I wasn't familar with. However, it is not, as the papers refer to Elmi Ahmed Duale. One result, Against All Odds: The History of Archaeological Research in Somaliland and Somalia, says The most remarkable of these students is Ahmed Dualeh Jama, who published his PhD on Mogadishu; so talks about a different person who has the same first and middle name. The article was created, with the claim that he is the president of Jubaland, over fourteen years ago.

~~However, after this discussion I would keep.~~ Following on from research, I would !vote to Merge this article with Præsidenten fra Nordvest. The documentary is independently notable with the Danish sources I've found. Most of the sources I've found on Dualeh tie his notability to the film. Svampesky (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC); modified 16:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC); modified 14:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have had to remove the URL as malware. There are no sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Diff/1228531930, I'm assuming. Thank you for checking. When I tried it, I got a "Deceptive website warning" and didn't know if it was a false-positive or not. Svampesky (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching the Somali form of his name, Axmed Faarax Ducaale, does turn up a few hits that support his work with the Somali community in Denmark, notably this call-in segment on VOA Somali. 2018 visit to Garbahare (described as an expatriate), 2015 comments on Ethiopian intervention in Gedo (described as a politician), and a 2014 conference of intellectuals (described as speaking for the Sade community). There's also a 2013 news blog describes him as "Foreign President of the Jubbaland State Administration" (not WP:RS) and a link to a compromised URL that the search headline seems to be describing him as the "self-proclaimed president of Jubbaland." He's listed in this 2010 press release about a Somali community meeting in Denmark. There was also a 2011 talk group post calling for him to be declared president of Jubbaland; and here's a 2012 talk group post describing him as president.
Overall, it seems likely that he is a real person and the article is largely accurate in describing his work in Denmark. The claim that he was/is president of Jubbaland is not supported (though it seems there is a group that, at least in 2011/2012, recognized him as president). It might be possible to cobble together enough sources to meet WP:N, but the statement about being president is definitely more aspirational than actual. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he's also the subject of the 2017 Danish movie Præsidenten fra Nordvest, which would argue he could meet WP:N. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find the documentary available anywhere. The production company is listed on IMDb as Film & TV-Compagniet ApS, which translates to "Film & TV Company Ltd." I'm assuming (hoping) it's a does what it says on the tin company. I found their contact information here and I'll email them to request a free copy of the film for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. Before I do this, could anyone advise whether this might go against any Wikipedia policies, such as conflict of interest, primary sources, or original research? The documentary could provide valuable insights and guide where to look on further research for the article. Svampesky (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the film is available to stream at Filmcentralen [16], which needs a subscription from a Danish educational institution, and Filmstriben [17], which only works if you have access to a library in Denmark. Malerisch (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the film, and I've found lots of Danish sources about it. I have also boldly created Præsidenten fra Nordvest, per the clear growing consensus that the article on Dualeh will be kept. Svampesky (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting my comment from Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia here:

This isn't a hoax, but "Jubaland" is a bit misleading here. In ~2010, Somalia was embroiled in a certain civil war (it's still ongoing); much of the region of Jubaland was (and still is) occupied by al-Shabaab. One consequence of this is that a bunch of self-declared mini-states were established, many with competing claims and no de-facto control. This article from Somalia Report has more detail on the mini-states and mentions Dualeh as the president of a "Jubbaland (2)"; this other Somalia Report article contains an interview with Dualeh, who established his claim in January 2012 in the US. This claim obviously didn't go very far; other claims like Azania, which was initially supported by Kenya during its invasion of southern Somalia to oust al-Shabaab, had more success. There are other sources as well; for example, here's an interview with Dualeh in which he talks about being the "president of Jubaland" at around 1:20. He also appears in Danish media (where he's based), like Jyllands-Posten [18] [19] and this in-depth profile of him in POV International [20], and has an X profile [21].

The POV International profile mentions the Danish movie that Tcr25 found above. Malerisch (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how a Danish newspaper interview/report describes his "presidency" when talking about the movie: "In 2012, Danish-Somali Ahmed Dualeh was elected by exiled Somalis as president of the regions Gedo, Middle Jubba and lower Jubba, which together make up Jubaland in the civil war-torn country of Somalia, and it is precisely this story that DR tells in the new documentary." (via Google Translate). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and reworked that section of the article (and removed the infobox) to reflect what's in these sources. More work and sourcing on the rest of the piece is needed, but I would say keep while acknowledging the article needs improvement. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found above. Malerisch (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote remains "keep". I disagree with the nominator's statement that "most of the sources I've found on Dualeh tie his notability to the film": profiles of Dualeh like [22], [23], and [24] make little reference to the documentary about him at all, and even if a source like [25] does refer to it, that in no way implies that the documentary is the cause of his notability—clearly, it's his life story that is of interest.

