Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politicians|~~~~}} 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 Politicians. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics for a general list of deletion debates on related issues.

Politicians

Harold F. Pryor

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

Subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. From GNG perspective, the sources either fail one or two of the three criteria. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This fails WP:SIGCOV. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This is probably substantial but fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:IRS. Others happen to be WP:ROUTINE. Hence, GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Kpg jhp jm 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a local politician, there's no presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and WP:ROUTINE local coverage of election activity does not count as WP:SIGCOV toward WP:GNG. I concur with VWF's source analysis here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rubal Thakur

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

Fails all notability criteria. Mekomo (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do not meet any notability criteria and the article is written to promote the subject rather than for encyclopedic purposes.Thilsebatti (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP - at least three important sections are completely unreferenced. Not against userfication. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. If somehow saved, needs significantly better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José María Alvarado

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

No significant coverage of individual, only cited source is a link to a defunct local history blog that links to a book written by a local newspaper reporter that provides no sources itself. Scuba 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Mexico, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was not able to find significant coverage in Google Books see here. It seems like most of his mentions in records of San Diego County are limited to simple land grants or ownership, and not an in depth view of his life. It could be that these documents do exist offline, but until they are produced, the article is unsourced and does not meet our requirements. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 14:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pauma massacre: Not notable enough. Barely mentioned in history books. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Mahdi

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

Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. The subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The young politician has never stood in an election. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The subject easily passed WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I want to mention some significant coverage by national and international media: Deutsche Welle, Manab Zamin, Bangla Tribune, The Daily Star.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources of in the article (such as Manab Zamin, Amnesty International, DW, The Daily Star BD) are all event based reports (such as arrest, disappearance, or participation in political rallies). The reports by DW and The Daily Star BD highlight his disappearance or political activitiest and do not establish him as a nationally or internationally notable figure. The incident of disappearance and the statement from Amnesty International do not establish Mahdi as a human rights activist or a notable person, rather he is mentioned as an example of the then government's human rights violations. The article describes his political activities, such as involvement with the National Citizens' Committee or the National Citizen Party and might have been presented in an exaggerated manner. Although his activities may be related to Hefazat-e-Islam or Islami Oikya Jote, he is not a notable leader of these organizations, and his contributions are not significant enough to be mentioned in articles about these organizations. This does not fulfill Wikipedia's two criteria (depth of information and neutrality). Policies like WP:ONEEVENT says that a single event (such as disappearance) or local political participation is not enough to establish notability.

So what I want to say is that the article should be deleted, and some parts (if not already) should be merged into other articles (such as Hefazat-e-Islam or the human rights situation in Bangladesh) if suitable for merging. Somajyoti ✉ 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT, as the event was part of his broader activism. There are sufficient reliable sources available to support a balanced and independent article, both before and after the event.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable + WP:TOOEARLY Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - it seems he did get some decent coverage for the arrest but overall fails WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 06:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Peck

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

Fails GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources - and NPOL - "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability" Paul W (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF or WP:NPOL; insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He has a few decently cited publications towards WP:NPROF#C1 but I do not see enough, albeit complicated by "F Peck" being a common name. The prize is relevant, but I do not see it as reaching #C2. I don't find enough general coverage for other notability criteria. I think it is WP:TOOSOON, and he will perhaps pass the bar for notability in a few years. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician, fails WP:NPOL - sources are all of a local political nature. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch National Movement

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

Fails WP:GNG, mostly primary/affiliated sources, no significant coverage in WP:RS. Doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG or WP:NPOV. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Organizations, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghulam Mohammed Baloch.❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 03:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghulam Mohammed Baloch. Yue🌙 05:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Aregbe

