Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to Politicians.

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]

Clear Ballot Group

[edit]
Clear Ballot Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bit of a tricky one I think, given that it gets mentioned all the time, e.g., for their failed Georgia bid and it's considered a major vendor in the industry (see Axios, Engadget), but most of the more in-depth sources are the sort of WP:TRADESy sources that we would not typically consider to meet WP:ORGCRIT, for example InformationWeek / Dark Reading and Xconomy.

There are a couple of scholarly sources mentioning the company also, for example, Bernhard et al. (2019) and his later PhD thesis, Bernhard (2020), but I don't think it quite meets the criteria for depth of coverage. The best news source I found would probably be Washington Monthly, but again I don't think it quite meets the "directly and in-detail" threshold that we would need to write an article from it.

It would be a bit of a shame to have absolutely nothing on the company, but there are a few places where it is mentioned, so I figure I'd propose it as a redirect to Election audit § Ballot scans for 100% audits (given they're best known for their auditing software), or one of the other places where Numbersinstitute has added a mention. Any alternate proposals would also be appreciated! Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a redirect. kencf0618 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Rudrapur Municipal Corporation election

[edit]
2025 Rudrapur Municipal Corporation election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard for me to do searches on this, but the sources seems to show coverage of overall regional elections in the area rather than this specific one. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might be hard to find English language sources, I am attaching some in the regional language.
https://www.etvbharat.com/hi/!state/uttarakhand-civic-election-bjp-candidate-vikas-sharma-won-mayor-seat-of-rudrapur-nagar-nigam-uttarakhand-news-uts25012601117
https://www.amarujala.com/uttarakhand/udham-singh-nagar/uttarakhand-nikay-chunav-vikas-sharma-made-candidate-for-rudrapur-municipal-corporation-2024-12-29
https://www.livehindustan.com/uttarakhand/rudrapur/story-rudrapur-municipal-corporation-elections-bjp-candidates-nomination-process-begins-201734683399425.html Xoocit (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State funeral of Boris Trajkovski

[edit]
State funeral of Boris Trajkovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I think all relevant information is now at the main biographical article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Nawfal

[edit]
Mario Nawfal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Alhamisafe tagged this page for deletion giving no argument and did not properly create the discussion, hence it starts with "keep" argument ... * Pppery * it has begun... 01:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Firstly, there is no reason put forth for proposed deletion. Making it difficult to address it. Secondly, the subject of the page fulfills both WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (people). It can be established by following WP:RS

Although, it might be of little bearing, however, the subject also has a page on French Wikipedia, initially, this page was started as a translation, however, the subject has more Reliable sources in English. RaynorRaider (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]] fail WP:SIGCOV because the subject appeared to be mere mentioned without any significant coverage. Again it fails GNG as it relies heavily on primary sources, self published materials, press releases and non independent coverage such as interviews, and articles published by platforms that lack editorial oversight. 102.91.93.26 (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user who nominated the article gave no reason for deletion, this article has been deleted three times before, according to the talk page, but this iteration doesn't seem to have any major issues. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC) Keep' - there are several articles that help establish notability such as NBC and Barron's.Darkm777 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Always Chickens Out

[edit]
Trump Always Chickens Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month. Not relevant. Yilku1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that is independent of and primarily about the subject. It's too early to tell whether or not it'll still be relevant in a month, but notability is not temporary. It's funny that you mention the "meme" part of this, as that's another part of the article that needs to be expanded on... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does appear to have many similarities to Let's Go Brandon. And there is international coverage happening. If the term ends up not having any longevity or usage in say academic circles in the future, then it can just be merged later. It should also be noted that WP:TRUMPCRUFT is an essay and thus has zero weight as an argument in this discussion. So any editors above using it without any other argument being made above will likely (and absolutely should) be completely disregarded by the closer. SilverserenC 21:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep:
"Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month"
Please cite the policy that states most people should know about the subject in order for it to have an article. Notablity is determined by the reliable sources that cover the topic, not random people.
"Not relevant"
What. The article is about a phrase about something Trump is currently doing, how isn't this relevant? Thegoofhere (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you said TACO "won't be remembered in a month" despite the phrase coming from a news article from a month ago. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO.
JamesMLane t c 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors when it comes to reading the article they want to delete:
Seriously, what weed are you smoking? Trump's TACOS have literally worsened public views of the US, America's international relations, and the US stock market. And you are saying people only cared about it for a week. Are you European perhaps? Thegoofhere (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources that show coverage sustaining. Inclusion of a standalone article on Wikipedia, besides the merge criteria and "encyclopedic" criteria the latter of which this no-doubt satisfies, requires good coverage in reliable sources so that we may have a neutral contextualization (among other things). See the misleadingly-titled Wikipedia:Notability guideline page. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu Please provide reliable sources that show coverage sustaining. The term was first used by the media at the beginning of the month. The most recent sources are from today. Why do you need to be told this when it's in the article currently under discussion? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article that created the acronym was from the Financial Times in May 2, 2025. Link to the article in question, paywalled though. Financial Times is reliable, as shown in these reviews I found: [6][7][8] The article from FT is from May 2th, which was 28 days ago, not at all a "short" time. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not sustained coverage. Even if you presume one month counts as sustained coverage (which contradicts my experience in software discussions), everything in this article save one sentence is sourced to a single burst from Trump's reaction.
And to Thegod's claimed lasting effect above: The article is about the term TACO, not the article on Trump's tariffs, whose effects you appear to be correctly identifying. I won't believe that Trump's reaction to or the existence of the term "TACO" will worsen international relations and image and stock markets until a reliable source says that. That's, as Locke said, CrystalBall.
As WP:NRV mentions, the onus to demonstrate notability is on those who want to keep. When speculating in both directions are equally CrystalBall, that doesn't mean we should keep the article. It is not unheard of for an article to be created WP:TOOSOON. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article not about exclusively about Trump's reaction, so I'd assume PARAKANYAA was talking about the tariffs Trump has imposed. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, that's about the tariffs and maybe the theory that substantially overlaps with the topic of tariffs, not the term this article currently wants to focus on. I think Parakanyaa didn't mean to say there's nothing Trump does that could be considered notable, a statement that's obviously false. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regular readers will not be surprised by Unhedged’s view that the recent rally has a lot to do with markets realising that the US administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain. This is the Taco theory: Trump Always Chickens Out. But why doesn’t that translate to resurgent growth hopes, higher yields and more expensive oil?
Financial Times: The US market’s surprise comeback
PARAKANYAA, this reference is from May 2. How does that fit into your "week of attention" claim? SilverserenC 01:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A whole of one sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always nice to see that moving the goalposts is something people still shamelessly engage in. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Parakanyaa ever set the goalposts there. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
every single thing Trump has done or will do will get a week of attention in the news. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So an opinion article that attempts to coin and promote this term is attention? If I make the word "sworgaso" to describe this is that attention from myself? Not to mention the opinion is directly addressing the deal with tariffs, not "TACO". The only articles that directly address "TACO" are the ones within the Trump's reaction burst. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily passes the GNG. Trump himself has been quoted in reliable secondary sources as using the term. The article contains encyclopedic information beyond being a DICDEF. Nom and others above give no valid reason for deletion. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it may not be relevant in a month, but this follows the same track record of Donald Trump and Fox News since 2007. More of his garbage, yes, but people are still saying "MAGA" and "Trump is the best president ever", both of which are opinion, not fact, so these terms are still relevant because Trump is still in the news. 2601:203:481:ED20:417C:D538:8F9F:8441 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrewa and others. Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Radiohist Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least as relevant as "Let's Go Brandon", passes the GNG. 2001:569:FB72:7700:E10F:F798:4137:3586 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrewa and many others ALoopingIcon (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG easily, worn out "neologism" type nonsense arguments are beaten by what should be the Covfefe standard. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – While GNG may technically be met, the coverage of the phrase as a subject (to be distinguished from merely using the phrase) is limited – mostly just its origin, a negative response from Trump, and a positive response from some opponents. Because of its brevity, it can be covered in another article, such as Tariffs in the second Trump administration (perhaps under "Political and legal challenges", but open to suggestions). Consider also that use of the term is almost always a passing mention within discussion of Trump's broader tariff policies (most of the links from Silver seren follow this pattern). See WP:MERGEREASON, particularly #3 (short text) and #5 (context). RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of its brevity, it can be covered in another article If you looked at all the other sources on this topic, you'd realize it cannot. Nobody is stopping you from adding to the article using these other sources. Consider also that use of the term is almost always a passing mention within discussion of Trump's broader tariff policies (most of the links from Silver seren follow this pattern) As mentioned elsewhere already, this is because those sources are before it took off. Prior to May 28, all use of the term was in relation to the stock market or the tariffs. After that, we are seeing much wider uses of the phrase and the acronym. WP:MERGEREASON is not a WP:PAG, it is purely informational and has no weight in this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disputing that there should be some coverage of the topic; I'm just saying that the coverage is better incorporated elsewhere. If you want a PAG link, see WP:PAGEDECIDE to rehash the same idea (but also note that the WP:ATTSIT guideline points to Wikipedia:Merging, where MERGEDECIDE is located, so it does bear weight). And sure, I could add the sources above to the article... but the fact that nobody has is a decent indication that those sources don't really add anything; they simply happen to use the phrase which is the subject of the article. (An analogy: Is every article that mentions the Apollo 11 moon landing suitable as a reference there? No. Similarly, is every article that mentions "TACO" suitable as a reference here? Also no.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pointed out WP:NoPage (the same section as WP:PageDecide) to you above already. You can treat mentions of WP:MergeReason as if editors are copy-pasting the entire-section as their own voice if you want.
    Last's lone voice in an opinion editorial, albeit representing a newspaper, cannot be treated as a significant view without more coverage in factual articles, not to mention it's still been just. What's the other GNG-qualifying pieces that apply TACO beyond tariff policy? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that you don't or can't read Financial Times doesn't mean it's the same case for others. 2607:FA49:8744:6400:7438:1875:5970:2311 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been tons of media coverage, and the nickname has already permeated meme culture. If Hawk Tuah can have an article, than surely TACO can. OWA187 (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources prior to May 28th

[edit]

Since there seems to be a repeated claim in the discussion above that the term is a recentism that has only existed since Trump's discussion of it on Wednesday, May 28th, despite there being a source clearly in the article already discussing how it was first used on May 2nd, I thought I'd compile some additional sources discussing or using the term from prior to the 28th.

