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]

Gibraltar Socialist Labour Youth[edit]

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

A branch of a Gibraltar political party fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in any WP:SIRS. (A couple of churnalistic sources are available, but as WP:INTERVIEW-based journalism they would be considered primary sources.) Moreover, WP:BRANCH would apply since it's a sub-organization of the GSLP. Sources in the article don't even reference the subject. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party as was previous done prior to reversion by the creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jats in Rajasthan politics[edit]

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

Unnecessary glorification of caste. See WP:FANCRUFT. None of the cited sources give any importance to the caste. There is also blatant violation of BLPs across this article because as per WP:CASTEID it is necessary for the subject to state their caste in their own words. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lead of this article promotes this caste and fails to meet encyclopedic standards and other information violates BLP policy per WP:CASTEID. Based on the current content of the article, it appears that the intention behind creating this article was solely to glorify a particular caste. This is not the first time TheSlumPanda has done this; they have previously promoted caste here. Looking at their editing history, it seems they have mainly focused on caste-related articles. I am worried they might not be familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:GSCASTE. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FairVote[edit]

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

Although this article has existed for a long time, I believe it should be deleted for for reasons of notability and being promotional in nature.

The article recently came under scrutiny due to a COI discussion about the User:RRichie (who is probably Rob Richie of FairVote).

There are no sources on the page that can be used to establish notability. Most of them probably shouldn't be used on that page at all.
The page appears to have been created and maintained mostly by FairVote employees. This raises concerns about WP:PROMO
The article is in a bad state right now. There have been attempts to improve it, but I believe those will be unreasonably difficult, due to the continued involvement of FairVote employees. (See the "Vandalism" section of the article's talk page) Brilliand (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - the article has been chaotic due to what are alleged by supporters of the organization to be ideologically-based attacks, and by involvement by supporters of the organization who didn't seem to grasp our rules about COI, etc. But that does not change the fact that this is the best-known U.S. organization advocating for IRV and related reforms. Problems with the article do not change the topic's notability. (Full disclosure: I've been a supporter of this organization for decades.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. It seems to have a decent level of coverage, and I would be curious to see a source analysis for the article indicating otherwise. BD2412 T 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion I started on the article's talk page. The current sourcing for the article does not include anything that can establish notability.

I suppose you're asking for something that I don't know how to do; my assumption is that if an article this old (and with this many sources) doesn't contain evidence of its own notability, then it probably isn't. --Brilliand (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Maryland, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There is substantial coverage of FairVote's local affiliates, who have gotten instant-runoff voting passed in Seattle (FairVote Washington), Alaska, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Maine. There's also its lobbying work through FairVote Action. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page does seem to be ~95% links to FairVote's own website, which is incredibly egregious. There seems to be a bit of coverage in a few newspapers+magazines. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are simply name drops, in articles about other things. I can't find any further sources about this group. delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: and improve the article. Looks like a notable organization and there plenty of sources. The contents of the article just need improvement for neutral and encyclopedic tone.Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration[edit]

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

already have Li Keqiang Government & China under Xi Jinping Coddlebean (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:CSK#3. Those three articles are obviously about different topics. Li Keqiang Government refers only to the composition of the State Council of the People's Republic of China after the 12th (2013-2018) and 13th (2018-2023) National People's Congress. China under Xi Jinping covers the socio-political governance and influence of China during Xi's chairmanship, which extends past 2023 as Xi remains Chairman after the 14th National People's Congress. The subject article is about the Fifth Generations of Chinese leadership, which is a common term coined for categorizing distinct periods of communist leaderships and inherited from the Hu–Wen Administration. In other words, the article is about political institutions of China during the combined rule of Xi and Li from the period 2013-2023, which discusses the distribution and swift of power between Xi and Li during their governance. A simple BEFORE already shows the broad usage and actual meaning of this term, and the nominator (once again) did not provide a deletion rationale grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: as above. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Prince of Erebor. Agree that WP:CSK#3 applies. Sal2100 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Li Keqiang Government is the Central People's Government of China from 15 March 2013, when Premier Li Keqiang took office, until March 2023, while Xi Jinping–Li Keqiang Administration is the administration of China from 2013 to 2023. Both articles list the State Council members, and do little else; it's not obvious that the articles should not be merged. (I agree that China under Xi Jinping is clearly very different). Walsh90210 (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: Not really, they are quite distinctive. The key difference is that the subject article includes details about the distribution of power between Xi and Li, which Li Keqiang Government would and should not cover. Another distinction is that the discussion/analysis of this term usually focuses on the power shift from a more equally distributed structure to one more heavily leaning towards Xi, as well as the conflicts between Xi and Li's policies and governance. This is clearly differentiated from Li Keqiang government again, which solely covers the administrative structure of the State Council. Rather than a merge, this article requires an expansion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zaire (government in exile)[edit]