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

Subject fails NPOL and all ramifications of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are mostly WP:DOGBITESMAN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. King ChristLike (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only two people with an article with a primary topic. The other two listed are a non notable musician and a non notable character. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Music, Mathematics, Disambiguations, Australia, and United States of America. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all DAB entries need to be articles themselves. It is plausible that someone searching for "Angus Taylor" might mean either the Magic Gang musician or the Halloween character, so merely hatnoting between Angus Taylor and Angus Ellis Taylor would be insufficient. That said, the Halloween character link should be through a redirect to section per MOS:DABREDIR. I'll do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Preimage (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dab with four valid entries (one without his own bluelink but nevertheless passing WP:DABMENTION). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Marlowe

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

Subject does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:POLITICIAN and would likely not be considered notable under WP:POLOUTCOMES. He is the (uncontested) mayor of a town with <10000 residents and my searches returned purely local coverage. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator seems to have it right. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Close to zero notability. Switching parties is a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 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]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials, but rather elected officials like those who sit on the North Carolina Council of State. While there are politicians who serve in those positions, I don't consider most of the people in this chapter of the Illinois Blue Book to be politicians and would consider it applies to the rest of the US including Arkansas. An example of a statewide official in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer. It certainly does not apply to state party chairs who are often elected by a handful of people and are not guaranteed to generate enough independent, secondary coverage to warrant a presumption of notability. This would not preclude a creation based on meeting the criteria set out by other policies on Wikipedia. A county judge in a larger county and cabinet member (albeit one with a very short time in office) might be able to meet that threshold.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would note solicitor generals in the United States like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer are almost always under an attorney general and not cabinet members so not a great example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) is exactly on point, and resulted in a keep. Statewide cabinet members (and state supreme court justices) both meet WP:NPOL without elections, in my opinion and per precedent. Schimmer and Johnson are both listed on WP:NSUBPOL, and they illustrate the line. Wood is just barely past the notable line, in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transportation secretary is a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, so by the letter of the law it would theoretically pass NPOL. However, there has been pushback prior regarding minor state cabinet positions that are more bureaucratic rather than political/ministerial (I do not know if this is one of those, just laying it out). Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Transportation Secretary of Arkansas, not merely as a party chair. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 18 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]

Jason Fazackarley

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

Article about a ceremonial mayor, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, British mayors of the "everybody on council gets to be mayor for a year instead of being generally elected to the position" type are not inherently notable enough for Wikipedia just for being mayors per se -- they can qualify for articles if they can be shown as the subject of enough WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable media sources to pass WP:NPOL #2, but are not automatically entitled to have articles just for existing. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- nine of the ten footnotes were self-published by the city council itself, and the other one is a directory entry -- with not a single reliable or GNG-building piece of media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's been a councilor for a long time and as a result, there's a lot of local news coverage in the newspaper. There's been occasional national coverage, but it's all pretty in passing. I find this kind of article frustrating, because I would tend to include them. We could redirect to List of mayors of Portsmouth Jahaza (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Gurusamy

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as the subject is only a member of a state legislature, not the federal legislature of India DankPedia (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. DankPedia (talk) 04:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid reason for deletion. All members of state or provincial legislatures are notable. WP:NPOL says: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." LeapTorchGear (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LeapTorchGear (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of legislative assembly are notable. This should be on the Wikipedia.Almandavi (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State legislators are state-wide legislators, this should be kept speedily. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL a State legislator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had hoped you would read guidelines more closely after WP:Articles for deletion/Hubert Corsi. WP:NPOL#1 specifically states that Politicians [...] who have held [...] (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. As a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, he meets that criteria. Now onto WP:NOPAGE, because this article as is likely would not surpass it. It is notoriously difficult to conduct searches on Indian topics (use of non-Latin script, webpages often not indexed on Google, etc.). As I've worked on articles for Tamil Nadu politicians in the past, I know the state maintains an archive of previous members' who's whos at [1]. S. Gurusamy's is located on page 342-244 here. It will still be quite thin after I add from it, but better than before. Curbon7 (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, his name in Tamil is "செ. குருசாமி"; perhaps this could help in finding further sources. There seem to be more than a few people with this name. Curbon7 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source with more info: [2]. He apparently changed his name to "S.S. Gurusaamy" on 27 April 2008. Curbon7 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated article with sources I've found. Curbon7 (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article notable per WP:NPOL Squawk7700 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NPOL. MarioGom (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An elected member of the legislative assembly fully meets WP:NPOL.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Meets WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:NPOL, lack of WP:BEFORE and WP:Competence is required. I think this nom meets SK#3, "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided." Cavarrone 04:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person pretty obviously meets WP:NPOL as a state legislator. More sources could be included to bolster it but this seems to be a simple case of lacking WP:BEFORE. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhin Hossain Prince