These profiles of Dualeh show that he meets WP:GNG, so WP:NPOL is not relevant here per WP:BASIC. I also have to mention that the documentary itself is a reliable source with (a lot of) WP:SIGCOV—most people are not the subject of an hour-long documentary about them!

In my opinion, none of the sources cited in this discussion prove that the documentary itself is notable per WP:NFILM, so I'm not sure why we'd merge this article into the documentary's article. None of the linked articles provide independent (DR isn't in this case), significant coverage of the film per WP:NFILM (e.g. a film review or a detailed discussion of the filming process); instead, they all discuss Dualeh rather than the documentary itself. That isn't to say that the documentary isn't notable, as reviews of the documentary like [26], [27], and [28] do exist, but it needs to be shown that they meet the nationally known critic standard of WP:NFILM. Malerisch (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request Per advice from my mentor Special:Diff/1228772919, I would like to withdraw the AfD, but Walsh90210's singular delete !vote is preventing me from doing so. It cites there are no sources, but sources have now been found. Would you be willing to review your !vote? I'm NOT asking you to change your !vote. If you still think the article should be deleted, that's fine. It's not the end of the world if the AfD runs for seven days. Svampesky (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely not a hoax; it is about an actual person. But I am not withdrawing my vote, it is not sufficiently clear that this person is notable (and *definitely* not clear that he and the film about him are separately notable); I would prefer discussion continue. In particular, his "political career" does not meet WP:NPOL. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear. To clarify, I was not requesting you to change your vote. Rather, I was informing you to review the sources that were presented following your statement about the absence of sources. I've changed my !vote to merge, for reasons listed in my edited opening statement. Svampesky (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjala Ramakrishna Reddy[edit]

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

Notabillity issue. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Care to specify, how is this individual not meeting notability requirements? Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already deleted by PROD so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Potter[edit]

(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]
Keep -- based on his position as a county executive, I expected to give a delete opinion as that's the normal outcome for such roles. But a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post suggests he was considered notable beyond the typical holder of such a position. The other details (Plaza named for him) wouldn't generally be enough on their own, but together with the obit pushes above the bar for GNG keep. (would not pass WP:PROF on its own). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington County is literally suburbs of Washington DC, so the existence of a staff-written obituary in the Washington Post just suggests the exact same purely local notability that any county executive in any county could always show, and is not in and of itself enough to singlehandedly determine that he's more notable than the norm. So we would need to see a hell of a lot more than just that alone. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I thought of that, but the Washington Post is not a local newspaper in the same way that say that Arlington Sun-Gazzette is. It was written by their same obituary staff as their other obituaries. I think that a look at their current obituaries will show that obituaries in the paper are dedicated to people whom they believe have more than local notability. I don't see, for instance, other local officials or former high school sports coaches there, except in the paid death notices section. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I live in the county, and I only recognized the name on a "that rings a bell" basis. He lived, he was county executive, he did county exec things, he retired, and he died. I just don't see the notability; I'm sure he was competent (or else he surely would have an article!) but the language of his term is that of press releases, which argues he did nothing that attracted greater notice. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the Post and the Times are the de facto local papers of the area given the demise of almost all the county level papers, but in any case they would report such an obituary as a matter of record. Mangoe (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions[edit]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

Open discussions[edit]

Recently-closed discussions[edit]

Templates[edit]

Redirects[edit]

[1] ttps://ntvtelugu.com/news/andhrapradesh-cabinet-ministers-taken-oath-today-613936.html

[2] ttps://ddnews.gov.in/en/tdp-supremo-chandrababu-naidu-sworn-in-as-andhra-pradesh-cm-in-presence-of-pm-modi/

[3] ttps://www.ndtv.com/andhra-pradesh-news/andhra-pradesh-pawan-kalyan-among-25-ministers-to-take-oath-with-chandrababu-naidu-5871149

[1]

[2]

[3]