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

Do not meet with critera guideline. No centered sources before 2024 Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Socialist Caucus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was already deleted as it disambiguated between two entities without their own articles and that weren't explicitly referenced in the linked articles. This disambiguation was apparently recreated only a few months after it was deleted, but this time with an extra "caucus" that is also not mentioned in the linked article. None of the original deletion rationale appears to have been addressed in its recreation, so I'm nominating it for deletion a second time. Grnrchst (talk) 12:25, 25 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) 12:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the first Afd that warrants a different consensus. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth International (ICR)[edit]

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

This is yet another obscure Trotskyist international without any apparent significant coverage in reliable sources. This article has been tagged for multiple issues since 2010 and its only cited inline source is a simple list of abbreviations. Looking this organisation up on Google Scholar, I found only three results:[1] one is a Czech thesis that lists it alongside many other Trotskyist internationals, without any further detail; the other two only give it a passing reference in sections about the Spanish far-left, without any real detail. It apparently only has one notable section, the Spanish Internationalist Socialist Workers' Party, which has little information about it either. The Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't help with finding sources, as it is almost entirely reliant on the FI-ICR's own newspaper La Verite.

As this doesn't appear to meet our criteria for the notability of organizations, I am recommending this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, France, and Spain. Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 21:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Draftify: Per nom, article is WP:TOOSOON. —Mjks28 (talk) 04:25, 24 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]
Keep but Stubify - The article has severe issues, but being a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences means that he meets point 3 of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some recent significant coverage of him as a person advancing climate change denialism and other fringe beliefs, but a notable crank is still notable, the article just needs to reflect the RS on him. AlexandraAVX (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so that has to be abuntantly clear. For instance, right now it says "Klimatupplysningen, a Swedish climate debating movement". Describing Klimatupplysningen as a "climate debating movement" is a bit like describing swedish "Strålskyddsstiftelsen" as "an organization that works to show the pros and cons of good mobile phone coverage".

(And for those not knowlegable about Strålskyddstiftelsen: https://www-vof-se.translate.goog/utmarkelser/tidigare-utmarkelser/arets-forvillare-2013/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=wapp

As it is now, this article reads more like an Op:ed for Lars Berns, to put it mildly, controversial opinions, than a biographical account. Franke1281 (talk) 08:44, 26 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]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.

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]
Delete. Organization fails notability with no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 24 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]
Delete. I can not find Wesea and any significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. Sources are poor to unreliable on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 28 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 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]
Comment. I am finding some French sources that appear to be about the party or its creation, (Le Journal de Dimanche, ici, RFI, Le Monde, Atlantico, L'express), but my ability to search more contextually is limited by my weak French, as "Bleu Blanc Rouge" is also used to name the French flag. Someone with French knowledge might want to dig into this, because there may well be sources there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 27 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!} 05:20, 27 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely a flawed translation of the Polish version, which has identical content. Sourcing might be largely in Polish and hard to find. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 28 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
Further comments: he not only passes WP:NAUTHOR as the creator of multiple notable works, per Cunard's later sources he appears to independently pass the GNG. Everyone voting delete is simply going WP:IDONTLIKEIT PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 25 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]
...that isn't what BLP1E is for? He has multiple, full length author profiles. His books have plenty of reviews. There isn't even an "event" here. He writes books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person wrote books, that have been talked about in media, as has this person. As shown above, these are RS. Scandalous or not, notability is established. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 26 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]
There does seem to be an effort from this editor to remove things that are not complimentary of Gandhi, but that does not make a strong case for deletion. True or not, these "things" have enough coverage to be kept here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 26 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]
- Striking duplicate "delete" comment. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fringe writer. Agletarang (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: G. B. Singh received 820 words of coverage in Gale's reference work Contemporary Authors. The Wikipedia article for Contemporary Authors cites a Texas State Library book for the statement "The work is a standard in libraries and has been honored by the American Library Association as a distinguished reference title."
G. B. Singh received a 1,760-word profile in The Gazette (Colorado Springs). The Gazette is a respected regional newspaper that won Pulitzer Prizes in 1990 and 2014. Colorado Springs is the second-most populous city in the state of Colorado, and the 39th-most-populous city in the United States.
The two sources were published five years apart. WP:BLP1E does not apply to an author who has received this level of coverage. WP:BLP1E does not apply because neither "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" nor "The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" apply. G. B. Singh clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough coverage in the sources listed above; regardless of the validity of the theories, this person has been talked about in RS, enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The prior AfD was also a keep, for passing AUTHOR. Notability is not temporary, there was a valid discussion 13 yrs ago and it was notable then and still is today. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to cite past AfD in order to evade the existing concerns, otherwise there would be no option to renominate the article for deletion. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArvindPalaskar It makes complete sense to mention the past AfD *unless there are new circumstances*, such as standards changing over time. In some topics we have increased our notability standards (i.e., sportspeople). The rationale used to keep the article back then, he is the writer of several notable books, is still valid now. The nomination is literally just incorrect, he passes both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:59, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this is a now-blocked sock puppet. The article has been here for 17 years, and only has 3 sentences. He doesn't even qualify as WP:SINGLEEVENT. We know he participated in one event where a cross was burned, but gives no details. He could have been just a spectator - or anything - we are not told. Given that the article claims, "he led Aryan Nations's Canadian branch and staged a major rally and cross burning in Provost, Alberta", sourced details are needed here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the sources I linked above? We aren't evaluating the condition of the current article but all sourcing that's available. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't even see coverage in Canadian sources. What's used now seem to be trivial mentions. Lack of sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, agree with Dclemens. Appears significant academic discussion of his role. Definitely seems notable and significant. Article should be improved with those sources, not deleted. Flatthew (talk) 16:44, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 24 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.[4]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:08, 24 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 [5] or [6] and Mexico for good measure [7]. 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. [8] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:23, 28 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 deletion. 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]