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. Tagged for lack of notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a notable politician WP:NPOLITICIAN WP:N Beylarbey
Delete - Per Nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ondeng

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

No real coverage for this biography. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Promo.UPE. scope_creep^Talk 21:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nomination, but also per WP:GNG, I don't see what he's actually accomplished. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional UPE article which does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James St John Davis

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

No indication of notability for this local politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for a politician. The article also appears to be generated by AI. Leonstojka (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our next generation is absolutely, positively cooked. But hey, billionaires will be making money hand-over-fist once the "first-hit-is-free" era of AI chatbots is over. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, could not find any indication of sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 20:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hodgson

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

WP:BLP of accountant and politician, but does not have presumed notability as the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation is below state/province level in the UK (generally interpreted as the devolved legislatures or above). Fails WP:GNG as no secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV could be found on internet; cited sources are mostly legal/financial/promotional documents, most of which make no more than passing references of the subject. Liu1126 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Liu1126 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and also fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pollard (British politician)

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he serves as a local authority councillor in the City of London Corporation -- but that's the Square Mile, not London in its sprawling entirety, so he isn't entitled to the same automatic presumption of notability that a member of the London Assembly would get, and would have to show really solid WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to establish passage of NPOL #2.
But five of the six footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the only one that does come from a GNG-worthy source just briefly namechecks his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than himself, so it can't singlehandedly get him over the bar all by itself if it's the article's only reliable source.
As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody more knowledgeable about British local politics than I am can find solidly reliable sourcing to improve it with, but he isn't automatically entitled to an article just for existing as a local authority councillor, and primary sourcing doesn't cut it. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree with you about the subject not being entitled to an article as a member of the Court of Common Council. The only people who would have probably got something else that allows them to pass WP:GNG; City of London politicians with articles are generally those who have ascended to being Lord Mayor. In conjunction with the recent articles on Stephen Hodgson, Jaspreet Hodgson, James St John Davis et al, it seems a new editor has taken it upon themselves to give everyone at the Common Council a promo on here. Leonstojka (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree per nomination (I was going to AfD this article myself but I got diverted by a related article, Guild of Young Freemen). Paul W (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Dan arndt (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for Political advertising Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

AfDs for this article:

(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 ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([9], [10]). 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 ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]), primary source election results ([19], [20], [21]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([22], [23], [24]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. 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. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. 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]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO/ and WP:No original research. @Remarka6le Promotional tone falls under a specific WP:NOT guideline (the page that details what we DO NOT INCLUDE). Promotional tone is a clearly deletable offense under policy. Additionally, the sourcing is borderline; leaning in my opinion on the fail side on whether this meets WP:SIGCOV. To rescue this article it would require a complete rewrite to comply with wikipedia's policies against promoting the subject with an eye/ear towards maintaining an encyclopedic tone that is neutral and written in an impartial manner. Better sourcing is also needed to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH policies per the concerns raised by DClemens . Leaving an article in this state in mainspace is not an option. A possible WP:ATD would be to draftify and require it to pass an WP:AFC review prior to moving back to main space. That would give interested editors time to fix the tone, original synthesis, and sourcing issues, and provide a necessary review process to ensure basic standards are met before the page goes live again.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d absolutely be open to the article being draftified and going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, rather than it being deleted outright. That seems like a far more constructive outcome, especially given that there are editors (myself included) willing to work on improving the tone, structure, and sourcing to bring it up to standard. Remarka6le (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify – Teresa Harding's tenure as Mayor of Ipswich is marked by significant reforms, notably the launch of Australia's first local government Transparency and Integrity Hub. This initiative has received national accolades, including the Smart Cities Australia-New Zealand award, and has been instrumental in restoring public trust post the 2018 council dismissal. Given her role in pioneering open governance and the sustained, non-trivial coverage of her efforts, Harding meets the WP:POLITICIANS notability criteria. I support draftification and review through the WP:AFC process to enhance the article's quality and compliance with Wikipedia standards. Remarka6le (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferably but Draftify if necessary. The mayor of a municipality of 200,000 is obviously notable and there is plenty of coverage just from the public broadcaster and the national press alone. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/qld-paul-tully-ipswich-city-council-mayor-gag-allegation/104877954 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-28/ipswich-council-teresa-harding-paul-tully-media-gag/104866348 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fpolitics%2Fnew-ipswich-mayor-teresa-harding-cleans-closet-after-corruption-investigation%2Fnews-story%2F8cf83650b8a985c2ca1a236443871058&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append
Draftify: Again, this subject fails all ramifications of NPOL. That being said, the criteria for GNG is also not satisfied (multiple independent, reliable, and substantial coverages). Dclemens gave a proper analysis above as to why. This would need to go through AfC if for nothing else, for surety that GNG is met before acceptance, of course, unless she occupies a NPOL-notable office in the future. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Draftify – The article on Teresa Harding appears to meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV, based on the sources currently cited. Deletion does not seem warranted. That said, if there are concerns about notability depth or article quality, draftification could be a suitable interim step. — DroneStar87 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am OK with draftify as an option for the page creator to demonstrate notability, along with a recommendation to submit through AfC so we're not right back here if this gets moved unilaterally to mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all politicians receive some sort of significant coverage, so we look at the depth of coverage especially for local positions per WP:NPOL. Given this vote is (possibly) your first edit, that may not be obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiesław Lewicki (Normal Country)

AfDs for this article:

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{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]

Franz Amberg

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. City Clerk of Chicago is not an office which confers inherent notability (nor is penitentiary commissioner, another office he appears to have held). Search turns up some mentions of his name but no significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place: Amberg was an elected official whose office (City Clerk of Chicago) has a Wikipedia page with numerous officeholders' biographies included on Wikipedia. City Clerk of Chicago was and remains notable, hence many holders of this office have Wikipedia biographies and the office has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyVoice (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

AfDs for this article:

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

Binkley hasn't recieved notable coverage outside of his campaign, as far as I can tell. Even the campaign coverage was mostly routine and the votes he recieved make clear that his campaign wasn't notable Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I can't grasp how this discussion was started despite the overwhelming evidence raised at the last AfD that indicates notability extending over multiple aspects of this individual. Even if you want to discount that the prolonged and significant coverage of Binkley's campaign does not extend notability to him as an individual, you have to accept that it does indicate notability of his campaign. Beyond this, multiple discussions established that there were substantial indications of notability beyond campaign coverage. Binkley's work as a pastor, M&A consultant, and restaurant franchise owner have all received coverage independent from his campaign. I would encourage Esolo5002 to withdraw this nomination expeditiously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly with this reading of the last AFD, especially because two different discussions ended in deletions relatively recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those two deletion discussions closed with different outcomes because 1.) less coverage had actually occurred up to that point and 2.) there was a lack of awareness regarding the other sources of this subject's notability. The latter discussion clearly indicates that what had previously been a consensus towards deletion had overwhelming shifted to a consensus to keep. For many subjects, this is the natural progression of things. Your rationale for deletion is objectively false, looking solely at the sources in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a corollary to all this, see Talk:Ryan Binkley#Requested move 25 February 2024, which directly addresses the question of notability beyond the campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources currently in the article