Here's just some examples of the usage of the term prior. There's more out there, I'm sure. SilverserenC 01:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(stole those for the article talk page as I'm sure there's some of these we can use in the article itself) —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is most interesting, because it claims that Anthony Scaramucci was actually the origination of the fully worded term, which the Financial Times writer then turned into the acronym. SilverserenC 01:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]
I wish the source said that, or there was a source that credited Scaramucci for the phrase and Armstrong for the acronym.. right now it'd be WP:SYNTH I think to take the various sources like that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these just discuss the idea on Trump's tariff policy, some of which only use the term about twice without discussing it. I don't see why it's better to cover this on a contextless standalone page instead of a page that can describe the context much better as a main criticism of Trump's tariff policies that have significant impact. To truly cover TACO in depth, we must cover the tariff's impacts in depth as they are the basis for "TACO theory", and to do so in a standalone article would needlessly duplicate the work at the tariff article and lessen the quality of both articles. This shouldn't have a standalone article just as "anywhere but USA" shouldn't have a standalone article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these just discuss the idea on Trump's tariff policy The section header should help explain this to you. Of course now that it's gone viral, you can look to sources such as the one provided by @JamesMLane above, which says It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO. As you can see, it's no longer just about the trade war/tariffs, and so the context argument is less compelling as Tariffs in the second Trump administration#Walk_back currently provides a mention of it, while the article proper goes deeper into further reactions, uses and can be expanded easily moving forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And all of these articles, even the burst that fails Sustained, are about tariff policy. None of these sources discuss TACO applied to anything beyond tariffs. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what a date is on a calendar? —Locke Cole • t • c 02:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't understand how that relates to what I said nor the fervor displayed here. You've also been mentioning this argument above so I'll elaborate there. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an article discussing TACO beyond tariffs, there's "'TACO' Is the Secret to Trump’s Resilience". I subscribe to the Times but it might be paywalled, so I'll summarize. A conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, wrote:
Even if he dislikes the barnyard-fowl comparison, though, the acronym gets at something that’s crucial to Trump’s political resilience. The willingness to swerve and backpedal and contradict himself is a big part of what keeps the president viable, and the promise of chickening out is part of Trump’s implicit pitch to swing voters — reassuring them that anything extreme is also provisional, that he’s always testing limits (on policy, on power) but also generally willing to pull back.
. . . .
Trump has bobbed and wove away from his most extreme China tariffs, he has achieved some kind of separation from Elon Musk and he’s started complaining about the “crazy” Vladimir Putin while casting himself as the great would-be peacemaker of the Middle East. And lo and behold, his poll numbers have floated back up, not to genuine popularity but to a perfectly normal level for a president in a polarized country.
With a different president, you might say that this recovery happened in spite of the White House’s various backtracks and reversals (plus various rebukes from the judiciary). But with Trump it’s more apt to say that it’s happened because of these setbacks and recalibrations. Seeing Trump both check himself and be checked by others is what an important group of voters expect from his presidency. They like that Trump pressures institutions they distrust or dislike, from official Washington to elite universities, but their approval is contingent on a dynamic interaction, where he accepts counterpressure and retreats.
It's also relevant to notability to show that the meme is picked up and used in a way not entirely hostile to Trump. JamesMLane t c 17:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this continues into next week and starts getting covered in many non-commentary articles I'd certainly be willing to change my opinion. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But looking at a Google search among generally-reliable sources it's already slowing down quite badly. Yesterday there were two-and-a-half pages' worth of results after you filter out the results where Google picked up the sidebar of other headlines; today there's barely one page. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian Democratic Party

[edit]
Agrarian Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. Political party which seems to never have returned any candidates. C679 06:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Hasn't run for any office. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STOP removing political parties! Party ran for election in 2019 European Parliament election. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Vladyslav Yakubovskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thinking this over, I have got myself to agree with the (probable) sock who nominated this article for deletion previously. Many of the sources cited to not mention this person, or mention him only in passing. It is essentially a coatrack about corruption scandals of entities associated with Yakubovskyi.

And then there is this. It was mentioned in the previous AfD that this article is a translation of the Ukrainian version. So better TNT this problematic BLP and avoid another defamation-lawsuit scandal.

--Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

[edit]
Colcom Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has a history of promotion through environmental & civic projects. Significant portions of this article are just slightly re-worded from the Cordelia Scaife May page. Aside from the greenwashing and other projects that were listed prior to my removing of them, there is hardly enough for an article here. It was founded by May, funds anti-immigration causes, and received a large sum of money when May died. The only other piece of information here is that the foundation funded groups designated by hate groups by the SPLC, which could obviously be implied from their anti-immigration stance. This article is unnecessary & inherits at least a portion of it's notability from May, who was also the org's chairperson from its founding until her death in 2005. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

[edit]
1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: There is All-Palestine Government article, with the same flag. This article is poorly sourced, and does not have other language's articles. It is also written on a talk page. The article Palestinian Declaration of Independence leads to 15 November 1988 (by Yasser Arafat). Dgw|Talk 20:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Dgw|Talk 22:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Enlargement Goals for 2040

[edit]
European Union Enlargement Goals for 2040 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is AI-generated. It flags as 89% on undetectable.ai, and shows the characteristic patterns of bolding and lists of three bullet points. I was only able to access the first two of the four citations (citation 3 is paywalled, and citation 4 is broken), and while they do discuss countries joining the EU, neither mentions the year 2040. There's nothing here to salvage. — Moriwen (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasht Ashan massacre

[edit]
Pasht Ashan massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Only one source (Tareq Y. Ismael's The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of Iraq) appears reliable, which is insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. The other sources are either questionable or fail WP:RS. There is not enough in-depth coverage to justify a standalone article. R3YBOl (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ketuanan Semenanjung & Pengkaburan MA63

[edit]
Ketuanan Semenanjung & Pengkaburan MA63 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this book. Only the book itself and sale listings are cited, and nothing better found on search. — Moriwen (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy (mayor)

[edit]
Josh Levy (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. All of the sources used are either WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, routine coverage of local elections, or not actually about the subject at all and just include his name. This exact article was declined and rejected multiple times by me and others at WP:AFC and you can see extensive discussion about it here and here. I also wrote a source-by-source review as an AfC comment that I ask an admin to please copy here for reference. The page creator has a history of moving the draft out of process and resubmitting without any changes. Even now, they requested the rejected drafts deletion just to immediately recreate the page in the mainspace. I would be agreeable to redirect to Hollywood, Florida as an ATD. cyberdog958Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Republic of China

[edit]
Pro-Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a random assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together. Some of the people listed have very tenuous connections, e.g. Syngman Rhee, Alexander von Falkenhausen. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a reason to delete article. An article of the same name already exists in Chinese Wikipedia, and it is a political term that is also used in reality. In the case of Rhee or Falkenhausen, the link also exists in Chinese Wikipedia, but you can remove it if it's unnecessary; there's no reason why the whole article should be deleted. ProgramT (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a political term. It is a phrase, like Pro-Israel or Pro-Greenland. Also, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia. The fact that Rhee and Falkenhausen are linked there undermine that Wikipedia's credibility. "Republic of China"/"ROC" is mentioned exactly once in Rhee's article, in the caption identifying Chiang Kai-shek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A content dispute (regarding the examples of Rhee and von Falkenhausen) is not grounds for deletion. Having an "assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together" is also not grounds for deletion; list articles are a thing, as are similarly-named and scoped articles like Pro-Americanism and Russophilia. "Other thing exists" arguments aren't policy-based, but I don't see a proposal here based on deletion policy and cannot figure out what the deletion rationale could be. The nominator's disagreements seem to be limited to a content dispute concerning possible WP:OR, rather than a denial of this topic's notability or existence. Yue🌙 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nominator had argued for deletion based on WP:SYNTH, with supporting evidence/analysis, I may be sympathetic. But instead they questioned whether Falkenhausen, who served in the military of the ROC, can be called "pro-ROC", which makes this very hard to take seriously. As such, I essentially agree with the two others above that this should be closed as a procedural keep; it could even be argued that this falls under speedy keep criteria 1 or 3. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article seems to be a pervasive work of WP:SYNTH that is syncretizing the views of several distinct people based on a tenuous connection to a position on Taiwan. Significant concern regarding accuracy of any citations in this. An article on this topic (albeit one with perhaps a less clumsy name) could definitely exist but I think this one needs WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. A TNT may be appropriate here. There is a lot of unsourced and poorly-sourced content. But the article tries to discuss a notable topic (the distinction between "pro-Taiwan" and "pro-ROC") and I'm not sure if deletion is better than trying to clean it up. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clean-up would have to start with manually reviewing every citation to see if it actually supports what is claimed for it. It's not a small task. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Consulting Group

[edit]
Federal Consulting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There isn't much SIGCOV, just a few passing mentions in articles about DOGE and a bunch of primary sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. – robertsky (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

प्रधान मंत्री

[edit]
प्रधान मंत्री (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can ascertain, I'm guessing this translates to "Prime Minister". It certainly isn't plausible that it means "of Nepal" and "of India" with the exact same spelling, which would make this an invalid dab page. Also, are article titles in different alphabets even allowed? I suspect not, but MOS:FOREIGNTITLE and WP:TSC don't explicitly cover this. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (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.

DV Boer Controversy

[edit]
DV Boer Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shakily sourced controversy article; creating editor was blocked from editing Bagong Henerasyon (along with everyone else for now) for adding undue weight and poor Reddit-based blog sourcing about a minor controversy involving that organization, so they're taking their grievances to any other article related to BH they can find and creating what reads here as an unbalanced attack page (originally titled DV Boer Scam) against the organization using this company's issues to COATRACK about BH and related organizations, along with Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr.. Nathannah • 📮 23:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Crime, Politics, Companies, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it's worth (which isn't much), it would appear that DV Boer itself has no article — just this one about the controversy surrounding it. (Granted, it probably isn't impossible for an otherwise non-notable company to still have notable controversies; I offer no opinion as to whether that is the case here.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did take that in mind in nominating this; if there was a company article to redirect to I would not send this here, but straight off it's just an immediate attack with no context outside 'company bad', along with them trying to shove their view of BH anywhere they can. Nathannah • 📮 03:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot find any information about the company beyond its probably links to the Members Church of God International by MCGI Exiters group. While personally I could sympathize their cause, it remains a fringe movement which have not or will probably not be picked up by the mainstream media outlets which would have helped establish WP:SIGCOV. However, alas Wikipedia ultimately not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify -- this seems to me to be more appropriate than AfD (but now we should wait for concensus). The article starts with material on DVD Boer, but then wanders off topic to criticise politics involving Villamin & Nazal. Independent of any notability question, NPOV is definitely unclear. While there might be an article that should be written on the DV Boer topic, this is not what we should have on WP IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is about all the coverage I can find [13], vaguely related to this controversy. I'm not finding any type of coverage of the company or for whatever this controversy is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist as a pejorative