Delete. I can find several sources where he has a non-trivial mention, but all of these are simply related to his role at Chapter Four Uganda. https://www.pulse.ug/news/chapter-four-resumes-operations-appoints-ag-executive-director/bms1s5p https://nilepost.co.ug/news/147338/poor-cultural-practices-violence-hindering-africas-development https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0306422020935790 I would suggest Redirect to Chapter Four Uganda- he does not need his own article in my opinion.Spiralwidget (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiralwidget, the Chapter Four Uganda doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT and has been tagged for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter Four Uganda, with possible redirect to Opoyo of thereabout. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 28 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]
Keep: per above, but also there are plenty of potential sources on Google Books and Google Scholar. Aintabli (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a promotional page create by an SPA, Flambergesword. There is no nearly enough RS about the subject to establish notability. Most of the page is filled with irrelevant and poorly sourced political propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:01, 28 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:59, 28 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]
Redirect and/or merge with Epik. These two companies don't appear to have separate notability. Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though the the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition. There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Joshua N. Haldeman[edit]

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

Article has issues with neutrality (seems angled toward showing that the person is less anti-Semitic than sources suggest), is fluffed with unnecessary information, and it seems this person is not sufficiently notable, with the main thing being Elon Musk's grandfather. Calling neurocalometers "a then-controversial expensive device" also seems skewed. Foxsake92 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Do you have suggestions for how we could improve the neutrality? Haldeman was famous in his own time for his roles in chiropractic and politics, not because of his descendants -- Notablity is not inherited and the article text never actually mentions Haldeman's grandson, whose life didn't really overlap much with Haldeman's. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Archaeology, Medicine, Aviation, South Africa, Canada, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Garvin[edit]

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

wp:toosoon Notability; has not yet been elected to a post conferring notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political candidate that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karoline Levitt[edit]

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

This page with the typo should be merged or deleted with Karoline Leavitt, (correct spelling). - JoeK2033

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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This nomination did not appear to have the full formatting; I have fixed this. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the version of the article with the correct spelling. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does one merge a page? JoeK2033 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario A. Guerra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No sufficient source to satisfy any application specific or general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Cuba, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nawaz Khan Jadoon[edit]

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

Fails NPOL as well GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PK-42 Abbottabad-I as a valid search term (WP:ATD), and add details there. WP:NPOL is just a rule of thumb to quickly judge if the topic would meet WP:GNG (read the introductory sentence of WP:NBIO: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. and now read the parent guideline WP:SNG: The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.). Once notified for AfD, only WP:GNG matters, so please cite WP:GNG while nominating articles. If all we have are statistics of how many votes these crook politicians received then stand-alone articles are not needed. 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9 (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2400:ADC7:5104:3D00:4CD8:6849:1280:7FB9, IP - So are you suggesting that we shoud redirect BLP of every single candidate to their constituency's article? With about 20,000 candidates in the 2024 election alone, I'm sure this is not a good precedent we are setting here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You Are right brother Saqib, we should not go for every candidate, actually this person is General Secretary of one of leading Nationalist Pakhtun Party name Qaumi Watan Party and you know General Secretary is second most important person in an organization after Chairman. That is my point, we should made an article for his details,
  