1-Probably is good enough

2-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

3-Routine campaign announcement

4-Not a news article

5-Routine campaign announcement

6-Routine campaign announcement

7-More in-depth campaign coverage

8-Press release

9-More in-depth campaign coverage

10-Couldn't access but doesn't appear to be about Binkley enough to help his notability

11-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

12-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

13-Interview

14-Routine campaign announcement

15-Routine campaign announcement

16-More in-depth campaign coverage

17-Press release

18-Routine campaign coverage

19-Routine campaign coverage

20-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

21-Routine campaign coverage

22-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

23-Tweet

24-Routine campaign coverage

25-Doesn't even mention him

26-Routine campaign coverage

27-In-depth campaign coverage

28-Not a news article

29-Doesn't even mention him

30-Live blog

31-In-depth campaign coverage

32-In-depth campaign coverage

33-Live blog (and even if it wasn't, not enough for notability)

34-Not a news article

35-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

36-Literally has nothing to do with Binkley (I will remove this source after I'm done with this reply)

37-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

38-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

39-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot, also Newsweek is not reliable)

40-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

41-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

42-In-depth campaign coverage

43-Not a news article

44-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

45-Routine campaign coverage

46-Couldn't access, probably routine campaign coverage

47-Does not appear to be a reliable source, looks like a tabloid

48-Press release

One source is good enough for notability. Even in the in-depth campaign sources go on about nobody has ever heard of this guy. Lots of people run for President, some people have enough to get on the ballot, that doesn't mean they are notable. The Nevada coverage is so funny in hindsight because he was the only other person on the ballot, and got less than 1% of the vote. There is just not enough here for him to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is that six articles providing in-depth coverage of his campaign, another source you admit is adequate to source him as a subject, and still other sources describing him in other contexts is insufficient to retain an article? I think that you provide the real rationale for your edit in the comment above: that he got less than 1% of the vote. That being the case does nothing to determine notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of his campaign is not good enough for his own notability. It's good enough for his campaign's notabiity, not his own. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought that was the case, why aren't you proposing a move to Ryan Binkley presidential campaign? Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more sources available now then the last time this article was kept, and notability is not temporary. Jahaza (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No explanation has been offered for why the previous discussion result of "keep" was invalid. Notability once gained is not lost. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Redirect to a campaign oriented page such as a correctly spelled version of Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin.~~ This subject is now in its fourth AfD. Thus far, two deletes and a keep. The first two times we got it right. There are three claims here: candidate, pastor, and businessman. There is a lot of "Who is Ryan?" coverage which is campaign coverage caters to nerds. It literally goes "hey, look at this after thought!" It's like the coverage is a concession he is not notable. I am unconvinced that such coverage will be historically significant. The citations are also very announcement heavy which seems redundant. There are a number of efforts to mask a lack of notability. Identifying how much he spent on radio ads, the totals of other candidates, mentioning he spoke at a dinner literally all candidates get to speak at, and elaborate descriptions of his election results are hallmarks of efforts to mask a lack of notability. In many of the citations, Binkley is not the main subject. While one need not be the main subject, I feel he is too tertiary to add up a bunch of mentions (as another user points out are routine) and pretend it is the same as a smaller number of in-depth, sustained coverage sources (the HITC listicle seems particularly egregious). There is no lasting coverage. There is no in-depth coverage of the candidacy or the subject. His candidacy does not confer notability.