[edit]
Zionist as a pejorative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POV coatrack that lacks a clearly defined scope and makes a variety of elisions. The introductory sentence, "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel treats three different terms as if they were the same and fails WP:Verifiability. Some content, if properly disentangled and if supported by quality sources, could perhaps be merged into Anti-Zionism. إيان (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge - agree w/ coatrack, this would make much more section as a subsection in Zionism/Anti-zionism etc. Would still need a rewrite e.g. why is the lead giving weight to ADL's alleging it is being used as a slur when ADL is listed on WP's unreliable sources when being used in contexts of Israel-Palestine and antisemitism? "...general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Yours ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToeSchmoker saying that the ADL has a position on something is still in line with WP:NPOV, even if it can't be used as a source. I gave a longer explanation of the policy over at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would still be inclined to disagree given this part in the opening para of NPOV policy: "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis my own) I stand corrected in that it is not sourced in the lead (FWIW they are however explicitly cited in the Reception section) but given the results of this RfC (chiefly the part re ADL and antisemitism in the context of Zionism specifically) I would err heavily on the side of caution in giving them weight at all in this topic . Ignoring this, there are further issues with sourcing in general e.g. see the second para under History - the statistics (80% and 85% figures) are given in the cited articles but where is the rest of this paragraph coming from? I would hope maybe a couple citations have dropped off along the way but as it stands it does look like an egregious bit of synthesis. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the topic is introduced as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. What the ADL says is that this terminology is used as an antisemitic slur, or in other words a slur against Jews. "Supporters of Israel" ≠ "Jews" —This is one of the conflations/elisions central to this article's status as a POV coatrack lacking a defined scope and to why it should be deleted. إيان (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed on the article's talk page, primarily by @Longhornsg, prior to this AfD, related to attempts to improve the article being the appropriate remedy for any concerns rather than article deletion, especially in light of the prior move discussion. To the extent this AfD is an extension of that talk page conversation, direct notification on @Longhornsg's talk page would probably have been an appropriate courtesy. Coining (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Longhornsg was actually the one to suggest an AfD in that talk page discussion. After more than a week had elapsed since I asked them to provide a quality source supporting the scope of the article, of which they had assured me there were ample, I assumed they had lost interest.
If they do indeed have any of the ample reliable sources supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are still welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I initially created this article as Zio (pejorative). At some point it was changed to "Zionist as a pejorative" and seems to have taken a much broader scope than I initially intended. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD seems misplaced. The nominator is rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page. The question for AfD is whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, not whether the article has an purported POV issue, should be renamed, or how individual editors interpret the term. The concept easily meets WP:GNG. The article already includes solid coverage from academic and journalistic sources, many of which were cited during the (successful) move discussion in September 2024. AfD isn't the venue to revisit discussions that already have consensus. Let's stick to policy for notability, which this article easily meets. Longhornsg (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous of this user to characterize this as rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page when they themselves abandoned the discussion for over a week when asked to provide a single reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel.
As the first sentence of this AfD clearly states, this is not about whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, but rather that it is about a lack of a defined scope and the POV elisions thereby made. This article groups a variety of distinct terms ("Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio"), treating them as if they were the same, and discusses sources claiming they are used pejoratively for different groups ("supporters of Israel" and "Jews"). It's not an issue of notability—it's an issue of the POV, WP:OR grouping of individually attested claims as if they constituted the single topic of "Zionist as a pejorative." Additionally, which reliable source would claim that "Zionist" is a pejorative for "supporters of Israel"? Is Zionist a pejorative for Zionist?
If this user has any reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute, not an issue of notability. AfD is the wrong venue. Longhornsg (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be kidding. Longhornsg on 16 May 2025: If there's an issue with this as a topic, try your luck with WP:Afd.
There's clearly an issue with this article as a topic. That's what this AfD is explicitly about. Please stop Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT. Just admit that you don't have a single reliable source to support this as a topic with the scope defined as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. إيان (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Final note here so as not to dominate the discussion. The core issue here is whether the use of "Zionist" or its derivatives as a pejorative, acknowledging that the term "Zionist" varies significantly depending on perspective and is inherently contentious, meets the threshold of notability under WP:GNG. The answer is plainly yes: there is ample coverage in WP:RS documenting this phenomenon as a cultural and political trend.

Disagreements about how to define or frame it are content disputes, not challenges to notability. The nominator appears fixated on the article's opening sentence, which has no bearing on the subject’s notability. Language can and should be refined on the article or talk page, not used as a wedge to erase notable subjects.

It's worth reiterating that a formal RM process was held months ago, with full community participation, resulting in consensus for the current title and scope. This is not an obscure, fringe idea. It's been discussed, documented, and covered widely:

In short: this clearly meets the GNG, and continuing to relitigate settled points wastes time and energy better spent improving the article.

Longhornsg (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So which of these sources is supposed to support "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel as the scope of this article? Because none of them say that. Longhornsg's arguments continue to dodge the topic of the discussion. Nowhere in the AfD introduction is notability mentioned. This AfD discussion is about article's mercurial POV scope.
It is POV that the use of "Zionist" or its derivatives as a pejorative should be bundled together in a singular topic, particularly when those derivatives are as varied as 'Zionist,' 'Zionazi,' and 'Zio.' The claim that these three distinct terms somehow mean the same thing but the singular term "Zionist" varies significantly depending on perspective and is inherently contentious is also unconvincing to say the least. إيان (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !voters have not made it clear why this shouldn't be covered at Anti-zionism, the obvious parent topic. No one is arguing there aren't sources. The question is whether this ought to exist as a separate article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakt

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bhakt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, page was previously deleted as per afd consensus. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be covered by sources, especially ones published after the previous AfD. With that said, there is a lot of original research in this article. It should be made up of sources specifically about the term, not ones that just use it or don't mention it at all. I'd support stubifying it by removing anything that doesn't meet this basic standard. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

[edit]
Aksyon Dapat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is nothing much to write about the partylist besides "they ran". Whats up with the double dtandard at 1Munti Partylist's deletion nomination where you do note it didnt win any seats (but to be fair you did not vote gor or against its deletion) and EduAKsyon. Was it because this party is somehow connected to Aksyon Demokratiko (an assertation which seems to be made through an assumption of its founder, Bobbit Roco being a former president). Please at least make it clear why is this any different. I might have overlooked something Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think WP:NPOSSIBLE will save this article. A partylist especially a recently established one isn't usually covered by in real life publications either. So the typical sourcing would be news articles (supplemented by the partylist website if ever) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, this has one WP:RS covering it therefore passing WP:SIGCOV. The others didn't. 1Munti Partylist is a borderline case as it is related to the One Muntinlupa party and if it's the same organization one can argue that it if someone finds WP:RS that passes WP:SIGCOV then it has the same situation as this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies of India

[edit]
Second ladies of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A niche term at best, a made-up term at worse to promote an Indian counterpart to the American second lady. None of the existing citations mentions the term "second lady" and are only used to support claims that certain persons are wives of the Indian vice president. A search on Google does not yield any evidence of established endonymic usage of the term second lady of India (which is not merely a substitute for vice president wife). Searching "Uprashtrapati Bhawan hostess" also does not yield any quality sources. The role of Second Lady of India (as hostess of the Uparashtrapati Bhavan may not even exist even in unofficial capacity. Or if they do, they don't use the term). Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Commons:Category:Spouses of the Vice President by country has images for these spouses. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

[edit]
Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a lengthy list of candidates per constituency in last year's UK general election. It is all sourced to a single website. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it is not an encyclopaedia article and is better suited to Wikidata. We have all this information elsewhere (in the individual constituency articles) if someone wants to find out who stood in a particular constituency. What is the value of having it all in big Wikipedia tables repeated here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for the National Community

[edit]
Independents for the National Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was created by a since blocked user. It's existed for a while which is why I'm not nominating for speedy deletion, but the article is significantly different from its Spanish version. Although the party is likely notable, the rationale behind the user's block (right-wing trolling and sockpupetry) makes me think it's best to delete this and let it be recreated properly by someone who understands the topic, rather than try to fix it. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election

[edit]
Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an opinion poll that is not yet discussed in reliable sources (can't really think whether the two sources at the associated draft is reliable enough). It was prodded, but I objected the prod since I believed it was invalid despite the endorsement. Note that the most recent election wrapped up just three weeks ago so I felt that this article with almost no documentation in reliable sources is way too soon. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no references and is just a small table. Google News is a dead end full of WP:SIGCOV violations. This could be a case of WP:SOON or it could just fail WP:GNG. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was created despite there already being concensus that it should currently be in the draft-space. This article shouldn't exist -- it is too soon for it to be moved out of the draft space, and a draft with the same title already exists. The two sources used in the draft are absolutely reliable -- they are from Nanos polling, a large Canadian pollster, so it is clear that the original nominator for deletion in this article is unaware of Canadian politics. ArchMonth (talk) 17:44, May 19, 2025 (EST)
  • Delete there isnt even a single poll in the article, the current table only contains the 2025 election result. --hroest 16:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Articles for opinion polls are almost a given whenever there are opinion polls to be shown, and in this case there are already three opinion polls in the three weeks since the election (which I have just added to the article), and considering how Nanos (a reliable source) keeps releasing one poll per week this will only be set to grow. I cannot see how can this be WP:TOOSOON: when would be an appropiate time for showing these opinion polls to casual readers at the 46th Canadian federal election? Just merge the associated draft into this article. Impru20talk 08:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're up to four polls now, five when the Abacus poll reported by the Star will be added. There is no longer any valid reason for deleting this article. I endorse Impru20's suggestion of merging the draft (which is now a bit behind) into this. CASalt (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is likely to be updated in the future with more polls. There are currently three, although others in this discussion have suggested more are to come. ArchMonth I am aware of Canadian politics; otherwise, I would not have made a new article on the matter in the first place. However, when I created the article, I was not aware of the draft page, although I have no objection to Impru20's suggestion of merging the draft page into this page whatsoever. King4852 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This stub served its purpose and is now getting populated. I, for one, see value in a page that will be populated, even though it may currently be quite bare - in this case because there were no polls when it was created. That in itself is useful information. 199.167.116.95 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As previously noted by others, we're up to multiple polls, covered in reliable secondary sources, [14], we were running the 45th election opinion polling page (that eventually became the 2025 Page) with Less polls than this in 2021 [15]. WanukeX (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Keep. since some of the previous arguments for deleting the page no longer exist such as User:Hannes Röst said “there isnt even a single poll in the article, the current table only contains the 2025 election result.” There is now six polls from three polling companies. King4852 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

[edit]
Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar translations have been rejected in Draft space twice, see Draft:Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands - 2025). As I have pointed out, coverage is mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands). There is this article, but in total I don't think the topic meets the notability threshold and it is better to wait for more coverage and/or electoral success. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I respectfully disagree. As the Wikipedia guidelines state that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I'd argue that sources with independent coverage such as Trouw, DUIC [nl], Dagblad010 in combination with sources such as RTL Nieuws that have coverage mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands), add up to a topic that can be deemed as having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, as the page already has a Dutch and Chinese translation, it would seem strange to deny an English translation, which seems like there is a double standard.