  Thank you for you support and understanding Tasawar Waris (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Maisam Nazary[edit]

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted last December because Kiper was deemed non-notable. An editor re-created the page today on the basis that Kiper was included in a single poll, which doesn't really address the fundamental lack of notability and is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage (if you even consider it coverage). They also added 5 new sources: a press release from Kiper's website, three clearly WP:ROTM news articles (one just says he filed to run and the other two are about candidate forums he appeared at), and the aforementioned poll. I don't see how any of this overrides the finding of the previous deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Food and drink, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a delete, it's all stories about what he wants to do if elected, nothing of which is any different than any other candidate's articles when they run. This is simple news reporting. A favorability poll isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify: Article reads like an advert, and subject doesn't look notable enough. —Mjks28 (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted a multitude of changes to the article today--cleaned up the sources, added missing information, changed the voice, and eliminated some information. Hope that helps. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, but the new sources you added seem to be more WP:ROTM coverage from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone wrote a book and mentioned in it that he deserved a Wikipedia article, he might get on the front page. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest: Really? That's your rebuttal? Do you have any actual reason why Kiper's page should not be deleted? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User @BottleOfChocolateMilk should note that the "Granite State Poll" result they removed from 2024 New Hampshire Gubernatorial is currently included on the articles for the same gubernatorial race in 2022 and 2020. In this poll, Kiper was included and received 16%---more than candidate Volinsky received in the same poll in 2020.

Coverage of Kiper is not ROTM---there is only one TV station in New Hampshire. Economies of scale. For example, nearly every one of New Hampshire's 400 state representatives is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, despite each only representing about 3,000 people. Consider this in comparison to the deletion of Manny Cid's article, a deletion attributed in part to his being a mayor of a city with "only" 30,000 residents. In New Hampshire, only 6 of 234 municipalities meet that population threshold. Notability must consider unique regional characteristics and local relevance. User @BottleOfChocolateMilk may be too inexperienced with the subject matter to effectively identify notability. (Ironic detail---two of Kiper's known endorsers have Wikipedia articles, and they are both New Hampshire state lawmakers.)

From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

"The following are presumed to be notable:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

"A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

There is substantial news coverage of Kiper from multiple journalists in print and on television, and this coverage has included both trivial mentions as well as Kiper serving as the main topic of the source material. (see article references 8, 9, 14, 19, 21, 24, 26)

In fact, Kiper has received coverage from NH's sole TV station while other candidates have not---Ballotpedia shows a 6-way Republican primary as well as two independent candidates. Four of the Republicans have not received news coverage, and neither of the two independent candidates have been covered. In a spread of 11 candidates, only 5 have received coverage, including Kiper.

Additionally, of the 11 candidates to be listed on the ballot, only five were included in the Granite State Poll---Kiper among them. Due to contrast in local media coverage alone, Kiper is notable.

Kiper article satisfies the criteria for notability. RainbowPanda420 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowPanda420: Rather than spreading conspiracy theories, you could simply have read my stated reason for removing the poll, which is that it only measured favorability and did not test the Democratic gubernatorial candidates against each other. This is the standard for polling tables on literally every WP election page ever. Also, Kiper's news coverage doesn't become non-ROTM just because the state is small. ROTM means that the coverage is normal and part of a news station's regular, necessitated coverage of events, which is the case here. The argument about state legislators is irrelevant because state legislators are automatically considered notable. I'm not going to bother arguing against every stupid point you made, like how Kiper being endorsed by notable people somehow proves he's notable. Essentially, by your logic, every semi-serious candidate in New Hampshire would be considered notable, which I disagree with. Even ignoring your repeated personal attacks, your essay falls flat. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig McNally[edit]