This leaves us with religious leader and businessman. I do not think he meets the religious leader criteria. The Church has 650 parishioners. While this is more people than I could ever hope to get to join me in anything, a Texas pastor who set out to church plant and several years later has 650 parishioners is not on its own notable. Finally, I don't think his business career meets notability. The business sources in the article are only once independent of the subject and the mention of him as part of a small franchisee team. Notability gained is not lost as someone said, BUT notability can be wrongly conferred by an AfD during election season as happens pretty regularly (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby v.s. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby (2nd nomination)). Deletions were correct in the first and second nomination. It was on the third nomination, done during peak election season when WP:NOTNEWS gets thrown out the window, that an erroneous consensus was reached.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is confusing. A !vote for deletion necessarily means the deletion of the content. A redirect means deleting the content (and possibly merging some content) to an existing article. What appears to be suggested is a page move, which is fundamentally different as the content is retained (albeit perhaps with an alteration to the scope). Discounting fulfillment of the GNG (which this article and subject absolutely does) because it's about a guy who failed in an election is bad precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware they are different. I mention I would be OK with a redirect as an alternative. I do not believe the subject should have a standalone page because of a failure to have the kind of independent, in-depth, sustained coverage expected under GNG as I say in my nomination and as Esolo5002 lays out in depth. There is no greater proof of this than the very little (if any) coverage of him since the 2024 Republican primary election. Would you prefer I make this exclusively a !deletevote?--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution was a redirect to an article that doesn't exist. Further, a straight !vote for deletion makes no sense by GNG: Esolo5002's analysis indicates that we have a RS source from 2020 that provides SIGCOV of the subject plus multiple RSs providing SIGCOV during the election. That alone meets GNG. !voting delete would seem to be a peculiar reaction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my !vote and I am just going to leave an essay about how an article about you or someone you like is not always a good thing here. I have no new policy arguments to make and just reiterating at each other is not the best use of either of our time.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: I think Binkley is a bit of a loon, so your unsubtle aspersion should be retracted. If anything, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can either claim my vote is nonsensical or you can be mad when I simplify it. This was not done out of spite, it was to ensure my vote is accurately weighted by the closer. I can see how my inclusion of the essay was unfair. I clearly made some assumptions based on past AfDs with candidate advocates fighting for articles. I should not have let that cloud my judgment as to your !vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: Your explanation is much appreciated. I agree that we should not run in circles here, and accept that you are convinced to !vote delete based on policy, even if I disagree. Let me know if you need help accessing at anything related to this subject if you participate anywhere else in this AfD. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete: Provide a single noteworthy news source talking about this guy after the election, or before the election. He was a flash in the pan candidate and people with Wikipedia articles should have enough coverage of the person beyond just one event, if not, mention them in the page for the event.

Ryan Binkley's inclusion in Wikipedia should be limited to a redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Candidates.

Scuba 21:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot, but you were very clearly informed that there was indeed an adequate source prior to the election, see this discussion. If you believe that coverage persisting past an arbitrary point is a necessary prerequisite, this is not premised in the WP:GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not changing my vote from last time as I'm not sure what has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not clear even from the sources in the article. He was minor candidiate that did not make it. It seems the artcle was created for his candidacy purposes. I don't see notable coverage after the Primaries in 2024. Not enough for a stand alone article. Cannot think of a useful redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To any closer, please consider moving this to a draft briefly, as I would like to access the history for about 48 hours. I want to consider this for a possibly discussion on the relevant policy talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment here, but it comes down to the following: I worry the application of NPOL might be superseding the standards of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This article has SIGCOV of the subject from national- or international-level reliable sources from the following months:
  - May 2020 (pre-election): 1
  - April 2023: 1, 2
  - July 2023: 1
  - January 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4
  - February 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Maybe US presidential elections are a special case where the remarkable amount of news coverage outweighs the conventional BASIC and GNG standards. Consider responding at the above-linked discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started to write this at WT:Notability (people) where Pbritti has opened a separate discussion, but my comment became more about this specific AfD so I'm leaving it here. Breaking news like "Binkley announces he is running for president" is primary sourcing and therefore doesn't count toward notability under GNG or BASIC. Stringing together separate breaking news sources to create an article is bad practice and produces low-quality content. General coverage like a biographical piece on Binkley's life is secondary and does count toward notability. Most sourcing about him looks to be the former, and even the ones that lean toward the latter seem to be prompted and heavily influenced by ongoing events rather than analysis that indicates he has more generally been taken note of as a significant figure. So my question is whether any general biographical sources have been written about him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for replying here. There's a source from 2020 that's been discussed before, unrelated to the election. Please feel welcome to comment further in the other discussion, too; I'd like to hear more about what you said regarding BASIC in the discussion above the one I started. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Prenkaj