In short, I think there is enough coverage to meet the notability threshold. Electoral success as a prerequisite for the page doesn't seem logical to me, considering other existing pages of Dutch political parties that have not yet had any electoral successes. The Trouw article also explicitly covers antiparliamentary sentiments within the party, which implies the party itself does not prioritize electoral successes at least in the same way that the deletion request suggests.

I'd be happy to hear if you could detail which of the requirements from the general notability guideline exactly is missing and therefore how the article fails to meet the threshold. PS. Sorry If I messed some formatting up. I'm new to the AfD process.

Noverraz99 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Noverraz99 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article doesn't look like it's in the best shape, but I am going over my head. Can someone from the Netherlands comment on the reliability of RSP and ROOD?
    • Comment Indeed the article link seems to be broken. Luckily, it is archived here. As a person from the Netherlands I'd consider there to be enough reliable coverage of RSP and ROOD to warrant their articles, though if people disagree I would be open to hear their reasoning. Noverraz99 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The only source that you provided above is mentioned in the nomination statement. It might also be the only valid sources available to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can totally grasp someone's frustration that there are so many political parties in the Netherlands. Yet we follow the P&G. This meets the GNG and NORG. It's a proper SPINOFF of its parent. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Proper spinoff? Whether or not WP:SPINOFF is guaranteed, it does not mean that the topic is immediately notable (notability is not inherited). And please provide sources that prove that the subject is notable enough. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is automatically notable. Why place such a reaction? Also, several others listed fine sources. No need to rehash that. As a justified SPINOFF, there is no case to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources brought up by Goldsztajn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the first two sources provided by Goldsztajn have significant coverage; in my opinion they suffer from the same problem of being focused on the SP and only being reported because of the SP. A splinter group doesn't inherit notability just because the more notable organisation it split from received coverage because of the split. The third source has focused coverage, but it's from a minor, local news site, and speaks mostly to the RSP's potential in the future. I'm not sure what makes the RSP notable at present aside from arguments that amount to inherited notability. Might be a WP:TOOSOON problem as well. Yue🌙 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dummycrats

[edit]
Dummycrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source in the article is a dubiously reliable blog and I was unable to find any actual coverage of the film. Fails WP:NFILM. मल्ल (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Nichols, Alex (2018-11-27). "Diamond and Silk run the most obvious con on the right: The Fox News duo stars in 'Dummycrats,' a new and terrible documentary". The Outline. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

      The article notes: "And so we get the documentary Dummycrats, which was released in theaters for one day on October 16 and is now available for rent ($9.99) or purchase ($19.99) on Vimeo. (Many of the comments on Vimeo are from senior citizens who thought they were getting a DVD and are bewildered by the concept of watching a movie on the computer, but hey — they already bought it.) ... There’s really no reason not to produce one of these amateurish documentaries if you have the ability to; the peculiarities of conservative audiences make it all but impossible to disappoint them. The film’s producer, director, and writer, Kyle Olson, runs the third-string fake news website The American Mirror and is even lazier than Dinesh D’Souza when it comes to filming original content. Given that this was Olson’s first time working on a movie, I would normally be inclined to cut him some slack, but he truly pushes the limits of directorial incompetence. Dummycrats, which is 77 minutes long, opens with an astounding 27 minutes of archival footage. This lengthy segment begins with past Diamond and Silk TV spots and Trump rally appearances and then segues into a clip show of every Democratic gaffe since 1990, set to wacky circus music. You can watch all these on YouTube in higher resolutions than the deep-fried versions used in Dummycrats, but that sort of thing only matters to audiences with an average age younger than 85."

    2. Penrice, Ronda Racha (2018-10-23). "From Diamond and Silk to Kanye West: Why Republican efforts to convert black voters are failing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

      The article notes: "How else to explain the new Diamond and Silk movie “Dummycrats,” which had its one-day theatrical release last week? Far from Oscar fodder, or even the MTV awards, the film is part of a broader, recent trend in which mostly white conservatives have sought out and elevated a series of black surrogates, hoping that these surrogates' often unintelligible, anti-liberal rantings will siphon black voters away from the Democratic Party. ... That support undoubtedly is also why Diamond and Silk now have their own movie, “Dummycrats.” The full-length film was theatrically released for one night only on October 15, but can now be screened on Vimeo. Waters and fellow Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi are the film’s biggest targets. While mostly unnoticed by the mainstream press, “Dummycrats” did get a few positive reviews in more conservative corners of the web. Writing for the conservative site Newsmax, Michael Clark claimed the film would “wake-up undecided voters.” Clark applauds the film’s lighter tone and lists what he sees as its best moments — moments that of course “expose” prominent Democrats."

    3. Levine, Jon (2018-09-28). "Diamond and Silk Release Trailer for 'Dummycrats' Movie: 'Two Unlikely Heroes' (Video)". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

      The article notes: "Diamond and Silk have released a teaser trailer for their new film “Dummycrats,” offering a few more clues as to what people can expect when it is released next month. ... The minute-long trailer is a mix of b-roll of Democratic politicians looking silly and the duo shouting at someone off camera. An earlier teaser released by the pair suggested that the film will take the form of a Michael Moore documentary. ... The latest trailer says the film will premiere on Oct. 15, a month later than an original September release date floated three months ago. The film was slated to debut in Palm Beach, Florida — home of Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Wolcott, James (2019-02-06). "James Wolcott on the Shelf Life of a Deplorable". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

        The article notes: "Some acts, like femme duo Diamond and Silk—whose 2018 documentary Dummycrats is clotted with YouTube clips of the two appearing at Trump events before launching into a prolonged, futile campaign to confront Maxine Waters on camera—seem to be perpetually auditioning for reality TV."

      2. Egan, Paul (2022-08-03). "Who is Tudor Dixon? 4 things to know about Michigan's GOP nominee for governor". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

        The article notes: "A company co-owned by Dixon was a producer of the 2018 film "Dummycrats." The "documentary" attack on former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and longtime California congresswoman Maxine Waters, also a Democrat, featured Black conservative political activist sisters "Diamond and Silk." The film was written and directed by Kyle Olson ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dummycrats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: As has been my practice, I won't big along with a keep unless the sources found are added to the article in context. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIY DonaldD23 talk to me 01:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per sources listed above by Cunard DonaldD23 talk to me 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:मल्ल
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No About self ✘ No
No Publication owned by producer of the film No The Outline describes it as a "third-string fake news website" No Short press release ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes Source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
Levine, Jon (2018-09-28). "Diamond and Silk Release Trailer for 'Dummycrats' Movie: 'Two Unlikely Heroes' (Video)". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
 Yes Yes ~ Limited scope ~ Partial
Penrice, Ronda Racha (2018-10-23). "From Diamond and Silk to Kanye West: Why Republican efforts to convert black voters are failing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
 Yes Yes ~ Limited scope ~ Partial
Wolcott, James (2019-02-06). "James Wolcott on the Shelf Life of a Deplorable". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
 Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
Egan, Paul (2022-08-03). "Who is Tudor Dixon? 4 things to know about Michigan's GOP nominee for governor". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
 Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
मल्ल (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

[edit]
Islamic Emirate of Rafah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The community has expressed opposition to the misleading use of the country infobox at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. This spirit of this argument against misleading presentation extends to the wider article in this case. The core of this article is an unattributed WP:CFORK of Jund Ansar Allah. Much of the content is taken from there, and its conversion to imitate a country article is misleading to readers as per the RfC. The article presents a one day standoff in a mosque as a country. Development of the shifted material has furthered this. For example, that the entity "Collapsed" is stated in the lead and reinforced by the body, but there was never an entity that existed to collapse. Categories such as Category:Former countries in Asia are entirely inappropriate. The sources in the article, which mostly come from the Jund Ansar Allah article, are about Jund Ansar Allah and the Battle of Rafah (2009). They do not support the claim there was actually an independent state for one day. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Hi CMD. I've edited this article before, and IIRC, there were sources or other information on this article that I read that verified that JAA did declare a separate emirate, but obviously they're not on the page anymore if they were. I need to do some more research to come to a definitive conclusion, but I think given that the Battle of Rafah and the Emirate cannot really be contextually divorced from one another, it makes sense to merge and redirect this article into the battle of Rafah article. This is just speculating, but I think all three could possibly be merged into the JAA article. I need to do more research overall though. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are clear the JAA "declared" a separate emirate; that's a different claim than supposing that this declaration actually created an emirate. I have done a bit of looking into whether the Battle of Rafah (2009) could be merged, and it probably could, but it does not have the same contextual issues as this article. CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: would your argument also apply to the Democratic Republic of Yemen article, which is about only a declared entity that wasn't really established? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible similar arguments might figure out into exactly how to present the information, but it seems to be very dissimilar situation to the article at hand. CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Castroonthemoon:, reading your comment, would you accept merging Islamic Emirate of Rafah into Jund Ansar Allah at a minimum? Longhornsg (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think that would benefit the subject of both articles Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean JAA JaxsonR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jund Ansar Allah per @Longhornsg's reasoning Evaporation123 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge target articles suggested and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep it. JaxsonR (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JaxsonR You can't vote twice. Longhornsg (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears Longhornsg, Castroonthemoon, JaxsonR (first vote), and Evaporation123 are in favor of merging to Jund Ansar Allah. Cydopan wants to merge to Battle of Rafah (2009). @Chipmunkdavis:, as nom, do you have a preferred merge target? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we still have two different Merge target articles with about the same level of support. If this continues, it's likely this AFD will close as No consensus. What does the nominator think?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give the core was removed from Jund Ansar Allah, reverting that removal would seem the simplest way to do most of any needed work. CMD (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