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

An unreferenced article for someone who doesn’t have notability under WP:POLITICIAN. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I created this page myself. This was sometime after the 2019 LEs when I also created for Irish Local Elections across the years 1985-99 and for each City & County Council election of each and have added to others since and created additional ones including individual pages for several elected politicians, past and present and national and local level. Devite (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit of Wikipedia is that in some cases GAA personalities, actors, actresses, comedians and people who then become TDs, Senators and MEPs start out in their first election. The pages I helped create show links to all elections that the people stood in, if they become a significant national or international personality. You understand as a fellow editor. Its the fishing effect that we have in economics to add to the overall level of combined knowledge and this is why I like doing this. Its safe and quiet. Devite (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another section I found on the pages of each Council was a list of Councillors who were Cathaoirligh of each Local Authority. This has been done for each city such as Dublin, Cork, Belfast etc and I felt should be started for each County Council at least. I am happy to discuss this further. If you analyse the list of Coucillors of Monaghan County Council, McNally is also a former Cathaoirleach. Other former Cathaoirligh include some Ministers and TDs and then again some of those weren't Ministers or TDs but significant historical personalities in each county's political history regardless. Indeed some former Councillors are famous national figures despite never having been TDs such as Nicky Kelly from Arklow, profiled in Wicklow County Council Councillor history. That is part of my argument for keeping this McNally article as part of an overall database that could be enhanced. It is the 125th anniversary of Irish local government afterall this year in 2024. Devite (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should say first that I really appreciate the work you did adding each of the very many local elections to Wikipedia. I've edited around the edges of them in the last year or so, and they're an invaluable resource to have here.

That said, even as each of these elections are themselves notable and worthy of Wikipedia articles, and that we can dream of further progress in adding to the series, that doesn't speak to the notability of individual councillors, even long-standing ones. In the case of councillors who do go on to become national representatives, or who had a sporting background, or were otherwise prominent like Nicky Kelly before they were elected, they would get an article, or be eligible for consideration for an article, on the basis of their own notability (WP:BIO), rather than the fact that they were a councillor, or even Cathaoirleach. Seeing someone in blue in these election pages suggests that there is something more to be said of them, beyond their service on the council.

It would be great to have a referenced list for all local authorities of who served as cathaoirleach or mayor, but that doesn't give each of those office-holders notability for an article themselves. The nature of the office is that the chain rotates between councillors who might otherwise be known only locally. Dublin is an exception, being the capital and largest city, so the occupant of the Lord Mayor of Dublin will get an article. It might seen an extreme option now to delete Pádraig McNally's article, considering WP:NOTPAPER. But I also think it's good to keep a consistent standard of who qualifies for notability to merit an article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:GNG and a local councillor does not have presumed notability per WP:NPOL. Broc (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A former local councillor who does not meet WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:SIGCOV. While I've found and added a few refs, which mention the subject as a primary topic, they are largely of the same type we might expect for any other (even long-standing) local councillor. The coverage of the subject's planned and then actual retirement, for example, is relatively light and only given in (very) local news sources. Can't advocate for a "keep" based on the available coverage. Guliolopez (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, also per Guilolopez. Normanhunter2 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Delete per Bearcat. We generally do not want to keep drafts of political candidates as they could become a repository for campaign material. --Enos733 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. I really think there should be a policy for candidates in the general election, as it feels like WP:PROMO regardless of the author. Orange sticker (talk) 09:33, 24 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]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, becoming an Mayor does not pass WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ajay Kumar Singh (Uttar Pradesh politician): The mayor seems to be the same person as the member of the 17th Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Dr Ajay Kumar Singh is apparently some kind of doctor, and the member of the state parliament doesn't claim to be. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 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) 13:57, 24 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]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated to cite non-government sources, and explains some aspects of his notability such as his age at election and ethnic background both being historic in the city. -Joseph A. Rinaldi (talk) 03:45, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 28 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coupled with the source in the article, I found some reliable ones online (here (this one is the most reliable), here, and here) which is therefore enough to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG. All three sources mentioned by Cocobb8 are just about Gupta's appointment as "the chairperson of the Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation" only. The Hindu, though notable media, wrote only "A senior journalist, Mr. Gupta was associated with the first NDA government, having worked in the PMO of Atal Bihari Vajpayee.", as addition to the announcement which is not enough for WP:NBIO. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990, The Hindu wrote at least 2 paragraphs. How is that not WP:SIGCOV? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 please quote what were in those two paragraphs. I don't see any anything beyond mention. If you see, please enligten us. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990 Well I won't quote that much because that would constitute a copyright violation. But, here's the very first sentence of the article. The Union Culture Ministry has appointed journalist Kanchan Gupta the chairperson of the Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation till May 2020, weeks after Union Culture and Tourism Minister of State (independent charge) Prahlad Singh Patel was nominated to the post.
At this point, I'll leave it to other editors to share their thoughts with this article. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. M S Hassan (talk) 12:28, 27 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]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 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]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions[edit]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

Open discussions[edit]

Recently-closed discussions[edit]

Templates[edit]

Redirects[edit]