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

Minor diplomat now working as a functionary at the UN. Almost all hits are articles written by the subject, or where he is briefly quoted giving his opinion. I did find one profile of him in local media, but that doesn't amount to passing WP:SIGCOV in general.

His previous job titles are not automatically notable, and it isn't reasonable to suggest (as the opening section does) that he was a member of the Kosovo cabinet by virtue of being a political adviser. Overall, comes across as an inadequate promo page. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment members of a national cabinet meet WP:NPOL.They appear to have served in the cabinet of Atifete Jahjaga. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. The sources are few and him having jobs in governemnt are not enough for a stand alone article. Reads like a resume too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Automatically notable as a member of Kosovo's cabinet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Chapman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A city councilman (unless of a city significantly larger than Alexandria, Virginia) isn't notable. Could be redirected to Alexandria, Virginia#Government, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a politician, he's not notable because all the coverage is local. It's possible that his tour guide company could become notable. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Javadi

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_27#Ali_Javadi * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 10 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!} 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A cursory search of his name in English and Farsi returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 19:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful state congressional candidate. Other claim to fame is being Vice-Chairman of a libertarian group within the Republican Party, which doesn't seem enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only two sources that deal at length with him are articles in the Providence Phoenix, an alternative weekly newspaper. There is also a bio, but that's from the North American Foundation for the University of Durham, of which he is an alumnus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame'. Subject has contributed to discourse on the US presidential election process, advocacy for the 'national popular vote' relative to the electoral college: covered on CSPAN and PBS - both US national news sources. Not a "congressional candidate" but a candidate for state house, regardless: elected to the Greenwich, Connecticut legislature, which seems a notable body, based on article. Online search shows: continues to work nationally with at least three organizations: american security fund, hispanic leadership fund, and american unity political action commmittee. There is a bio on the hispanic leadership site. The 'delete' would be premature, article needs new citations to show career progression.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He is active in various political organizations, but I don't believe that matters, otherwise every political junkie and party activist in the United States would meet the threshold. You note he was elected to the legislature of Greenwich, Connecticut: I do not agree this establishes notability. Per WP:NPOL, he has not held a state-wide office and he is not a major local figure who has received significant press coverage. That leaves WP:GNG, and there is not enough discussion of him in reliable, secondary sources to qualify on this metric either. Leonstojka (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Subject doesn't fit the description of 'political junkie': works on notable national issues, visibly participates in these, covered by national media. On the municipal legislature: he was an elected official; subject's overall participation in public service is hued by these roles. Career progression seems important per WP:NPOL: he meets a general notability in the political space, verifiable bio on one of the three national organizations he works with since last article update, that I could find, and was an active participant in the presidential election discourse in 2016 with relevance (the libertarian party played a substantive role in 2016 and subject led a national republican effort across parties). This article would likely be recreated: the ebb and flow of politics and missing updates to article are not a robust basis to delete if subject continues to develop a substantive career. Grant18650602 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lopez Reyes continues to write and publish on music subjects, podcasting; an online search shows he’s active politically but also in writing and podcasting on the music, entertainment side. Agreed small updates could improve article.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The music writing and podcasting are very unlikely to make him notable though, unless you could demonstrate the writing is impactful enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST, or his podcasting work has generated significant commentary in secondary sources. If the evidence exists, a major edit should be conducted immediately. Leonstojka (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reyes is still active nationally, Libertarians for National Popular Vote features him on their board with Gary Johnson and Lincoln Chafee and it seems the campaign to shift the election process to a popular vote is ongoing. His bio is available in more than one place. Searching his name as "Ed Lopez" vs "Ed Lopez-Reyes" will make a difference and the name variation is discussed in the article. Some of the information discussed in the comments above is in the article under the Notes section, but that would all fit fine in the main body. This article just needs some revision and updates, I also think it will be recreated anyway if deleted.--1975tampabayray (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level politico and failed candidate. The amount of name-dropping in the article, particularly on the Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry (a sub-group of Freedom to Marry), is a clear effort to mask a lack of notability. There are also a lot of weasel words like "participated," meant to further mask this. This individual and their blogging do not meet the criteria to have a stand alone article.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The editors and contributors to the article seem to be acting in good faith, not in "name dropping" or leveraging "weasel" vocabulary.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability for an encylopedic entry. Following comments by Mpen320. His article reads like a promotion for a candidate. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But an online search doesn't show he is a candidate for an office at the moment; it shows after losing one campaign he continued to serve in a municipal elective office but also continued to take on national political roles. I'm not seeing the promotion of a candidacy.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - party leaders and political candidates are not automatically notable, and we have deleted articles about failed candidates of every political ideology. Also, this lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see anything unusual or unique about him. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be acknowledged that a couple of the user accounts supporting retention of the article appear to be single-purpose accounts that have recently come back from long periods of inactivity just to take part in this discussion and may have a conflict of interest. Leonstojka (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should comment, on the comment regarding editors 'in support'. Speaking for myself only: ater taking a deeper interest in SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 and then the 2016 election I found some(?) of the editing contentious, politically biased, and more focused on deletions than improving articles. So I don't edit as much, but it's not for lack (or conflict) of interest. It seems the editorial culture in Wikipedia has been debated a lot in recent years. I'm not here to discuss myself or that, but thought I would address this feedback since I've had an active voice in this particular article and discussion and have done that in good faith. Cheers! Grant18650602 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh Kadam