[edit]
Joseph K. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find SIGCOV about time as Republican Party chair, and NPOL does not seem to extend to appointed cabinet officials. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part of this AfD has been complicated by issues in the article. The department was listed as transportation vs transformation. They also describe him as a judge, which while technically his title, does not correspond to the typical usage of the word most people associate with judicial and the potential for being a superstar lawyer whose legal work can pass GNG. The facts: He was the county executive of the third-largest county in Arkansas (Washington County) for four years, a candidate for statewide office, a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, and is the current chairman of a major statewide political party (the Arkansas Republican Party). None of these by themselves are presumed to meet WP:NPOL. I understand there are disagreements about cabinet members and as a result I do think there is a need to clarify WP:NPOL at some point, but I think that is a discussion best had elsewhere. What I have not seen in this the keep votes is a discussion of existing sourcing to see if he is a figure who is notable for meeting general notability guidelines.
The only non-local news coverage of his time as Washington County Judge were routine mentions of his run for Lieutenant Governor in the context of other statewide office holders surrendering the primary to now Governor Huckabee Sanders. His cabinet position was at the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. It's basically the IT department of the state with other responsibilities for state property. It is not a particularly large department and I don't think any work done there would meet any test of historic significance that would warrant its subject receiving a stand alone article. I did not come across anything other than newswires (not independent of subject) in my NewsBank or Google searches. On party chair, there is coverage of a lawsuit that involves him as a party chair, but I do not think (from Google) the partial mentions of him in his chairman role responding about a lawsuit against the organization qualify as significant coverage. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a Newspapers.com search for his name in Arkansas since 1982. The only significant coverage I found was [16], a fairly in-depth profile of him when he ran for lieutenant governor. The remaining articles are mostly passing mentions listing him as a presidential elector and a candidate for lt. gov. I only found sources calling him "Joseph Wood", not "Joseph K. Wood", so if this article is kept it should probably be moved.
His role in a lawsuit seems to have gotten independent sigcov as well [17][18], as has his dramatic temporary replacement in a state GOP conference [19][20].
A web search also turned up [21], which is likely based entirely on an interview so not independent; there's plenty more like this out there. There's also a lot of routine election coverage, e.g. all these [22].
He is also on a state Black History Commission [23] and was incidentally involved in a scandal over a twenty-thousand-dollar lectern [24].
I think this is the kind of coverage we expect for subjects typically accepted under NPOL and may even meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 10:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These probably aren't the strongest sources on earth, but I'll ping @GPL93@Yoblyblob@Mpen320 just in case they might sway some minds. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens

[edit]
Democratic Party of Greens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This party had representation in the Czech Parliament, albeit briefly. Of course it's notable, and there are a number of secondary sources on the Czech article. It just needs expansion/translation. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you see this as a snow keep considering the number of references is no indication of notability, plus the fact that this party has never returned any candidates at an election? C679 07:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who said that someone is considering indication of notability? We keeping all parties. This is not living persons. How do you for example see this article Ondřej Štursa as notable with two links? ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political parties are subject to WP:ORG. There is no Wikipedia policy to have a page on every political party. C679 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "every political party", but it had representation in the Czech parliament. And the Czech article about the same topic has plenty of sources which can be used to expand this one. Jdcooper (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, two members of parliament sat for this party while having a mandate and there seem to be an okay amount of sources. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Windsor Residents Association

[edit]
West Windsor Residents Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This neighborhood association and quasi-political group with two affiliated members on a local English borough council does not pass WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Most of the sources here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and the secondary sources that exist (here or in a WP:BEFORE search) are merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the organization, not WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention that there also exists an article for the Old Windsor Residents Association. It is a very similar organisation to WWRA: they are both residents associations with two members on the same council, and have received a similar amount of coverage in local media. So, it would make sense to either keep both or delete both, as they have effectively the same level of notability. Infinite Hydra (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL, or in the alternative, redirect to an appropriate target. I'm all for neighborhood associations - I was secretary of mine in Albany, New York, for several years. But there's no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep mainly because I suspect that the reasons given for deletion so far are probably based on transatlantic misunderstanding? I don't think a UK RA (political party) is quite the same thing as a North American neighbourhood association? Certainly this one is little different to the rest of Category:Locally based political parties in England – most of those also need some work, but I don't think the news coverage of their borough council contributions fits the trivial mentions criteria. Joe D (t) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it should be treated as a political party, what sources can you show that offer WP:SIGCOV? I haven't found any, and anything that is said to pass WP:GNG requires that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hunt (editor)

[edit]
Richard Hunt (editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has existed in a pretty dire state since its creation in 2006. Over the past two decades, a dearth of significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources has been noted. It seems that the subject's alleged notability was inherited from their affiliation with the Green Anarchist publication and their later affiliation with Troy Southgate's national-anarchism.

None of the sources currently cited in this article give the subject substantial coverage independent of these two areas. There appears to be no information that could construct anything resembling a biography about this person. As this article appears to fall short of our notability guidelines on people, I'm recommending this article for deletion; a possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to the Green Anarchist article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As I took on de-stubifying this article at Project Anarchism, I had lots of tabs open. I've now gone through these and added as much material to the page as I can find. Some of it is from solid reliable sources; some (including more biographical material) is from weaker primary sources. My feeling now is there is enough here to keep the article. However, an alternative that I would also support would be to Rename as Green Alternative (magazine) or Green Alternative (UK) and rewrite it so the focus is on the publication/group not the individual. I would also be happy to merge the content into the (currently badly sourced) Green Anarchist article (but that might give Hunt too much space there). I still have a bunch of tabs open with the aim of improving that article. Pinging previous contributors Grnrchst and Czar in case my edits change their mind, and also John Eden who has done the most solid editing on the GA article and Jdcooper who I believe created this stub. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the expansion! There are a few different threads here but my thoughts are: (1) The Hunt article still is too dependent on primary sources for basic details—i.e., there isn't enough coverage of Hunt himself in reliable, secondary sources to avoid having to revert to reliable sources—so I think the best bet is to redirect (but to where?) (2) Is there enough content on Alternative Green for a dedicated article? In the linked sources that I've read, AG is just part of the Southgate story and the actual scope of those articles is Southgate's movement in the UK which, in lieu of a separate article, is essentially the scope of National-anarchism. Would it suffice to cover GA in its own article (as it is) and AG in the National-anarchism article, where Hunt is already mentioned? (3) As for where to redirect Hunt, I'd sooner redirect to GA because I read the sources as associating him better with that then AG but if he is equally associated with both, we might want to delete the Hunt link as having no clear redirect target. I think that is a better outcome than redirecting to National-anarchism, where Hunt is mentioned but is not clearly affiliated. czar 01:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still recommend redirecting to GA at this point but courtesy ping @Bobfrombrockley @Grnrchst czar 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Keeping this article isn't a hill I'd die on. Unless someone publishes some new research, it's unlikely to get stronger than it is. I personally think there's enough in it now to just keep it as it is, but if other editors don't then fair enough. (2) If we do delete it, I think there is some case for creating an article for AG, because it existed for about a decade and gave rise to significant controversy within the anarchist scene. But it won't be substantially stronger than this article, just avoid some of the BLP related concerns. If not, I don't think national anarchism is a good redirect point. Hunt is mentioned only briefly in the national anarchism article, and currently AG isn't mentioned at all. We could expand that, but it would remain marginal to the story, so that would not be a good place to redirect AG. (Hunt and AG should be expanded in Southgate's article too. If we delete this article, should make sure to copy relevant text to those articles first.) If the consensus is for deleting this article and not creating an AG article, then my strong view is that both Hunt and AG should redirect to the GA article and we work on making that robust. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jonesboro mayoral election

[edit]
2016 Jonesboro mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayoral elections do not have presumed notability, unable to find non-local sources on Jonesboro mayoral election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Jonesboro mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I argue this article should not be deleted as it makes available this information, serving local people from Jonesboro, Arkansas. Having a working link to this page is also helpful for related pages, and prior to its creation was a redlink in Template:Elections in Arkansas sidebar. This page is beneficial to Wikipedia and its users. User01938 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is just too much detail which could have been fit into a table or something in the section on the city government. The sprawl of material that should be summarized has become a major failing of WP and does a disservice to readers who are looking for the kind of material an actual encyclopedia would have provided instead of the Global Archive of Everything. Mangoe (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alinur Velidedeoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're coming up on a month of this discussion being open, but could still use some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

[edit]



Politicians

[edit]

Madan Singh (ruler)

[edit]
Madan Singh (ruler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, not enough coverage, fails GNG. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently expanding the article in question using multiple reliable sources to address concerns regarding notability. Please refrain from deleting it until these improvements are complete. Furthermore, the references I am adding are from reliable sources. Kindly do not remove them while I continue to improve the article. WikiWhizKid1999 (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Gainza

[edit]
Carolina Gainza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC: low h-index, few or no significant reviews of her work, and no major awards or recognitions. Also doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a ministerial undersecretary lacking significant independent coverage Mooonswimmer 13:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the h factor is low, she is an important scholar in the electronic literature field. Please retain for electronic literature LoveElectronicLiterature (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Baylon

[edit]
Danilo Baylon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local mayor does not pass WP:NPOL and a search for his name does not yield significant coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State funeral of Boris Trajkovski

[edit]
State funeral of Boris Trajkovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I think all relevant information is now at the main biographical article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Speer

[edit]
Michael Speer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet general notability or politicians' notability criteria. Twice unsuccessful in long-ago municipal elections. Brammarb (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked for further info as an alternative to starting this discussion: couldn't find anything. Brammarb (talk) 09:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Esquivel

[edit]
Juan Carlos Esquivel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a series of promotional spam articles written by a WP:SPA using blatantly phony sources. CSD declined without providing rationale. Only coverage available is routine coverage from his venture into local politics (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No help from the sources cited in the article. A Google search found only one possible independent source with some coverage, an interview with the subject in relation to his candidacy for a local office, which the subject did not win. I see nothing that would establish the notability of the subject under any guideline. - Donald Albury 13:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Sources are routine news or passing mentions. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harris (Silton)

[edit]
Henry Harris (Silton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable English soldier and farmer. This is a well presented page and would have taken some time to create, however it would not seem to come close to meeting WP:ANYBIO. Lacks any evidence of notability or WP:RSs and given the historical nature of the subject, would seem incapable of meeting WP:N. Cabrils (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barb Rankin

[edit]
Barb Rankin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Barb Rankin served briefly as an ACTING department head. WP:NPOL presumes in favor of statewide officials, but there is some amgibuity. I interpret this as elected officials. Others include governor's cabinet members. I have never seen it invoked for interim holders or, her current position, a senior manager in a statewide office. This means that the subject needs to notable. I do not believe after a NewsBank search, a ProQuest search, and a JSTOR search, that the subject can pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. The only result from her name on anything related to the Transportation Research Board was a note she attended a workshop. WP:RS coverage has not reached a WP:SUSTAINED level to justify an individual article for the subject. Note: There is an open AfD for Joseph K. Wood who was a cabinet secretary in Arkansas. The main difference is he was a confirmed political appointee (not acting) and not exclusively a cabinet appointee (i.e. he was a state party chair too). Mpen320 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Haire

[edit]
Tom Haire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local official fails to qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. While the article gives a long list of citations, none of them are more than a bare mention of his name; as far as I can tell, there's no in-depth coverage at all. — Moriwen (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Parkes (politician)

[edit]
John Parkes (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage found for this local politician. Common name makes searching a little tricky, but no more than passing mentions found for '"John Parkes" Belfast' on Google Books, Scholar, News, etc. — Moriwen (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy (mayor)

[edit]
Josh Levy (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. All of the sources used are either WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, routine coverage of local elections, or not actually about the subject at all and just include his name. This exact article was declined and rejected multiple times by me and others at WP:AFC and you can see extensive discussion about it here and here. I also wrote a source-by-source review as an AfC comment that I ask an admin to please copy here for reference. The page creator has a history of moving the draft out of process and resubmitting without any changes. Even now, they requested the rejected drafts deletion just to immediately recreate the page in the mainspace. I would be agreeable to redirect to Hollywood, Florida as an ATD. cyberdog958Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Bachaalany

[edit]
Georges Bachaalany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites no sources, and I was not able to find any on search. It's entirely possible they exist in Lebanese (though I note there's no article on any other language of wiki), but it doesn't seem appropriate for mainspace in its current state. It's already been draftified once and so isn't eligible. — Moriwen (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback which I appreciate and also I appreciate your guidance to tune this article.
Georges Bachaalany died in the 40s and all of his work is in Arabic and old printed copies and this is the reason why we don''t have online reference.
This year we decided to group his works and make into digital format and to make an association to publish his work.
Please help me to tune the article in the intention to keep it and to make several additions when we publish his work in digital format in the near future.
Thanks,
Elias Ebachaalany (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gainer

[edit]
Michael Gainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local activist in Buffalo, New York. The creator of the page appears to be Michael Gainer or someone close to him, judging by the fact that all of their edits are on Gainer's page or related pages and that they uploaded this photo of him and tagged it as their own work. I don't see the argument for notability here. He doesn't seem to have gotten any in-depth news coverage of him as a person, even within Buffalo. There does seem to be a lot of coverage of the group he founded, Buffalo ReUse, so maybe that group could have a page, but not Gainer himself. Many of the articles about ReUse don't even mention Gainer. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not affiliated with Gainer other than creating the article. Photograph is from my archive. I took care to make sure the article is well-sourced, so I'm not sure why you would question his notability. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, please be aware that Democratic supporters tried to get the page for India Walton deleted as non-notable multiple times during the leadup to the 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, as she was the only progressive in the race. I feel Democratic supporters for Gainer's opponents might be trying to do the same here, as he is a viable candidate for the 2025 Buffalo mayoral election. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is this why you accused me of having a conflict of interest with zero evidence? LOL. Not everything is a big conspiracy, sometimes a person just isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Do you have any evidence that "Democratic supporters" were trying to remove India Walton's page or is that just another conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not engaging in good-faith, so I won't address you further. You can read the AFD logs for yourself. I've been here a lot longer than you, and unlike yourself I edit a broad range of topics.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are seriously accusing BottleOfChocolateMilk of bad faith after you more or less accused them of being part of a conspiracy to? If you have no proof then that's like ANI-worthy levels of bad faith. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This comment comes from someone who is clearly referring to a separate matter where BottleOfChocolateMilk is being investigated for conflict of interest editing. He posted a link to this AFD page last night to initiate vote brigading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither DNC representative nor mayoral candidate passes WP:NPOL. Heavily refbombed making it difficult to determine whether any sources are sufficiently independent and in-depth to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the version I examined appear to be from non-independent publishers (1, 4, 8), non-in-depth campaign-related (2-3, 10, 36-44, 46-47), reliable news stories about other topics that mention Gainer but have no depth of coverage about him (5-7, 14, 31-33, 48-50, 52), interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher; 9, 15), not reliable (35, 45) or background material not about Gainer at all (16,51). Many of the sources are more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer (11-13, 17-30, 34) and might support notability for Buffalo ReUse, in which case we could redirect to an article on it rather than outright deletion, but I don't think those sources have enough depth of coverage on Gainer himself to support an independent article. If the article creator is trying to promote mayoral candidates with a certain agenda, they should not be surprised when their articles are brought up for deletion, not because we are biased towards or against that agenda, but because Wikipedia has safeguards against promotionalism in general and NPOL is one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Environmental historian Charles Lockwood identified and interviewed the top 25 global environmentalists for his 2009 book The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability[1]. He dedicated a chapter to interviewing Michael Gainer, and these are the other subjects he interviewed: Thomas L. Friedman, Ché Wall, William D. Browning, Christopher B. Leinberger, James Howard Kunstler, William McDonough, Björn Stigson, Jaime Lerner, Hank Dittmar, Elizabeth Economy, Rick Fedrizzi, Paul Hawken, Vivian Loftness, David Gottfried, Julian Darley, Robert S. Davis, Maria Atkinson, Ron Sims, Frances Beinecke, Mindy Lubber, Van Jones, Earl Blumenauer, and Cesar Ulises Trevino. Darley and Lubber pass WP:GNG, but Gainer does not? TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was one of the sources I already considered, and classified as "more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer". But per your comments here we can also classify it under "interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher)". Either way it does not contribute towards the sort of significant independent coverage of Gainer himself needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To piggyback off David Eppstein's reply there's the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy answer, but the assertion made Gainer is one of the "top 25 environmentalists" would imply that Charles Lockwood was somehow a supreme authority overall via a book that fails N:BOOK. That's even more troubling when you take into account that 80% of the "top environmentalists of the world" are from the US and only 2 (Stigson and Trevino) of the 25 appear to have been operating from non-English speaking countries. I would also love to know how many of Lockwood's "top 25" were clients of his consulting business but a simple search hasn't been able to unearth anything. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lockwood, Charles (2009). "The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability". Internet Archive. pp. 171–178. ISBN 9780874201215. Retrieved May 23, 2025.
this is just sad BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheNewMinistry I had no knowledge of the WP:COIN case against BottleOfChocolateMilk at the time of my comment and vote. Can you show me the specific proof? I actually found this AfD through a check of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania. This is another personal attack BTW. Of course, if you think this is a true case of brigading you are obviously more than welcome to report me to ANI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Proof? Sure, we have lots of that here:
GPL93 - Top Edits
You haven't made an edit off the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania page since September 17, 2024. Nice try. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheNewMinistry Holy Shit you're right! It's almost like I instead commented and voted on the previously listed actual AfD pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md Amiruzzaman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Young Democrats in the past month or so alone and it's not because I haven't started an AfD that needed to be categorized under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania since then instead. It looks like the Admins have told you that ANI is where you need to file against BottleOfChocolateMilk at WP:ANI anyway, you can report me as well if you feel the need to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Indian state Ministers for Tourism

[edit]
List of current Indian state Ministers for Tourism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, there are dozens of ministers of several portfolios in the states of India. All these lists of ministers can't be maintained on Wikipedia. Only the Chief Ministers/Deputy Chief Ministers are notable enough for as such list. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 05:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kethamreddy Vinod Reddy

[edit]
Kethamreddy Vinod Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG — has not held public office and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Duerr

[edit]
Paul Duerr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (minor behind-the-scenes positions) and WP:AUTHOR (no reviews that I can find). A "lifelong member of the Democratic Party" ... who's all of 20 years old. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Charles

[edit]
Donna Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual running for public office. Of the ten sources used. She is mentioned in only one that is not her political campaign website. Article does not meet WP:GNG criteria. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement Sutapurachina (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is verifiably false. At least three of the citations mention her by name. This deletion would not meet the criteria as she is a public figure. Doc0976 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There does not appear to be any independent coverage of her outside of passing references. MrTaxes (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely irrelevant person and this whole bio is written with such blatant bias with undue weight. Moreover, it heavily relies on primary sources. AsaQuathern (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale of the nominator and others. Fails all the relevant notability bars: WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTNEWS #2 & #3. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (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.

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

[edit]
Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a lengthy list of candidates per constituency in last year's UK general election. It is all sourced to a single website. It violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY: it is not an encyclopaedia article and is better suited to Wikidata. We have all this information elsewhere (in the individual constituency articles) if someone wants to find out who stood in a particular constituency. What is the value of having it all in big Wikipedia tables repeated here? Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Martin

[edit]
Isaiah Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. The article says he is a candidate in a special election and a political advisor. Candidates are not inherently notable or inherently generic. I see nothing about his 2025 candidacy or his 2024 almost candidacies that would meet any sort of ten year test of significance. Senior advisor is a vague title and one that almost certainly does not apply to Martin. He does not show up on Legistorm, or in any FEC disbursements, and Houston Landing describes him as a former intern in October 2023.

The only other area I want to preemptively address is the sources in the article mention that he has a presence on TikTok. WP:ENTERTAINER lays out that either 1) the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2) the person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The first one is not relevant. The second one I do not feel he meets. Numerous people confront and/or make fun of MAGA. There is nothing about the content or having 275,000 followers with 20,000 views per week (per a citation in the article) that meets #2. Yes, there was a keep vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Abughazaleh, but that sourcing was beyond the mere existence of her social media following (which is larger than Martin's) and her candidacy.

This page should be deleted due to some combination of WP:TOOSOON, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOPAGE, and not meeting WP:GNG. I am agnostic as to a redirect to 2025 Texas's 18th congressional district special election. Also, as I am going to end all of these now that election season is afoot, never forget everyone, an article about you or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing. Mpen320 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands, there is a pretty clear consensus against notability. Relisting to give Sumana Harihareswara a chance to take a look into the sourcing as per their vote. But if there is not notability, sending to draft is just delaying the inevitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 09:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donn Favis

[edit]
Donn Favis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to pass WP:NPOL as an unelected member to a national body, and city council position is not inherently notable. Coverage all focuses on either failed congressional campaign or general coverage of the Marikina City Council. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify and redirect to Marikina#Local government: Still a major figure in local politics; gaining notability in the foreseeable future is not out of the equation. On a related note, if that is the threshold, then Xyza Diazen should also be rediscussed.
TofuMuncher (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TofuMuncher if you want to take action on that page you can. Politicians have notability requirements, where if they hold a certain position they can be considered automatically notable, but they can still be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of general secretaries of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

[edit]
List of general secretaries of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I propose it to be deleted and merged with All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Searches have turned up sufficient in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support that the General Secretary of the AIADMK meets the WP:GNG notability guideline. Reliable sources are cited to verify this. Since 1977, individuals holding this position have played significant roles in both Indian national and state-level politics. They have influenced key political alliances — supporting the Janata Party government in 1979, the Congress government under Narasimha Rao in 1991, and the BJP-led government in 1998. AIADMK, under its General Secretary, has allied with national parties multiple times, impacting national outcomes. Notably, from 2014 to 2016, the General Secretary led AIADMK as the third largest party in Parliament with over 50 MPs across both houses. Kalpana SundarTalk 07:06, May 23, 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

[edit]
Angeline Kavindu Musili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally along the lines of WP:Articles for deletion/Margaret M. Otteskov - consensus appears to be that ambassadors are not inherently notable. As for WP:GNG - Most of the sourcing is either non-independent or just mentions subject (i.e. does not cover her in any depth). There are 3 sources that don't appear to mention her at all. I have decent access to Scandinavian papers and speak Swedish so I also looked for any possible WP:SIGCOV there and was not able to find anything besides one mention. The Kenyan award she received, Burning Spear, does not appear to be exceptionally prestigious (she received the third class variety of the second tier order overall, alongside almost 200 ppl) so I'm doubtful if it could confer inherent notability on its own. Zzz plant (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I am moved by the veteran editors arguments here. The nominator should put the geographic context of this woman's achievements in context. It is a considerable accomplishment. Removing this article would continue towards greater unconscious bias on the encyclopedia. Nayyn (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with both above. In geographic context this is a notable achievement. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - WP:GNG refers to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how that applies here, based on the references in article:
    [2] and [10] do not mention her at all
    [1], [4], [5], [6], and [9] are from her current or former workplaces (embassy website or the associated government)
    [7] subject’s name is included in a very long list
    [8] subject is mentioned (once in text, once in photo caption) as having been one of multiple speakers on a panel
    [3] provides two sentences in total about her and her goals
    Even if we accept that 2 sentences is sigcov, we would still be missing another source. Zzz plant (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

[edit]
Anthony Slaughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails NPOL and sources are insufficient to satisfy the requirements for GNG (independent, reliable, and substantial coverage). Some are interviews (not even with the subject), while others are election results from unsuccessful candidacy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the discussion, my argument for keeping the article as is, is as follows:
In the NPOL guidelines under the subheading Politicians and judges, it includes politicians who are quote "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Further in this point's explanatory note (8) it states "...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Slaughter as a local Welsh politician has indeed gained independent news feature stories about him. Here are links to several of them:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50368944
https://nation.cymru/news/anthony-slaughter-re-elected-as-leader-of-wales-green-party/
https://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/10945089.penarths-anthony-slaughter-elected-deputy-leader-of-welsh-green-party/
Further here are two articles BBC News articles whereby he is mentioned in passing because he is the leader of the Wales Green Party (non-feature articles):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56644323
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2520dndy6o
Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't much to add except that I agree with @Flarehayr's assessment of the availability of sources on Slaughter. As he is the leader of a sizeable political party in Wales, his position naturally warrants coverage, some of which has been listed out above. I would also argue for keeping the article. Cofion, Fwltur Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comment above, I have only just noticed the request that new comments be added under this notice. Apologies for missing this, it is my first time participating in a AfD discussion. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

[edit]
Joseph K. Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find SIGCOV about time as Republican Party chair, and NPOL does not seem to extend to appointed cabinet officials. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Part of this AfD has been complicated by issues in the article. The department was listed as transportation vs transformation. They also describe him as a judge, which while technically his title, does not correspond to the typical usage of the word most people associate with judicial and the potential for being a superstar lawyer whose legal work can pass GNG. The facts: He was the county executive of the third-largest county in Arkansas (Washington County) for four years, a candidate for statewide office, a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, and is the current chairman of a major statewide political party (the Arkansas Republican Party). None of these by themselves are presumed to meet WP:NPOL. I understand there are disagreements about cabinet members and as a result I do think there is a need to clarify WP:NPOL at some point, but I think that is a discussion best had elsewhere. What I have not seen in this the keep votes is a discussion of existing sourcing to see if he is a figure who is notable for meeting general notability guidelines.
The only non-local news coverage of his time as Washington County Judge were routine mentions of his run for Lieutenant Governor in the context of other statewide office holders surrendering the primary to now Governor Huckabee Sanders. His cabinet position was at the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. It's basically the IT department of the state with other responsibilities for state property. It is not a particularly large department and I don't think any work done there would meet any test of historic significance that would warrant its subject receiving a stand alone article. I did not come across anything other than newswires (not independent of subject) in my NewsBank or Google searches. On party chair, there is coverage of a lawsuit that involves him as a party chair, but I do not think (from Google) the partial mentions of him in his chairman role responding about a lawsuit against the organization qualify as significant coverage. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a Newspapers.com search for his name in Arkansas since 1982. The only significant coverage I found was [29], a fairly in-depth profile of him when he ran for lieutenant governor. The remaining articles are mostly passing mentions listing him as a presidential elector and a candidate for lt. gov. I only found sources calling him "Joseph Wood", not "Joseph K. Wood", so if this article is kept it should probably be moved.
His role in a lawsuit seems to have gotten independent sigcov as well [30][31], as has his dramatic temporary replacement in a state GOP conference [32][33].
A web search also turned up [34], which is likely based entirely on an interview so not independent; there's plenty more like this out there. There's also a lot of routine election coverage, e.g. all these [35].
He is also on a state Black History Commission [36] and was incidentally involved in a scandal over a twenty-thousand-dollar lectern [37].
I think this is the kind of coverage we expect for subjects typically accepted under NPOL and may even meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 10:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These probably aren't the strongest sources on earth, but I'll ping @GPL93@Yoblyblob@Mpen320 just in case they might sway some minds. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Teresa Harding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([44], [45]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]), primary source election results ([54], [55], [56]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([57], [58], [59]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.
    Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.
    She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.
    These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.
    Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.
    To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.
    Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.
    The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.
    Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.
    What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.
    If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.
The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.
Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.
Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftification helps nobody if the article topic is not notable. Some clearer source analysis might help reach a consensus on this one way or another -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – With respect, the claim that Teresa Harding is not notable remains an opinion — not a settled fact — and one that is not universally held in this discussion. She holds a significant office in Queensland’s 6th largest LGA and has received national coverage for substantive reform efforts, including Australia’s first Transparency and Integrity Hub.
It’s also worth noting that many other mayors from Queensland’s largest LGAs already have standalone articles:
Adrian Schrinner – Brisbane (1st)
Tom Tate – Gold Coast (2nd)
Peter Flannery (politician) – Moreton Bay (3rd)
Darren Power – former Mayor of Logan (4th)
Rosanna Natoli – Sunshine Coast (5th)
Teresa Harding – Ipswich (6th, under discussion)
Troy Thompson (politician) – Townsville (7th)
Geoff McDonald (mayor) – Toowoomba (8th)
Bob Manning (mayor) – Cairns (9th)
Many of these articles have remained in mainspace for years — including Peter Flannery’s, which has existed since 2020 — despite being far shorter, less sourced, and in some cases offering little more than routine electoral information. If those are considered acceptable, it sets a clear precedent for Harding’s article to be improved, not removed.
If there are concerns around tone, depth, or sourcing, draftification via AfC is a constructive middle ground. It allows those willing to improve the article the opportunity to do so, while ensuring it meets appropriate standards before returning to mainspace. Deletion or redirection is unnecessary and inconsistent in context. Remarka6le (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hence the relisting comment of 'if'. The point being that the place to establish consensus on notability is at AfD, not through a backdoor draftification, in my opinion. If the topic is notable, sending to draft should not be necessary, since AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If it is not, there is no point in sending to draft. Of course, a consensus could still emerge to send to draft, but I'd like to see some further discusson wrt to notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't matter if other articles exist or not. Some may need to be deleted, some may be notable for other reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason for Draftification is to give a newish editor some time to understand WP:GNG requirements, clear out sources that aren't needed in the article, and clean up the article. Ideally they would do that via AFC, but since we are here now at AfD, but 1-2 weeks might not be enough time, hence recommending taking back to Draft. The most ideal is for editors !voting keep is to list the three best sources for notability. If these sources are deemed routine, it's unlikely there is enough for GNG/BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed -- as nominator, I would be happy to have the redirect restored, but I am almost always willing to give a good-faith editor time to polish up an article that may not be ready for mainspace in its current form. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and restore redirect Seems to be the best course of action given the quality issues of the article. Remarka6le seems to be willing to improve it, and subject does appear to have received more news coverage since the last AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to work on it under the guidance of, or in collaboration with, an experienced editor to ensure it's brought to a standard everyone is comfortable with. Remarka6le (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Loads of sources, so many knit-picking go on, do people forget we have WP:BASIC, this more than qualifies. I've seen far worse articles kept than this. multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article clearly satisfies WP:BASIC, with multiple independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources in national outlets like *The Australian* and *ABC News*. The notion that references to the council’s dismissal must specifically mention Harding's name in every article is a misapplication of WP:SYNTH. WP:BASIC exists precisely to prevent this kind of excessive pedantry from derailing articles about legitimately notable figures. The nomination leans heavily on WP:NOT, yet disregards that WP:BASIC alone is sufficient for inclusion. If the nominator, and those supporting the deletion submissiom, feel the article is too promotional in tone, they should address those concerns and improve the article, rather than seeking to remove one that clearly meets the minimum notability requirements. Given that the article satisfies basic notability criteria and the issue largely concerns tone or minor concerns about coverage, this call for deletion could be seen as an example of WP:Overzealous deletion. Wikipedia’s focus should be on improving articles to meet standards, rather than unnecessarily removing those that meet the minimum requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLDLG (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, so if the main concern is the tone, wouldn’t the simplest solution be to just add {{ad}} to the page? That way, it flags the issue for others and encourages edits to bring the writing in line with a neutral point of view? Remarka6le (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination asks for redirection, not deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We’re currently in an Articles for Deletion debate, and redirecting this page to a list of Ipswich mayors is essentially a form of deletion. Remarka6le, I think adding the template is the way to go. While I disagree with the nominator’s reasons, I do agree that the tone could be improved. I see this article as a good candidate for WP:AQU — it has potential, and we should work on improving it rather than rushing to delete. WP:BEFORE steps should’ve been followed before this AfD, and we should have explored options for improvement. Applying WP:DOUBT and WP:BATHWATER, we should aim to fix the article, not toss it out. QLDLG (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BEFORE was indeed done; it is a breach of WP:AGF to assume it wasn't. The debate is whether the sources that exist in the article and outside are routine coverage of a local politician or significant coverage that contributes to GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS @QLDLG, it is unusual for a new user's first edit to be to create a user page with userboxes, etc, and then the next three edits to be to an Articles for Deletion discussion. Did you edit here under another account or as an IP editor? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Casual Wikipedian in the past (last edit 2023), that account was vanished due to it being linked with a now deleted university email. This Article (and subsequent nomination for deletion) was shared in a local political discussion group on Facebook and I felt the need to contribute. Apologies if my earlier comment came across as a breach of WP:AGF — that wasn’t my intent, I'd like to outline why I said that:
    • Per WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through normal editing, it’s not a candidate for AfD (C-1), and I believe that’s the case here. Adequate sources clearly exist, quoting C-4, "the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination".
    • Looking at the page history, the article was nominated on the same day Remarka6le began working on it — that’s not a reasonable amount of time (IMO) to allow for development or collaboration (C-2).
    • I also couldn’t find any concerns raised on the talk page beforehand, and cleanup tags only appeared after the nomination (C-3).
    Were these issues raised directly with the article's contributors? Because from my point of view, it feels like some of the standard steps to improve rather than remove were skipped. QLDLG (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @QLDLG Thanks for explaining the history. It would be very unusual for a new user to know all these WP policies. (I would recommend describing that history on your userpage so other editors don't make assumptions about alternate accounts.) Would you also post the Facebook link where this discussion is being discussed? If there is off-wiki WP:CANVASSING going on, the closer should know about it. To address your points, no attempt to discuss with contributors was necessary because there was already an AfD consensus for a redirect, and frankly, Remarka6le should have brought it to WP:DRV before attempting to overturn the consensus. They didn't, so there's no prohibition on bringing a second AfD when someone is contravening a previous consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the discussion in question initially focused on the lack of coverage on Paul Pisasale’s page, but naturally shifted to Teresa Harding’s page once her AfD prominently displayed above it was pointed out. Since you're neither a resident of Ipswich nor an alumni of the university, you wouldn’t have access (or be granted access) to the Facebook group, so linking to it wouldn’t be useful. If there had been as much activity here as on Facebook, you’d likely have seen the discussion by now.
    • That said, I still think it would have been better to engage directly with the contributor. Remarka6le is clearly a new contributor, and their edits are clearly made with genuine intent to improve the article. As an experienced editor, you would know how important it is to collaborate and support new contributors. I worry that experiences like this could discourage someone who might have been a great asset to Wikipedia.
    • Regarding the second AfD: While there’s no rule against nominating a new AfD, the process should still be handled with care. The original AfD happened over a year ago, and Remarka6le created the article only to see it nominated for deletion less than a day later. A more reasonable approach would have been to wait at least a week to give them a chance to develop the article further or, at the very least, reach out to point out the previous AfD, maybe even offer a hand in writing the article. Rushing into a second AfD without giving the new contributor time to engage with the article is counterproductive.
    QLDLG (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should make fewer assumptions about where Wikipedians are or are not resident. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You note on your userpage that you’ve done paid editing for the American Bankers Association, you consistently use American spelling, you’ve travelled to all but one US state, and many of your article subjects and edits focus on US-based buildings and religious figures. Based on that, I felt it was a reasonable inference that you're US-based. In any case, I’ll leave it there — I've said what I needed to and we’re edging into WP:BLUDGEONING, and I don’t want to derail the discussion further. QLDLG (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: This discussion has been canvassed in a private Facebook group; see disclosure here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 00:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesław Lewicki (Normal Country)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Wiesław Lewicki (Normal Country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minor Polish politician, never elected to any serious post. Declared intend to run for president twice, which got very little coverage, either. No pl interwiki. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. PS. Article recreated recently following deletion - may qualify for speedy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2025 (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 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simply meets WP:GNG as someone who is notable enough to have articles on major Polish media outlets that are focused solely on him. There is one, two, three, four, five, with the first source remarking that he is "a colourful figure on the local political scene". And indeed, there is more than enough information on the subject for a decent article. Brat Forelli🦊 21:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Barrow

[edit]
Jill Barrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Chief Executives of County Councils don't seem to be inherently notable, as opposed to say, an elected politician serving as council leader.

2. The article resembles a pseudo-biography, as much of the content is dominated by an event/controversy that could be restricted to either the article on Lincolnshire County Council or Jim Speechley.

3. I was unable to locate significant secondary source coverage of the subject (all the hits revolved around the story at the heart of the article), and the career details in the article rely on a Who's Who entry. Leonstojka (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks that she was a minor character in the controversy, and none of the articles in the page or that I can find are ABOUT her, just mentions at best. I do find a brief, local source when she is appointed as the first woman CEO to the council, but it's pretty shallow. I find more sources about her successor after she left that post. I just don't get any hint of notability beyond her patch. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added additional sourcing and content to the article. Barrow's notability is established by discussion of her tenure in an academic book, plus significant coverage in multiple news articles relating to her tenure in Lincolnshire and Surrey, examples of which I have included in the article. These mean that the article is now more balanced away from the focus on the Speechley controversy and has a far wider sourcebase. Taken together with the Who's Who entry and the existing sourcing, this makes a strong case for meeting GNG through SIGCOV in reliable sources. Barrow's position as the first woman to be in a CEO role of a top-tier local authority in the UK adds to this notability claim, though I do not argue that it is fundamental to it. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • I looked at most of the sources and I still do not see any that would rise to notability. I am not able to see more than a snippet of the Leach book, but according to the index her name appears on only one page. The articles about her becoming school head are brief (one is only 3 sentences) and these are routine short news blurbs for local positions - not notable. The three BBC links are about someone else and do not mention her. I think that whole paragraph needs to be removed. The one full-length piece about her is from the Lincolnshire Echo - possibly a good source, but that's only one, and it has the disadvantage of being only of local scope. As I can't see all of the sources, could you indicate which ones you determine to support notability? Thanks, Lamona (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. To be clear, the Leach book discusses her tenure as CEO over at least 2 full pages -- it is not just a passing mention, but an analysis of her role in the context of managing the coalition and supporting the delivery of the new leadership's agenda.
A source being a local newspaper has nothing to do with notability. GNG simply requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The following demonstrate this, alongside the Leach book:
  • The Staines & Egham News source is reliable and independent. It is 8 paragraphs long and entirely about her and her career.
  • The Lincolnshire Echo article is an entire page of content about her; again, independent, reliable and SIGCOV.
  • There is another article which is 9 paragraphs long entitled "'Why Can't We Ask Why County Boss Left?'", Lincolnshire Standard and Boston Guardian, 22 January 1998, p. 7. This is entirely concerned with her sudden departure. Another reliable, independent source. I have just added this to the article.
  • She is also the subject of a near-whole-page feature: "Council Boss 'Secret Deal'", Lincolnshire Echo, 3 January 1998, p. 2. Again, reliable, independent and significant coverage. I have also added this to the article.
Finally, whilst I know that Who's Who books are typically vanity publications, the one I'm using in this article is not -- it is highly selective and produced by Oxford University Press. It does rely on information being submitted by the subject, so is not a secondary source and cannot support controversial points, but it's still usable under WP:SELFSOURCE for the basic facts of Barrow's birth and education and I've restored it as a source there. As a selective source about the subject, it is also very pertinent to these discussions around notability.
There's probably much more that could be found in newspapers -- the challenge is that her name is mentioned so often that trawling through indexed results takes a lot of time (many of these papers were not digitised when I created this article). Nevertheless, in my view, the coverage outlined above, alongside the discussion of her role in the Speechley controversy, provides ample evidence of meeting GNG. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
The RS:Perennial sources does list the UK who's who as unreliable. WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Who's Who (UK). The WP article - Who's Who (UK) - appears to include the OUP version although it gets a bit confusing with the listing of multiple publishers - I'm assuming we are talking about the same publication. A selfsource still needs to be a reliable source, and I don't think that we would include someone here solely on their appearance in who's who. I still contend that she is of local interest only, no different to any other admirable civil servant, and has done nothing that would arise to notability. This is confirmed, IMO, by the fact that her info is only carried in news sources that serve local communities of small populations. Even the Lincolnshire Echo only has a circulation of under 3K. The KPMG report was commissioned by the Lincolnshire County Council, so that again does not demonstrate interest to a larger community. Admittedly my idea of "small" is cultural, but a national news source would do much to bolster notability here. Lamona (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought to look at this: WW(UK) has >30K entries. Lamona (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re Who's Who, the perennial sources list you've quoted states that "it should be regarded as a self-published source", and as per our guidance on self-published sources (specifically at WP:ABOUTSELF): "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". Hence, whilst it might not be considered reliable, it is acceptable to verify the basic facts of Barrow's birth, parentage and education. But my point is less about the quality of the sourcing, and more about the fact that inclusion in Who's Who is a useful indicator of notability. As they say, it "Contains autobiographical listings of people from around the globe who have an impact on British life" and the inclusion process is discussed here (scroll down). It is indeed published by OUP. I'm not sure I see your comment that it includes 32,000 people as a weakness -- these include living and dead people from Britain, its former colonies and the wider world going back to the late 19th century. Wikipedia has 1,704,254 biographies by comparison -- I'd wager we have plenty more UK biographies too. Apparently, we're a lot less discerning here than Who's Who.
That matter aside, notability is assessed based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. I've provided multiple instances of these above and in the article. There's nothing in any policy that I've encountered which says sources need to be national in scope or that the subjects of articles need to be relevant to anything more than a "local" setting -- as long as they are attested by sigcov in independent and reliable sources, they meet GNG. Otherwise we'd never have articles about species which are endemic to small locations, local elections, lower league football teams, or even places or other notable local buildings. —Noswall59 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the first sentence in the perennial sources list: Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. That's the part that worries me. Also the legend for its coding states: Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those two guidelines (the perennial list and ABOUTSELF) seem to be directly contradicting each other then. I'm not sure of the way forward on that and personally disagree with that given ABOUTSELF. But even excluding Who's Who (and I still think it's a good indicator of notability), I maintain that the article meets GNG based on the other sourcing. –Noswall59 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lincolnshire County Council per comments of Ramos1990. Although I do think it is possible that she could be somewhat notable considering she was the first woman chief executive of any county in England, but probably not notable enough for stand alone article. Also add a note that she was first woman chief executive of any county in England or add something like that. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage about her in digitised newspapers, not just when she was appointed to the Lincolnshire County Council, but also when she was appointed Director of Education in Surrey (reported not just in Surrey), and appointed to the South-West of England Regional Development Agency. I will add more sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss on a merge or keep per policies for a clear consensus? All other suggestions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls 10:09, 25 May 2025 (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 redirect‎ to 2010 Rhode Island gubernatorial election. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Robitaille

[edit]
John Robitaille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman and onetime political candidate. I don't see an argument for him being notable. I couldn't find any news coverage of him from the last 15 years. There were some articles from November 2024 about a candy store owned by a John Robitaille, but that store was in California, so I doubt it's the same person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 14 May 2025 (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.

Politician proposed deletions

[edit]

Files

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Open discussions

[edit]

Recently-closed discussions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=1293377688"