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

Fails NPOL, not inherently notable, sources are not significant and are only annoucing his appointment and coverage related to a small controversy, but no significant coverage of the subject found in multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 05:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Barrow

(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]

Merge to Lincolnshire County Council. Not seeing her being notable. It reads like a resume more than about notable activity. I say merge to salvage stuff from the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:39, 17 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]

John Robitaille

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this candidate. He was up and coming. 2010 was the year the Republicans snatched defeat from victory. I'm not sure if it should be merged or redirected to the election article, in lieu of deleting, which I think would be a bad outcome. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I forgot to say in the nomination but I would support a redirect to 2010 Rhode Island gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:10, 15 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]

Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Magcalas

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

All of the sources are WP:PASSINGMENTION, Data bases or unreliable. Before search yield nothing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - the subject was mayor of a state capital of over 100,000 residents, and so is likely to be notable. This is comparable with a mayor of Albany, New York. By comparison, we recently deleted the article of the mayor of Schenectady, New York, a smaller city that is not the state capital, but is still the 9th largest city in my state. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bearian's argument, as mayor of a region with population over 100,000. Though I will note that the sources used that describe him in any detail, here and on Tagalog Wikipedia, are of poor quality, mostly being Facebook posts and Wordpress. -- Recon rabbit 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see sources establishing notability. Not every politician that becomes mayor of a 100,000 region has a stand alone page like this. Plus facebook is not a good place for establishing notability. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also do not see sources establishing notability. Size of municipality does not matter whether a local official passes WP:NPOL, what matters for any local official is the quality of the coverage. What we want to see is enough verifiable information from reliable sources to show more that the mayor exists. We generally want to see something about their policies in office and their legacy. --Enos733 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions