Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

Trump Always Chickens Out

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Social science, and United States of America. – The Grid (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:GNG with significant coverage that is independent of and primarily about the subject. It's too early to tell whether or not it'll still be relevant in a month, but notability is not temporary. It's funny that you mention the "meme" part of this, as that's another part of the article that needs to be expanded on... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has the same notability as Let's Go Brandon. Radiohist (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree here. CNC33 (. . .talk) 20:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tariffs in the second Trump administration CNC33 (. . .talk) 20:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Conman33: Above you 100% agree with a "Keep" !vote that stated it has the same notability as Let's Go Brandon, so... are you sure you meant to !vote "Merge"? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll clarify and say "keep" the material but merge it into the Tariffs article. CNC33 (. . .talk) 23:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRUMPCRUFT RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about something Trump said, but rather, what a significant number of sources are saying about Trump... This topic has received international attention (in fact, the original source of the term was from a British author). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a by the book definition of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Trump responds to a question in a crazy way and it goes viral. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Trump's reaction to the phrase, it's about the phrase itself. This is a blatant misunderstanding of the article Thegoofhere (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's Go Brandon argument feels strong, despite WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't think it's WP:RECENTISM (/ WP:TRUMPCRUFT) either, there's something revelatory, that'll no doubt be merged later. Widefox; talk 21:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear to have many similarities to Let's Go Brandon. And there is international coverage happening. If the term ends up not having any longevity or usage in say academic circles in the future, then it can just be merged later. It should also be noted that WP:TRUMPCRUFT is an essay and thus has zero weight as an argument in this discussion. So any editors above using it without any other argument being made above will likely (and absolutely should) be completely disregarded by the closer. Silver seren^C 21:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep:

"Meme that most people don't know about and will be forgotten in a month"

Please cite the policy that states most people should know about the subject in order for it to have an article. Notablity is determined by the reliable sources that cover the topic, not random people.

"Not relevant"

What. The article is about a phrase about something Trump is currently doing, how isn't this relevant? Thegoofhere (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said TACO "won't be remembered in a month" despite the phrase coming from a news article from a month ago. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wide spread usage in the media with Trump already referencing it --LukeTriton (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already has significant coverage (including coverage of Trump's reaction). Merger into tariffs article would be, at best, premature; as Jonathan V. Last has pointed out:

It’s universal. You can apply it to any situation. Trump pulls back on tariffs? TACO. Trump gives in to Putin? TACO. Trump increases the national debt? TACO.

JamesMLane t c 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT, fails WP:SUSTAINED. (@Thegoofhere The nominator's point was that there was no significant/sustained/enduring coverage after the month was past.) I would've said draftify if all the coverage weren't localized within two months ago. A suitable merge target is Tariffs in the second Trump administration; I do not see why this content would not be better covered contextualized within the article about this series of events. Everything within Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merging except for #1—"Duplicate"—applies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every single thing Trump has done or will do will get a week of attention in the news. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agrarian Democratic Party

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. Political party which seems to never have returned any candidates. C 679 06:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 06:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Fade258 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fade258. Jdcooper (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Hasn't run for any office. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP removing political parties! Party ran for election in 2019 European Parliament election. ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a LOT to go through, but the sources I checked generally were only very passing mentions, or mentions of his companies. A lot of trivial coverage does not make up one significant coverage. Agree with the nom on the second point as well. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [1][2][3][4]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the nominating statement. Are you saying it's a hoax? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn’t meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an article is poorly written, then we improve it instead of deleting it. What other languages do and what other articles exist is not relevant to whether this one should exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien, do you think this subject’s notability is shown? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palestinian law. This was not notable at the time, and would be better suited in context. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Union Enlargement Goals for 2040

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. — Moriwen (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG. Neither "Enlargement Goals for 2040" nor "2040 Enlargement Goals" yields any hits on Google or Scholar, so there are certainly no unified "EU enlargement goals for 2040" among major groups/politicians, which I think would be the threshold for having an article independent from Potential enlargement of the European Union]. Anerdw (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't use/evaluate undetectable.ai or any other AI detection tools; they're notoriously unreliable and get a lot of false positives. WP:AIC guidance agrees. Anerdw (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance says not to use it as the sole method of detection, or flag content purely because it was detected by the tool. In this case, I see three other obvious signs: phrases bolded for emphasis in the typical AI style, lots of lists of exactly three bullet points, and citations that don't mention the topic.— Moriwen (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's probably AI generated; I just don't think AI detection tools should be cited in AfDs. Anerdw (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pasht Ashan massacre

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

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

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

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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, History, Politics, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraqi Communist Party#The party under Ba'athist rule. Yue🌙 03:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ketuanan Semenanjung & Pengkaburan MA63

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and Malaysia. — Moriwen (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy (mayor)

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

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. All of the sources used are either WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, routine coverage of local elections, or not actually about the subject at all and just include his name. This exact article was declined and rejected multiple times by me and others at WP:AFC and you can see extensive discussion about it here and here. I also wrote a source-by-source review as an AfC comment that I ask an admin to please copy here for reference. The page creator has a history of moving the draft out of process and resubmitting without any changes. Even now, they requested the rejected drafts deletion just to immediately recreate the page in the mainspace. I would be agreeable to redirect to Hollywood, Florida as an ATD. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Politics, and Florida. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AI-generated - at least partially - seeing as how a number of the references include ?utm_source=chatgpt.com at the end of the url. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. I don't think this meets WP:NPOL at all. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Hollywood, Florida#Government. Djflem (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mayor of a city of 150,000 could be notable. I have a first cousin who lives in Hollywood but I don't think they are friends. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollywood, Florida#Government. Size of municipality does not affect whether a local elected official passes GNG. What matters is whether there is sufficient information to say more than mayor X exists. --Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Republic of China

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, China, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a reason to delete article. An article of the same name already exists in Chinese Wikipedia, and it is a political term that is also used in reality. In the case of Rhee or Falkenhausen, the link also exists in Chinese Wikipedia, but you can remove it if it's unnecessary; there's no reason why the whole article should be deleted. ProgramT (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political term. It is a phrase, like Pro-Israel or Pro-Greenland. Also, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia. The fact that Rhee and Falkenhausen are linked there undermine that Wikipedia's credibility. "Republic of China"/"ROC" is mentioned exactly once in Rhee's article, in the caption identifying Chiang Kai-shek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A content dispute (regarding the examples of Rhee and von Falkenhausen) is not grounds for deletion. Having an "assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together" is also not grounds for deletion; list articles are a thing, as are similarly-named and scoped articles like Pro-Americanism and Russophilia. "Other thing exists" arguments aren't policy-based, but I don't see a proposal here based on deletion policy and cannot figure out what the deletion rationale could be. The nominator's disagreements seem to be limited to a content dispute concerning possible WP:OR, rather than a denial of this topic's notability or existence. Yue🌙 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator had argued for deletion based on WP:SYNTH, with supporting evidence/analysis, I may be sympathetic. But instead they questioned whether Falkenhausen, who served in the military of the ROC, can be called "pro-ROC", which makes this very hard to take seriously. As such, I essentially agree with the two others above that this should be closed as a procedural keep; it could even be argued that this falls under speedy keep criteria 1 or 3. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article seems to be a pervasive work of WP:SYNTH that is syncretizing the views of several distinct people based on a tenuous connection to a position on Taiwan. Significant concern regarding accuracy of any citations in this. An article on this topic (albeit one with perhaps a less clumsy name) could definitely exist but I think this one needs WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. A TNT may be appropriate here. There is a lot of unsourced and poorly-sourced content. But the article tries to discuss a notable topic (the distinction between "pro-Taiwan" and "pro-ROC") and I'm not sure if deletion is better than trying to clean it up. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Consulting Group

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Management, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree more sources are needed. I'd prefer it be kept, but I can merge it into United States Department of the Interior. 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC). ]

प्रधान मंत्री

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Disambiguations, Nepal, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't speak Hindi, but google translate says this means 'Prime Minister'. Either way, it's frankly implausible for the term to be searched realistically. Translations of words in other languages are rarely even redirects, let alone DABs. jolielover♥talk 05:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On English Wikipedia, there is no need to create a disambiguation page in Hindi language. B-Factor 16:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The English Wikipedia should not have non-disambiguatatory, non-English index pages for English-language articles. Yue🌙 18:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete similar pages either in main space or draft articles. This is almost a speedy delete: non-controversial. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The text just means prime minister and it doesn't really disambiguate them because they are under two different titles. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in agreement with points above. As normally an english wikipedia user would not literally search for a non-english characters.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all above. Non-English pages are not allowed on English Wikipedia, and this article is absolutely not required here. An English version already exists under Prime Minister (disambiguation).Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DV Boer Controversy

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

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

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

Zionist as a pejorative

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

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

Comment: I moved this article last year from Zio (pejorative) to Zionist as a pejorative. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For participants here, citing that the article move was the result of community discussion. Longhornsg (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg thanks for linking to it! Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge - agree w/ coatrack, this would make much more section as a subsection in Zionism/Anti-zionism etc. Would still need a rewrite e.g. why is the lead giving weight to ADL's alleging it is being used as a slur when ADL is listed on WP's unreliable sources when being used in contexts of Israel-Palestine and antisemitism? "...general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Yours ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeSchmoker saying that the ADL has a position on something is still in line with WP:NPOV, even if it can't be used as a source. I gave a longer explanation of the policy over at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be inclined to disagree given this part in the opening para of NPOV policy: "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis my own) I stand corrected in that it is not sourced in the lead (FWIW they are however explicitly cited in the Reception section) but given the results of this RfC (chiefly the part re ADL and antisemitism in the context of Zionism specifically) I would err heavily on the side of caution in giving them weight at all in this topic . Ignoring this, there are further issues with sourcing in general e.g. see the second para under History - the statistics (80% and 85% figures) are given in the cited articles but where is the rest of this paragraph coming from? I would hope maybe a couple citations have dropped off along the way but as it stands it does look like an egregious bit of synthesis. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the topic is introduced as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. What the ADL says is that this terminology is used as an antisemitic slur, or in other words a slur against Jews. "Supporters of Israel" ≠ "Jews" —This is one of the conflations/elisions central to this article's status as a POV coatrack lacking a defined scope and to why it should be deleted. إيان (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons listed on the article's talk page, primarily by @Longhornsg, prior to this AfD, related to attempts to improve the article being the appropriate remedy for any concerns rather than article deletion, especially in light of the prior move discussion. To the extent this AfD is an extension of that talk page conversation, direct notification on @Longhornsg's talk page would probably have been an appropriate courtesy. Coining (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg was actually the one to suggest an AfD in that talk page discussion. After more than a week had elapsed since I asked them to provide a quality source supporting the scope of the article, of which they had assured me there were ample, I assumed they had lost interest.

If they do indeed have any of the ample reliable sources supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are still welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Politics, Judaism, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially created this article as Zio (pejorative). At some point it was changed to "Zionist as a pejorative" and seems to have taken a much broader scope than I initially intended. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is disingenuous of this user to characterize this as rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page when they themselves abandoned the discussion for over a week when asked to provide a single reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel.

As the first sentence of this AfD clearly states, this is not about whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, but rather that it is about a lack of a defined scope and the POV elisions thereby made. This article groups a variety of distinct terms ("Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio"), treating them as if they were the same, and discusses sources claiming they are used pejoratively for different groups ("supporters of Israel" and "Jews"). It's not an issue of notability—it's an issue of the POV, WP:OR grouping of individually attested claims as if they constituted the single topic of "Zionist as a pejorative." Additionally, which reliable source would claim that "Zionist" is a pejorative for "supporters of Israel"? Is Zionist a pejorative for Zionist?

If this user has any reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, not an issue of notability. AfD is the wrong venue. Longhornsg (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding. Longhornsg on 16 May 2025: If there's an issue with this as a topic, try your luck with WP:Afd.

There's clearly an issue with this article as a topic. That's what this AfD is explicitly about. Please stop Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT. Just admit that you don't have a single reliable source to support this as a topic with the scope defined as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. إيان (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear WP:POVFORK of Zionism, Anti-Zionism and New antisemitism. This article essentially duplicates parts of those but with the premise of "what if we only use sources and framing from one side of the dispute and treat it all just a meaningless pejorative, though?" --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Article-length coverage in Mosaic Magazine of the use of "Zio" and compounded equivalents as a pejorative
Article-length coverage in Haaretz of "Zio" as a slur/pejorative
Article-length coverage in Tablet magazine of "Zio" as a slur/pejorative
Article-length coverage in JTA of "Zio" as a slur/pejorative
Article-length coverage in The Forward of "Zio/Zionist" as a slur/pejorative
Article-length coverage in The Guardian about how "Zionist" became a slur/pejorative
Scholarly journal article in the Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism about how "Zionist" and permutations is a pejorative/slur
Article-length coverage in JTA of "Zionist" as a slur/pejorative (not currently in article)
Interview with scholar Derek Penslar of Harvard University, one of the most notable scholars on Zionism, mentioning the use of "Zionist" as a slur (not currently in article)
Penslar also covers this topic ("The use of the word “Zionist” as a pejorative to describe Jews as a whole, and to attribute malevolent qualities to them, is widespread." in his book Zionism: An Emotional State (Rutgers University Press) (not currently in article)
Discussion in the BBC about the use of Zionist as a pejorative (not currently in article)

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

So which of these sources is supposed to support "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel as the scope of this article? Because none of them say that. Longhornsg's arguments continue to dodge the topic of the discussion. Nowhere in the AfD introduction is notability mentioned. This AfD discussion is about article's mercurial POV scope.

It is POV that the use of "Zionist" or its derivatives as a pejorative should be bundled together in a singular topic, particularly when those derivatives are as varied as 'Zionist,' 'Zionazi,' and 'Zio.' The claim that these three distinct terms somehow mean the same thing but the singular term "Zionist" varies significantly depending on perspective and is inherently contentious is also unconvincing to say the least. إيان (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by sources indicated by Longhornsg. The pejorative has become quite common and the sources reflect that. gidonb (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakt

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources cited in the article. So clearly passes WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EduAKsyon

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Two citations are: A opinion poll native advertising highlighting EduAKsyon as one of the preferred partylist groups (even if it just placed 20th) and the group's contact us page. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while not "too soon", this party does not pass WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to see how this is "too soon", as the election itself just happened. Sports teams are not sent to AFD as "too soon" if they haven't won a championship yet. Care to send Minnesota Timberwolves to AFD (LOL)? There's one WP:RS used on this article. WP:GNG does not mention how many WP:RS there should be, but this has one. Howard the Duck (talk)

Comment There is nothing much to write about the partylist besides "they ran". Whats up with the double dtandard at 1Munti Partylist's deletion nomination where you do note it didnt win any seats (but to be fair you did not vote gor or against its deletion) and EduAKsyon. Was it because this party is somehow connected to Aksyon Demokratiko (an assertation which seems to be made through an assumption of its founder, Bobbit Roco being a former president). Please at least make it clear why is this any different. I might have overlooked something Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:NPOSSIBLE will save this article. A partylist especially a recently established one isn't usually covered by in real life publications either. So the typical sourcing would be news articles (supplemented by the partylist website if ever) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this has one WP:RS covering it therefore passing WP:SIGCOV. The others didn't. 1Munti Partylist is a borderline case as it is related to the One Muntinlupa party and if it's the same organization one can argue that it if someone finds WP:RS that passes WP:SIGCOV then it has the same situation as this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. No WP:SIGCOV and article is just a plot summary. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and United States of America. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I couldn't find sufficient coverage of this book to justify the article. The single source it has is the NYT bestseller list, which is meaningless, since every book ever is a NYT bestseller. Cortador (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has now been established. Cortador (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NBOOK, appearing on the New York Times bestseller list counts as one of the two non-trivial independent published works about the book that we need. The book also gets a paragraph in this article in The Economist, and is briefly discussed in this profile of Savage in the New Yorker. There are also passing mentions in the New York Times [5] [6] and in at least a dozen or so academic books about the American right. This is the kind of book where we're never going to see traditional "reviews" in reliable publications, but it does seem to have been discussed. I don't think what I've found is quite enough yet to satisfy NBOOK, but it's close. MCE89 (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Rubin, Jeff (2005-05-30). "Enjoy Conservative Books at the Beach". Human Events. Vol. 61, no. 19. pp. 400–401. EBSCOhost 17296644.
  The review notes: "In his new book, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder, he lays it on the line: "You will not have a nation," he says, "unless you awaken to the reality that America has become pacified; America has become feminized; and America is being compromised from without and within. You cannot let them get away with this. Can America be saved? Is it too late? I believe that with God's will and with your determination to confront the mental disorder of liberalism whenever and wherever it is found, America can both survive and thrive." In this book, he shows how. In this third installment of his bold, biting and bestselling trilogy, Savage offers provocative and practical ways to reclaim our social, political and cultural integrity. Through a compelling narrative of current trends and events, Savage chronicles the continued assault on the sacred pillars of American life (the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments, the Sanctity of Marriage) by the High Priests of Ultra-Liberalism. In each chapter, the Savage Spotlight of Truth casts its brilliant light on the tactics used by liberals to spread their leftist agenda. Savage follows his analysis with specific actions, arguments and recommendations for action that the reader can ingest to counter the radical left."
2. Sanders, Ken (2005). "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage". Z Magazine. pp. 56–57. Retrieved 2025-05-24 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "Want support with that accusation? You're reading the wrong book. Savage's ludicrous hyperbole is offensive not only to those who consider themselves liberal (a term which, by the way, Savage never defines), it is likely offensive to anyone who survived or lost loved ones in Hitler's holocaust. ... In Chapter One , "More Patton , Less Patent Leather," Savage blames liberals and their " trickle-down PC stupidity" for Bush's debacle in Iraq. Savage quotes "one lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless," as advising his troops on the eve of battle to "tread lightly" in Iraq because of its historical and cultural significance. For Savage, this nameless lieutenant colonel typifies how "liberalism has so warped the sensibilities of Mr. and Mrs. America," that Bush got "trapped trying to fight a politically correct war." There is (at least) one problem with Savage's example of liberalism's weakening U.S. military resolve: the "lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless" was none other than Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins, commanding officer of the First Battalion of the Royal Irish ..."
3. "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder". AudioFile. April–May 2006. Archived from the original on 2025-05-24. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The review notes: "Reader Mark Warner clearly understands Savage's style and seeks to represent it as closely as possible. Warner comes close to capturing Savage's outrage, irony, and humor, but he doesn't capture it completely. Nevertheless, Warner's reading is clear and even-paced."
4. "Fools' gold: As America becomes more polarised, its political writing is getting worse". The Economist. 2005-10-06. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: "An altogether less agreeable polemicist is Michael Savage, whose latest book is called “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. He calls homosexual activists “brown shorts” and thinks Mr Bush has messed up by not killing nearly enough people in Iraq. He believes that the United Nations and other shadowy international groups are planning to “over-ride our democracy” and replace the Bill of Rights with “a new, watered-down bill of wrongs from the new, ruling bureaucrats”. He wonders why Republican leaders have not warned people about this. He uses the term “village idiots” to describe a body—the Democratic Leadership Council—whose name he cannot spell."
5. Graff, Amy (2020-02-14). "The most commonly stolen book at the San Francisco Public Library may surprise you". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-07-23. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: ""The one author our head of collections has to check regularly and purchase new copies of our books by Michael Savage," library spokesperson Kate Patterson wrote in an email. "We check once a year to see if all the copies are gone and reorder. We have moved to e-book for most of them, so we can ensure copies are around. The main title that disappears quickly is 'Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder.'" ... Released in April 2005, 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder' was on the New York Times best-seller list for three weeks and "attacks the insanities and inanities of extreme leftist thought.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of Guatemala

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

Only a single source which does not even assert the existence of the role of "Second Lady of Guatemala" and only supports the fact that Juan Alfonso Fuentes Soria became interim vice president. No mention of his wife Sandra Rosales. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Guatemala. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies of India

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and India. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid navigational article, even if it might need additional sources beyond the single one. A merge is not a good option because the other article is too long already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for the National Community

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Venezuela. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no references and is just a small table. Google News is a dead end full of WP:SIGCOV violations. This could be a case of WP:SOON or it could just fail WP:GNG. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created despite there already being concensus that it should currently be in the draft-space. This article shouldn't exist -- it is too soon for it to be moved out of the draft space, and a draft with the same title already exists. The two sources used in the draft are absolutely reliable -- they are from Nanos polling, a large Canadian pollster, so it is clear that the original nominator for deletion in this article is unaware of Canadian politics. ArchMonth (talk) 17:44, May 19, 2025 (EST)
Delete there isnt even a single poll in the article, the current table only contains the 2025 election result. --hroest 16:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Articles for opinion polls are almost a given whenever there are opinion polls to be shown, and in this case there are already three opinion polls in the three weeks since the election (which I have just added to the article), and considering how Nanos (a reliable source) keeps releasing one poll per week this will only be set to grow. I cannot see how can this be WP:TOOSOON: when would be an appropiate time for showing these opinion polls to casual readers at the 46th Canadian federal election? Just merge the associated draft into this article. Impru20^talk 08:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're up to four polls now, five when the Abacus poll reported by the Star will be added. There is no longer any valid reason for deleting this article. I endorse Impru20's suggestion of merging the draft (which is now a bit behind) into this. CASalt (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is likely to be updated in the future with more polls. There are currently three, although others in this discussion have suggested more are to come. ArchMonth I am aware of Canadian politics; otherwise, I would not have made a new article on the matter in the first place. However, when I created the article, I was not aware of the draft page, although I have no objection to Impru20's suggestion of merging the draft page into this page whatsoever. King4852 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! This stub served its purpose and is now getting populated. I, for one, see value in a page that will be populated, even though it may currently be quite bare - in this case because there were no polls when it was created. That in itself is useful information. 199.167.116.95 (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As previously noted by others, we're up to multiple polls, covered in reliable secondary sources, [7], we were running the 45th election opinion polling page (that eventually became the 2025 Page) with Less polls than this in 2021 [8]. WanukeX (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment The article doesn't look like it's in the best shape, but I am going over my head. Can someone from the Netherlands comment on the reliability of RSP and ROOD?
- Comment Indeed the article link seems to be broken. Luckily, it is archived here. As a person from the Netherlands I'd consider there to be enough reliable coverage of RSP and ROOD to warrant their articles, though if people disagree I would be open to hear their reasoning. Noverraz99 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The only source that you provided above is mentioned in the nomination statement. It might also be the only valid sources available to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can totally grasp someone's frustration that there are so many political parties in the Netherlands. Yet we follow the P&G. This meets the GNG and NORG. It's a proper SPINOFF of its parent. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proper spinoff? Whether or not WP:SPINOFF is guaranteed, it does not mean that the topic is immediately notable (notability is not inherited). And please provide sources that prove that the subject is notable enough. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is automatically notable. Why place such a reaction? Also, several others listed fine sources. No need to rehash that. As a justified SPINOFF, there is no case to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nominator that the coverage from reliable sources has focused on the SP, not the RSP. "Significant coverage" means in-depth, focused coverage on the article topic in multiple reliable sources, not merely that multiple reliable sources mention it as part of the story. WP:ORG requires focused coverage. There is no inherited notability, and it seems to me that the undetailed coverage of the RSP only exists because of the SP, not because the RSP has done anything notable (yet). Yue🌙 22:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd argue coverage from the Algemeen Dagblad, Trouw and DUIC [nl] which all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. Simply put, the argument that the coverage would only exist because of the SP doesn't seem to hold up when for instance the Algemeen Dagblad article is in great part about, and features a prominent image of, the action headed by RSP.
Noverraz99 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re [The sources] all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. This does not count brief mentions, which does not count towards WP:SIGCOV. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject has proven to not be notable of any sort, maybe exclude the one source mentioned above. I am also not opposed to a merger to Socialist Party (Netherlands) as an WP:ATD. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these reliable sources clearly show SIGCOV: Op de Dag van de Arbeid dromen socialistische jongeren hardop van de revolutie, SP royeert tientallen leden vanwege 'dubbel lidmaatschap', Er komt een nieuwe Revolutionair Socialistische Partij in Rotterdam. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources brought up by Goldsztajn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the first two sources provided by Goldsztajn have significant coverage; in my opinion they suffer from the same problem of being focused on the SP and only being reported because of the SP. A splinter group doesn't inherit notability just because the more notable organisation it split from received coverage because of the split. The third source has focused coverage, but it's from a minor, local news site, and speaks mostly to the RSP's potential in the future. I'm not sure what makes the RSP notable at present aside from arguments that amount to inherited notability. Might be a WP:TOOSOON problem as well. Yue🌙 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dummycrats

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Conservatism, and Politics. मल्ल (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nichols, Alex (2018-11-27). "Diamond and Silk run the most obvious con on the right: The Fox News duo stars in 'Dummycrats,' a new and terrible documentary". The Outline. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
  The article notes: "And so we get the documentary Dummycrats, which was released in theaters for one day on October 16 and is now available for rent ($9.99) or purchase ($19.99) on Vimeo. (Many of the comments on Vimeo are from senior citizens who thought they were getting a DVD and are bewildered by the concept of watching a movie on the computer, but hey — they already bought it.) ... There’s really no reason not to produce one of these amateurish documentaries if you have the ability to; the peculiarities of conservative audiences make it all but impossible to disappoint them. The film’s producer, director, and writer, Kyle Olson, runs the third-string fake news website The American Mirror and is even lazier than Dinesh D’Souza when it comes to filming original content. Given that this was Olson’s first time working on a movie, I would normally be inclined to cut him some slack, but he truly pushes the limits of directorial incompetence. Dummycrats, which is 77 minutes long, opens with an astounding 27 minutes of archival footage. This lengthy segment begins with past Diamond and Silk TV spots and Trump rally appearances and then segues into a clip show of every Democratic gaffe since 1990, set to wacky circus music. You can watch all these on YouTube in higher resolutions than the deep-fried versions used in Dummycrats, but that sort of thing only matters to audiences with an average age younger than 85."
2. Penrice, Ronda Racha (2018-10-23). "From Diamond and Silk to Kanye West: Why Republican efforts to convert black voters are failing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
  The article notes: "How else to explain the new Diamond and Silk movie “Dummycrats,” which had its one-day theatrical release last week? Far from Oscar fodder, or even the MTV awards, the film is part of a broader, recent trend in which mostly white conservatives have sought out and elevated a series of black surrogates, hoping that these surrogates' often unintelligible, anti-liberal rantings will siphon black voters away from the Democratic Party. ... That support undoubtedly is also why Diamond and Silk now have their own movie, “Dummycrats.” The full-length film was theatrically released for one night only on October 15, but can now be screened on Vimeo. Waters and fellow Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi are the film’s biggest targets. While mostly unnoticed by the mainstream press, “Dummycrats” did get a few positive reviews in more conservative corners of the web. Writing for the conservative site Newsmax, Michael Clark claimed the film would “wake-up undecided voters.” Clark applauds the film’s lighter tone and lists what he sees as its best moments — moments that of course “expose” prominent Democrats."
3. Levine, Jon (2018-09-28). "Diamond and Silk Release Trailer for 'Dummycrats' Movie: 'Two Unlikely Heroes' (Video)". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
  The article notes: "Diamond and Silk have released a teaser trailer for their new film “Dummycrats,” offering a few more clues as to what people can expect when it is released next month. ... The minute-long trailer is a mix of b-roll of Democratic politicians looking silly and the duo shouting at someone off camera. An earlier teaser released by the pair suggested that the film will take the form of a Michael Moore documentary. ... The latest trailer says the film will premiere on Oct. 15, a month later than an original September release date floated three months ago. The film was slated to debut in Palm Beach, Florida — home of Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Wolcott, James (2019-02-06). "James Wolcott on the Shelf Life of a Deplorable". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
    The article notes: "Some acts, like femme duo Diamond and Silk—whose 2018 documentary Dummycrats is clotted with YouTube clips of the two appearing at Trump events before launching into a prolonged, futile campaign to confront Maxine Waters on camera—seem to be perpetually auditioning for reality TV."
  2. Egan, Paul (2022-08-03). "Who is Tudor Dixon? 4 things to know about Michigan's GOP nominee for governor". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.
    The article notes: "A company co-owned by Dixon was a producer of the 2018 film "Dummycrats." The "documentary" attack on former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and longtime California congresswoman Maxine Waters, also a Democrat, featured Black conservative political activist sisters "Diamond and Silk." The film was written and directed by Kyle Olson ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dummycrats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As has been my practice, I won't big along with a keep unless the sources found are added to the article in context. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIY DonaldD23 talk to me 01:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per sources listed above by Cunard DonaldD23 talk to me 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{ source assess table

| user= मल्ल

| startopen=Yes

| src1 = Dummycrats the Movie^[usurped]

| i1 = n | ij1 = About self

| r1 = | rj1 =

| s1 = | sj1 =

| src2 = The American Mirror: Tonight: See 'Dummycrats'- a movie calling Dems to task 'in manner no one in mainstream media would ever dare'

| i2 = n | ij2 = Publication owned by producer of the film

| r2 = n | rj2 = The Outline describes it as a "third-string fake news website"

| s2 = n | sj2 = Short press release

| src3 = Nichols, Alex (2018-11-27). "Diamond and Silk run the most obvious con on the right: The Fox News duo stars in 'Dummycrats,' a new and terrible documentary". The Outline. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

| i3 = y | ij3 =

| r3 = y | rj3 =

| s3 = y | sj3 = Source discusses the subject directly and in detail

| src4 = Levine, Jon (2018-09-28). "Diamond and Silk Release Trailer for 'Dummycrats' Movie: 'Two Unlikely Heroes' (Video)". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

| i4 = y | ij4 =

| r4 = y | rj4 =

| s4 = - | sj4 = Limited scope

| src5 = Penrice, Ronda Racha (2018-10-23). "From Diamond and Silk to Kanye West: Why Republican efforts to convert black voters are failing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

| i5 = y | ij5 =

| r5 = y | rj5 =

| s5 = - | sj5 = Limited scope

| src6 = Wolcott, James (2019-02-06). "James Wolcott on the Shelf Life of a Deplorable". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

| i6 = y | ij6 =

| r6 = y | rj6 =

| s6 = - | sj6 = The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail

| src7 = Egan, Paul (2022-08-03). "Who is Tudor Dixon? 4 things to know about Michigan's GOP nominee for governor". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

| i7 = y | ij7 =

| r7 = y | rj7 =

| s7 = - | sj7 = The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail

}}

मल्ल (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time doing a source assess table so apologies if I've done it incorrectly. मल्ल (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Hi CMD. I've edited this article before, and IIRC, there were sources or other information on this article that I read that verified that JAA did declare a separate emirate, but obviously they're not on the page anymore if they were. I need to do some more research to come to a definitive conclusion, but I think given that the Battle of Rafah and the Emirate cannot really be contextually divorced from one another, it makes sense to merge and redirect this article into the battle of Rafah article. This is just speculating, but I think all three could possibly be merged into the JAA article. I need to do more research overall though. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clear the JAA "declared" a separate emirate; that's a different claim than supposing that this declaration actually created an emirate. I have done a bit of looking into whether the Battle of Rafah (2009) could be merged, and it probably could, but it does not have the same contextual issues as this article. CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: would your argument also apply to the Democratic Republic of Yemen article, which is about only a declared entity that wasn't really established? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible similar arguments might figure out into exactly how to present the information, but it seems to be very dissimilar situation to the article at hand. CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon:, reading your comment, would you accept merging Islamic Emirate of Rafah into Jund Ansar Allah at a minimum? Longhornsg (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think that would benefit the subject of both articles Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into battle of Rafah 2009 JaxsonR (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i mean JAA JaxsonR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah, as this is a blip in JAA's history that warrants coverage on the militant organization's page, no more. Longhornsg (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think the Battle of Rafah (2009) article could be merged as well? Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no JaxsonR (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah per @Longhornsg's reasoning Evaporation123 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge target articles suggested and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it. JaxsonR (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JaxsonR You can't vote twice. Longhornsg (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge the article with Battle of Rafah (2009). Cydopan (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears Longhornsg, Castroonthemoon, JaxsonR (first vote), and Evaporation123 are in favor of merging to Jund Ansar Allah. Cydopan wants to merge to Battle of Rafah (2009). @Chipmunkdavis:, as nom, do you have a preferred merge target?

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]
I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 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]
Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find SIGCOV about time as Republican Party chair, and NPOL does not seem to extend to appointed cabinet officials. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of this AfD has been complicated by issues in the article. The department was listed as transportation vs transformation. They also describe him as a judge, which while technically his title, does not correspond to the typical usage of the word most people associate with judicial and the potential for being a superstar lawyer whose legal work can pass GNG. The facts: He was the county executive of the third-largest county in Arkansas (Washington County) for four years, a candidate for statewide office, a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, and is the current chairman of a major statewide political party (the Arkansas Republican Party). None of these by themselves are presumed to meet WP:NPOL. I understand there are disagreements about cabinet members and as a result I do think there is a need to clarify WP:NPOL at some point, but I think that is a discussion best had elsewhere. What I have not seen in this the keep votes is a discussion of existing sourcing to see if he is a figure who is notable for meeting general notability guidelines.

The only non-local news coverage of his time as Washington County Judge were routine mentions of his run for Lieutenant Governor in the context of other statewide office holders surrendering the primary to now Governor Huckabee Sanders. His cabinet position was at the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. It's basically the IT department of the state with other responsibilities for state property. It is not a particularly large department and I don't think any work done there would meet any test of historic significance that would warrant its subject receiving a stand alone article. I did not come across anything other than newswires (not independent of subject) in my NewsBank or Google searches. On party chair, there is coverage of a lawsuit that involves him as a party chair, but I do not think (from Google) the partial mentions of him in his chairman role responding about a lawsuit against the organization qualify as significant coverage. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umama Fatema

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

New activist and politician, article fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 03:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait as per WP:NPOL: not a politician who has served in a federal government. WP:TOOSOON to say if she will become more notable

DankPedia (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or Draftify might be a better option DankPedia (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Discrimination, Politics, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : lack of notability. Failed WP:GNG. SRL1122 (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. I see no reason to keep the article on Wikipedia. Somajyoti ✉ 08:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Mehedi Abedin 19:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Students Against Discrimination. As a spokesperson, she fails NPOL, but as one of many, she's sort of notable. She received 30 minutes of fame. No harm to merge and redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in just a little more time this article would be ready for primetime but at this point I do not think it meets WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Students Against Discrimination per Bearian. She played a major role in the July Revolution while being part of the Students Against Discrimination, yet there is no mention of it in that article. ✗plicit 06:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is clearly leaning towards a delete. With this relist, hoping for opinions and to discuss on merge as mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: She lacks independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, but played a visible role in Students Against Discrimination. A merge and redirect to that article is a reasonable middle ground. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party had representation in the Czech Parliament, albeit briefly. Of course it's notable, and there are a number of secondary sources on the Czech article. It just needs expansion/translation. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - the Czech article at cs:Demokratická strana zelených – Za práva zvířat cites 16 references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see this as a snow keep considering the number of references is no indication of notability, plus the fact that this party has never returned any candidates at an election? C 679 07:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that someone is considering indication of notability? We keeping all parties. This is not living persons. How do you for example see this article Ondřej Štursa as notable with two links? ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties are subject to WP:ORG. There is no Wikipedia policy to have a page on every political party. C 679 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "every political party", but it had representation in the Czech parliament. And the Czech article about the same topic has plenty of sources which can be used to expand this one. Jdcooper (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The supposed representation in Parliament came from "two Green MPs, Olga Zubová and Věra Jakubková". In Norway at least, it is impossible to formally switch parties during a term, so if you leave your party, you become independent. If this is the case in CZ as well, then the party was not formally represented in Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the case in CZ. These two MPs were sitting for this party. Jdcooper (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the clarification! Geschichte (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two members of parliament sat for this party while having a mandate and there seem to be an okay amount of sources. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Windsor Residents Association

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention that there also exists an article for the Old Windsor Residents Association. It is a very similar organisation to WWRA: they are both residents associations with two members on the same council, and have received a similar amount of coverage in local media. So, it would make sense to either keep both or delete both, as they have effectively the same level of notability. Infinite Hydra (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL, or in the alternative, redirect to an appropriate target. I'm all for neighborhood associations - I was secretary of mine in Albany, New York, for several years. But there's no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep mainly because I suspect that the reasons given for deletion so far are probably based on transatlantic misunderstanding? I don't think a UK RA (political party) is quite the same thing as a North American neighbourhood association? Certainly this one is little different to the rest of Category:Locally based political parties in England – most of those also need some work, but I don't think the news coverage of their borough council contributions fits the trivial mentions criteria. Joe D (t) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it should be treated as a political party, what sources can you show that offer WP:SIGCOV? I haven't found any, and anything that is said to pass WP:GNG requires that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seats in a local council do not mean that it is notable. Can't find sigcov. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hunt (editor)

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Politics, Environment, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green Anarchism as a suitable alternative to deletion, since he's affiliated with the topic. He is just as affiliated with Alternative Green, but since we have no article on that, I think the former is a better target than some broader article on national anarchism or the political right in the UK. I didn't see enough in a source search that we could use to substantiate a standalone article. czar 13:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal would be a redirect to Green Alternative so I wonder if we should create a stub for that? Otherwise redirect to Green Anarchist would be fine. However, Green Anarchism (which goes to Green anarchism) is far too general and would be a bad move. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Was Green Alternative even notable enough for an article? If there's no significant coverage of it, like there isn't of its founder, then I think it could easily be covered by a few sentences in the Green Anarchist article. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you’re right. I’ve got a bunch of tabs open so will look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see there is currently a Green Alternative page which is a disamb page that doesn’t include Hunt’s group. I’ll add it there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I took on de-stubifying this article at Project Anarchism, I had lots of tabs open. I've now gone through these and added as much material to the page as I can find. Some of it is from solid reliable sources; some (including more biographical material) is from weaker primary sources. My feeling now is there is enough here to keep the article. However, an alternative that I would also support would be to Rename as Green Alternative (magazine) or Green Alternative (UK) and rewrite it so the focus is on the publication/group not the individual. I would also be happy to merge the content into the (currently badly sourced) Green Anarchist article (but that might give Hunt too much space there). I still have a bunch of tabs open with the aim of improving that article. Pinging previous contributors Grnrchst and Czar in case my edits change their mind, and also John Eden who has done the most solid editing on the GA article and Jdcooper who I believe created this stub. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion! There are a few different threads here but my thoughts are: (1) The Hunt article still is too dependent on primary sources for basic details—i.e., there isn't enough coverage of Hunt himself in reliable, secondary sources to avoid having to revert to reliable sources—so I think the best bet is to redirect (but to where?) (2) Is there enough content on Alternative Green for a dedicated article? In the linked sources that I've read, AG is just part of the Southgate story and the actual scope of those articles is Southgate's movement in the UK which, in lieu of a separate article, is essentially the scope of National-anarchism. Would it suffice to cover GA in its own article (as it is) and AG in the National-anarchism article, where Hunt is already mentioned? (3) As for where to redirect Hunt, I'd sooner redirect to GA because I read the sources as associating him better with that then AG but if he is equally associated with both, we might want to delete the Hunt link as having no clear redirect target. I think that is a better outcome than redirecting to National-anarchism, where Hunt is mentioned but is not clearly affiliated. czar 01:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still recommend redirecting to GA at this point but courtesy ping @Bobfrombrockley @Grnrchst czar 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keeping this article isn't a hill I'd die on. Unless someone publishes some new research, it's unlikely to get stronger than it is. I personally think there's enough in it now to just keep it as it is, but if other editors don't then fair enough. (2) If we do delete it, I think there is some case for creating an article for AG, because it existed for about a decade and gave rise to significant controversy within the anarchist scene. But it won't be substantially stronger than this article, just avoid some of the BLP related concerns. If not, I don't think national anarchism is a good redirect point. Hunt is mentioned only briefly in the national anarchism article, and currently AG isn't mentioned at all. We could expand that, but it would remain marginal to the story, so that would not be a good place to redirect AG. (Hunt and AG should be expanded in Southgate's article too. If we delete this article, should make sure to copy relevant text to those articles first.) If the consensus is for deleting this article and not creating an AG article, then my strong view is that both Hunt and AG should redirect to the GA article and we work on making that robust. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jonesboro mayoral election

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I argue this article should not be deleted as it makes available this information, serving local people from Jonesboro, Arkansas. Having a working link to this page is also helpful for related pages, and prior to its creation was a redlink in Template:Elections in Arkansas sidebar. This page is beneficial to Wikipedia and its users. User01938 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is just too much detail which could have been fit into a table or something in the section on the city government. The sprawl of material that should be summarized has become a major failing of WP and does a disservice to readers who are looking for the kind of material an actual encyclopedia would have provided instead of the Global Archive of Everything. Mangoe (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajya Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable enough, relatively new party which doesn't have a long established electoral history unlike the two established national parties, the BJP and INC, virtually no presence besides Delhi and Punjab. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:16, 10 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Aam Aadmi Party's history is not really relevant to the notability of this list, but as far as I understand it is a very significant political party, regularly making the news even outside of India. This list should be judged on WP:NLIST, which says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Importantly, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". A brief web search turns up sources like [9], [10], [11], and [12], which discuss important parts of this topic (e.g. mentioning several of the people on the list as a group or telling us how many such people there are in total). I think this is clear evidence that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrematistics

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

An extremely obscure word appearing occasionally in Aristotle's work

Aristotle contrasts chresmatistics, which is the art of money-making, with economics, which is the art of household management in the Politics and in the Nicomachean Ethics. (Aristotle used the word 'techne' where I use the word 'art'.)

The term and category of chresmatistics is totally inessential to understanding Aristotle's views concerning which ways of acquiring wealth are legitimate and which illegitimate, or any other philosopher's views. And though the article may point out some real parallels between the criticism Marx and others made of capitalism, I don't think this very obscure Greek word has any real significance, and that any valuable content on this page should be merged to more frequently read general articles concerning philosophical critiques of capitalism, ancient ideas about economics, or into the articles of specific philosophers who developed Aristotle's ideas. Even then, I think that that material would be appropriate only if the later philosopher made this distinction between money-making and house-management a central element of their position. ForeverBetter (talk) 22:07, 9 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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this follows the common convention in articles on concepts in ancient greek philosophy where the Ancient Greek word is used, such as Nous or Ataraxia. And Aristotle is not the only Greek author who discusses wealth, there are extant treatises by Plutarch and Philodemus on the topic, as well as discussions by Epicurus and many of the Stoics. Psychastes (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I cannot comment on the relevance of the term within the philosophical discourse, there are several academic papers, usually in business ethics as well as some coverage in media towards a lay audience. These either have the term in their title, or feature it within the first few paragraphs prominently.

Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator, User:ForeverBetter, set up this AFD on their second day of editing. If you want to offer a persuasive Delete nomination, it would be better to base it on Wikipedia policy reasons rather than your own opinion. That's how we determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient media presence for a socialite, akin to Kardashians, "notable for being notable". --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With only an argument to Delete and one to Redirect, there is no consensus here. I'd like to ask User:James100000 what his opinion is as he is the only other editor to comment but failed to "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete These are minor municipal elections, and I don'ty see the redirects since that would be a complete change of subject. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe and Yoblyblob. Too local. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Majayjay local elections

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

Declined PROD with promise to improve refs. Added references do not indicate anything more than results or routine coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing significant coverage here. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Laguna local elections as per may arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yoblyblob and JackFromWisconsin. Too local. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mapandan local elections

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

No cited sources cover the election at much length, and was not able to find much through searching. Election for small municipality of under 40,000, and relies on social media sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page author has placed a comment on this discussion talk page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I would like to kindly request that the deletion discussion regarding my article be closed. Since the nomination, I have been able to gather and incorporate additional, verifiable information and reliable sources that I believe significantly improve the article’s notability and overall quality.

I understand and appreciate the community’s concerns raised earlier. However, with the newly added sources and updates, I believe the article now better meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I am fully open to further suggestions for improvement and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s content and sourcing guidelines moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, IJeskanEditorV1 IJeskanEditorV1 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 Laguna local elections as per may arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck, Mapandan is in Pangasinan. HueMan1 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pangasinan local elections, then. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pangasinan local elections. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the changes since the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Foundation

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [13] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [14], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [15], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [16]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References

I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:

* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [17] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [18] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."

How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.

The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.

Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [19] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?

Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733

Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [20].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:

I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:

EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.

EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap

https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348

https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/

https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928

https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/

https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed

https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484

https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[21]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
"I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...

Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.

WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.

Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.

Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”

Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.

Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.

Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.

Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.

Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.

Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [22], etc.) and on X (e.g. [23], [24], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.

Source	WP:INDEPENDENT	WP:RS	WP:SIGCOV	Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic	Yes	Maybe	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal	Yes	Yes	No	Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website	No	Maybe	Maybe	Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek	Yes	No	No	Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal	Yes	Yes	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com	Yes	No	Yes	WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine	Yes	Yes	Yes	Report on the club's conference
Niconico	Unknown	No	Unknown	WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
arXiv	Unknown	No	Unknown	Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief	Yes	No	Yes	The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [25], Atlantis / Lemuria [26], Thunderbirds [27], "The Deep State" [28], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [29].
Sunday World	Yes	No	No	The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.

Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|^✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [30] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [31]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:

PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.

As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding them later:

Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [32] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).

In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Wikipedia's job to track membership in different UFO organizations? How does this work with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOTDATABASE)? For reference, I don't think Wikipedia tracks membership on boards of different corporations and nonprofits, even if that information could be interesting. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the members weren't notable and their association not covered in RSes, it'd be an easy delete. But it's a group of eight notable individuals who have biographical articles and RSes do report on the collaboration between them. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this seems to be a textbook WP:NOTINHERITED argument. Chetsford (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument, per above, is that SIGCOV exists, not that it's inherited. But for those not swayed about a dedicated article, the alternative would seem to be redundantly covering the association in the eight separate bios, which seems... suboptimal.Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose there were eight siblings who were independently notable under WP:BIO. Suppose they share a similar Early Life section with the same parentage. Are their parents therefore also notable? I think not. Whether or not this article exists, editors can make a judgment on whether to include association with the Sol Foundation on the other bios.

Assuming that WP:SIGCOV does not exist (which is how we started this thread, with "where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together"), noting an association across multiple bios is not a problem. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't believe an article about an organization like this, who pushes fringe UFO theories, should exist without critical sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unidentified_flying_object#United_States_2. Sourcing does not look particualrly strong. Newsweek probably most independent one. But overall, don't think that this is enough to esatablish notability - which seems borderline. I looked at this a few times and the best I could come up with, besides deleting, was a merge until more coverage by stronger sources for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep this is a matter of considerable public interest. The article is supported by valid references and can continue to be improved. The Sol Foundation exists. There is increasing suspicion that a group of editors on Wikipedia are conspiring to traduce or remove articles on the UFO topic. People are openly stating they suspect intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia and have agents involved in this process to remove information on the subject from the public sphere. Recent edits of the article on Harald Malmgren have been discussed and suspected of CIA involvement. The legitimacy of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information is coming under serious question because, as Orwell once said, "omission is the most effective form of a lie". We must be better, we must allow a range of information which is of interest to the public, if it can be supported by third party sources. There are enormous articles on this site about wiping your bum (literally) and songs that failed to make the final in Eurovision ten years ago. There are thousands of frivolous pages pon this site which are not questioned and yet the UFO topic - which is a matter of Congressional investigation - is continuously brought down and questioned. It is a serious matter.Aetheling1125 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly being a "matter of considerable public interest" or the fact that WP also hosts articles on Eurovision Song Contest songs are not valid Keep reasons, nor is your claim [33] that "there is a clique within Wikipedia seeking to control information". The claim that the CIA is suspect of editing Wikipedia is also not a valid Keep reason. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aetheling1125, I've also argued above that the article should be kept. But there's absolutely no need to look at this as a "high-stakes" conversation, much less to invoke Orwell. The organization may be covered on its own page or it may be covered elsewhere (like the pages of its members or a page about UFO groups). No one is suggesting it be omitted entirely! Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with most of the source evaluation table (including Chetsford's follow-up comments). I find it rebuts a lot of the keep arguments made before it, and after it I'm not really seeing much of a (policy-based) argument to keep. I think the one point where I differ is that I don't think PopMatters would fall under WP:USERGENERATED. That and Focus seem like the stronger sources. LWG's and Feoffer's argument that The Debrief's reporting could be used to establish notability is...not realistic. The additional sources provided later by Very Polite Person plainly don't meet WP:SIRS, and bringing up a source already covered in the nomination is a pretty obvious example of bludgeoning this discussion. I don't envy the admin who ends up having to ~~control information and awareness using Wikipedia policies~~ wade through all this to figure out consensus. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with Chetsford's source evaluation table and most of the sources appear to focus on Nolan. The stand-alone page of Nolan already includes references to the Sol Foundation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I flagged the article with {{more citations needed}}. If the foundation is less than two years old and all it needs is one to three better refs, perhaps give it until the end of the year, then renominate if no change? Seems like the article is destined to be republished per WP:RADP if deleted. 5Q5|^✉ 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to draftify the article now and republish when/if more sources become available. -- LWG ^talk 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. There are plenty of passing mentions to show that it exists, but aside from copypastes of press releases and sensationalism e.g. The DeBrief, it's a WP:NOTJUSTYET situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good faith nom, and for the record, the canvassing and aspersions here are an unhelpful sideshow. However, I think that the San Francisco Standard and Focus Magazine pieces are sufficient WP:SIGCOV. I encourage the closing admin to actually read the San Francisco Standard article (1), because to me, it is clearly more than just an "event listing". The reporter actually attended the Sol Foundation's symposium. The article discusses his experience as an attendee, includes interviews with people he met there, and generally describes how the event went. It isn't just an event listing, it's an in-depth piece about an event hosted by the Sol Foundation - that is WP:SIGCOV. Because Chetsford concedes the Focus Magazine piece is SIGCOV, that's two sources and we've now passed WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 02:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — (weak to moderate) — Normally I would add my own arguments, but LWG and 5Q5 summed-up my feelings on the matter. Further, some of the "delete" arguments seem to bordering-on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, though there are plenty of good-faith arguments, as well, granted. In summation, I think the sources we have just about push us over the edge for notability and coverage. I suppose my position is that the default should be "keep," and, in this case, I am not swayed past that by the "delete" opinions. MWFwiki (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Juan Carlos Esquivel

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Religion, Venezuela, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Harris (Silton)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability - genealogy / local history and nothing else. Ingratis (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barb Rankin

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think an acting secretary who may have been a state cabinet member falls below WP:NPOL. I think if they've gone through a confirmation process (here in Oklahoma cabinet secretaries need Senate approval) then it's substantially more likely for there to be coverage focused on who the person is and why their position matters. With that in mind, Rankin is below the threshold for presumed notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPOL does not seem to extend to unelected state officials, and I cannot find coverage that would show the subject meeting GNG. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying, I should have used the term "acting" rather than unelected, I believe NPOL covers those who have been appointed and served at the top of their state organization. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An acting secretary would not be afforded the presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. There are current discussions of whether an appointed US state department head should be afforded the presumption of notability. The standard for this subject should be whether the subject passes WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Haire

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Northern Ireland. — Moriwen (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Parkes (politician)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Northern Ireland. — Moriwen (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - High Sheriff is a largely symbolic role - there really isn't much attention granted towards anyone who happens to be granted it. Doesn't meet notability critera. Cutlass ^Ciera 16:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy (mayor)

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

Non-notable local politician that fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. All of the sources used are either WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, routine coverage of local elections, or not actually about the subject at all and just include his name. This exact article was declined and rejected multiple times by me and others at WP:AFC and you can see extensive discussion about it here and here. I also wrote a source-by-source review as an AfC comment that I ask an admin to please copy here for reference. The page creator has a history of moving the draft out of process and resubmitting without any changes. Even now, they requested the rejected drafts deletion just to immediately recreate the page in the mainspace. I would be agreeable to redirect to Hollywood, Florida as an ATD. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, Politics, and Florida. cyberdog958^Talk 19:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AI-generated - at least partially - seeing as how a number of the references include ?utm_source=chatgpt.com at the end of the url. Curbon7 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. I don't think this meets WP:NPOL at all. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Hollywood, Florida#Government. Djflem (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mayor of a city of 150,000 could be notable. I have a first cousin who lives in Hollywood but I don't think they are friends. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollywood, Florida#Government. Size of municipality does not affect whether a local elected official passes GNG. What matters is whether there is sufficient information to say more than mayor X exists. --Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Bachaalany

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Philosophy, Poetry, and Lebanon. — Moriwen (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gbooks, Scholar, Jstor and Gsearch all come up with nothing. Gbooks has books about computer culture, which isn't about this fellow. I don't see any sourcing, at all. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The BNF Gallica has nothing [34]... if he was notable, I'd expect something in French about him. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gainer

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

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

Keep: I'm not affiliated with Gainer other than creating the article. Photograph is from my archive. I took care to make sure the article is well-sourced, so I'm not sure why you would question his notability. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Environment, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, please be aware that Democratic supporters tried to get the page for India Walton deleted as non-notable multiple times during the leadup to the 2021 Buffalo mayoral election, as she was the only progressive in the race. I feel Democratic supporters for Gainer's opponents might be trying to do the same here, as he is a viable candidate for the 2025 Buffalo mayoral election. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, is this why you accused me of having a conflict of interest with zero evidence? LOL. Not everything is a big conspiracy, sometimes a person just isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Do you have any evidence that "Democratic supporters" were trying to remove India Walton's page or is that just another conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not engaging in good-faith, so I won't address you further. You can read the AFD logs for yourself. I've been here a lot longer than you, and unlike yourself I edit a broad range of topics.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously accusing BottleOfChocolateMilk of bad faith after you more or less accused them of being part of a conspiracy to? If you have no proof then that's like ANI-worthy levels of bad faith. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This comment comes from someone who is clearly referring to a separate matter where BottleOfChocolateMilk is being investigated for conflict of interest editing. He posted a link to this AFD page last night to initiate vote brigading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither DNC representative nor mayoral candidate passes WP:NPOL. Heavily refbombed making it difficult to determine whether any sources are sufficiently independent and in-depth to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the version I examined appear to be from non-independent publishers (1, 4, 8), non-in-depth campaign-related (2-3, 10, 36-44, 46-47), reliable news stories about other topics that mention Gainer but have no depth of coverage about him (5-7, 14, 31-33, 48-50, 52), interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher; 9, 15), not reliable (35, 45) or background material not about Gainer at all (16,51). Many of the sources are more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer (11-13, 17-30, 34) and might support notability for Buffalo ReUse, in which case we could redirect to an article on it rather than outright deletion, but I don't think those sources have enough depth of coverage on Gainer himself to support an independent article. If the article creator is trying to promote mayoral candidates with a certain agenda, they should not be surprised when their articles are brought up for deletion, not because we are biased towards or against that agenda, but because Wikipedia has safeguards against promotionalism in general and NPOL is one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Environmental historian Charles Lockwood identified and interviewed the top 25 global environmentalists for his 2009 book The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability^[1]. He dedicated a chapter to interviewing Michael Gainer, and these are the other subjects he interviewed: Thomas L. Friedman, Ché Wall, William D. Browning, Christopher B. Leinberger, James Howard Kunstler, William McDonough, Björn Stigson, Jaime Lerner, Hank Dittmar, Elizabeth Economy, Rick Fedrizzi, Paul Hawken, Vivian Loftness, David Gottfried, Julian Darley, Robert S. Davis, Maria Atkinson, Ron Sims, Frances Beinecke, Mindy Lubber, Van Jones, Earl Blumenauer, and Cesar Ulises Trevino. Darley and Lubber pass WP:GNG, but Gainer does not? TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC) TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the sources I already considered, and classified as "more about Buffalo ReUse than Gainer". But per your comments here we can also classify it under "interviews (non-independent in content despite publisher)". Either way it does not contribute towards the sort of significant independent coverage of Gainer himself needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To piggyback off David Eppstein's reply there's the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS policy answer, but the assertion made Gainer is one of the "top 25 environmentalists" would imply that Charles Lockwood was somehow a supreme authority overall via a book that fails N:BOOK. That's even more troubling when you take into account that 80% of the "top environmentalists of the world" are from the US and only 2 (Stigson and Trevino) of the 25 appear to have been operating from non-English speaking countries. I would also love to know how many of Lockwood's "top 25" were clients of his consulting business but a simple search hasn't been able to unearth anything. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lockwood, Charles (2009). "The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability". Internet Archive. pp. 171–178. ISBN 9780874201215. Retrieved May 23, 2025.

Delete Per David Eppstein's reasoning, although "DNC representative" is generous to take it lightly. He was elected as a member of his county's democratic committee by receiving a whopping 36 total votes in a party-specific election for one of at least 11 committee seats in his district. In general, mayoral candidates and especially primary candidates are considered non-notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vote should be disregarded, as GPL93 admittedly came here from the COI Noticeboard where BottleOfChocolateMilk linked to this AFD[35] for purposes of vote brigading. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is just sad BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNewMinistry I had no knowledge of the WP:COIN case against BottleOfChocolateMilk at the time of my comment and vote. Can you show me the specific proof? I actually found this AfD through a check of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania. This is another personal attack BTW. Of course, if you think this is a true case of brigading you are obviously more than welcome to report me to ANI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Proof? Sure, we have lots of that here:

GPL93 - Top Edits

You haven't made an edit off the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania page since September 17, 2024. Nice try. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheNewMinistry Holy Shit you're right! It's almost like I instead commented and voted on the previously listed actual AfD pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md Amiruzzaman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Young Democrats in the past month or so alone and it's not because I haven't started an AfD that needed to be categorized under Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pennsylvania since then instead. It looks like the Admins have told you that ANI is where you need to file against BottleOfChocolateMilk at WP:ANI anyway, you can report me as well if you feel the need to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment I have p-blocked TheNewMinistry from here and the article and warned them against disruption or the block would be broader. Star Mississippi 01:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Indian state Ministers for Tourism

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

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

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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Travel and tourism, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kethamreddy Vinod Reddy

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Andhra Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect or merge might be appropriate to the election article. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Duerr

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO. This is about the best there is [36], this is PROMO as well [37]. Seems to be going places, but isn't there yet, for notability anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass any inclusionary criteria. Super promotional article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books are self-published and not particularly long so WP:AUTHOR is failed. There is no reasonable claim to notability for political involvement either through NPOL or GNG. Hope he accomplishes a lot in life, but the subject does not warrant an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article about yourself or someone you like/support isn't necessarily a good thing. --Mpen320 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Charles

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement Sutapurachina (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is verifiably false. At least three of the citations mention her by name. This deletion would not meet the criteria as she is a public figure. Doc0976 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any independent coverage of her outside of passing references. MrTaxes (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage to have this bio in existance. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while as yet unelected candidates for office get articles only if they can be shown to have already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway. But this stakes her notabiluty entirely on her forthcoming candidacy itself, and shows nothing that would have made her notable enough for an article independently of that. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely irrelevant person and this whole bio is written with such blatant bias with undue weight. Moreover, it heavily relies on primary sources. AsaQuathern (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale of the nominator and others. Fails all the relevant notability bars: WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTNEWS #2 & #3. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment this is a BLP who is currently standing for public office. I have semi'ed this to avoid a further influx of !votes from those unfamiliar with our policies. Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete articles about political candidates who have never held office. This can always be recreated later. Allowing candidates to use us as a free advertising platform places our 501(c)(3) status in jeopardy. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Seungri400 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. It's incredibly rare for a third-party or independent candidate in a US election to be notable and it requires a large amount of national-level campaign coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Gerard Nazal Jr.

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

Badly-sourced attack page for a Fillipino figure bludgeoned through the draft process (see also Draft:Robert Nazal and Draft:Roberto Gerard L. Nazal Jr.); creating editor was blocked from editing Bagong Henerasyon (along with everyone else for now) for adding undue weight and poor Reddit-based blog sourcing about a minor controversy involving that organization involving this person, so they're trying to wedge it into other articles to push their fringe viewpoint. This is otherwise a gossip/attack page for a figure with little to no WP:N already reverted on several pages before. I also suspect this page was created with LLM assistance going by its formatting. Nathannah • 📮 23:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the congressman/businessman has sufficient coverage and controversy (outside the fringe MCGI-related controversies the author has pushed). Hopefully I have salvaged the article enough. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Philippines congress. Attack elements have been WP:HEYed by Hariboneagle927. Curbon7 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, passes WP:NPOL having served in the House of Representatives of the Philippines from 2022 to 2024. On that alone, he passes, but I caution naming him as a congressman-elect as his party still has an unresolved disqualification case, and he might even have one on his own. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. but we should monitor the article as there was just a recent Philippine election. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but watch closely. Bearian (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It was passed on WP:NPOL since he's have politics background. It passed also on GNG, just monitor this article closely. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite related to the subject's notability, but can Hariboneagle927 and possibly other people who'd think of doing the same, to not add WP:BLPPRIMARY sources (such as COMELEC documents) to the article in regards to BLP information (birthdates, addresses, etc.)? The only possible exception is for it to be used as a secondary source (or as a backup) to another WP:RS source, but as a source to itself, it cannot be used. Please do not use those not just on this article, but on any other articles; it should be removed on sight on other articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ry Armstrong

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

Ry Armstrong doesn't seem to have any significant coverage as either an actor or as a politician. Two of their three roles were uncredited and the third, in The Gilded Age, was for an unnamed side-character. As a politician, Armstrong lost a primary election for Seattle City Council by a wide margin (they only received 1.86%) and is a candidate for mayor of the city. As of today, Armstrong is currently has 1/3 of the fundraising as the top two candidates and has not been included in any polls. I've gone ahead and reviewed a good portion of the sources below, with the other half being almost entirely self published or very minor coverage.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Microplastic Consumer
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.outfrontmagazine.com/meet-genderqueer-gilded-age-actor-ry-armstrong/	Interview	Out Front is a decently reputable magazine, suitable for LGBTQ+ topics	Interview with the subject about their role in The Gilded Age (TV series) as an unnamed character	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/neglect-by-the-gilded-ages-ry-armstrong-begins-performances-october-11			One paragraph about a performance of a play being announced	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/calling-all-broadway-devotees-join-a-guinness-world-record-attempt-by-singing-the-greatest-showman	Seems a bit promotional, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt		Subject is only given a passing mention as an organizer	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/the-gilded-ages-ry-armstrong-to-debut-new-play-neglect			Only a single paragraph with no plot summary	✘ No
https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2023/2023/03/13/78895136/drama-kid-ry-armstrong-wants-your-vote-in-district-3	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	The Stranger is reliable for Seattle City Politics	~ Routine campaign coverage but does go in-depth on the subject	~ Partial
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/03/18/79972532/ry-armstrong-wants-bruce-harrells-job	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	The Stranger is reliable for Seattle City Politics	~ Could be argued as routine campaign coverage, but does go in-depth on subject	~ Partial
https://www.bothell-reporter.com/life/kenmore-native-creates-album-featuring-broadway-stars-for-a-good-cause/	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	Local Newspaper	Seems sort of promotional and the coverage is very local	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— Per the original nominator. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to meet GNG, and I don't think their entering political races every few years without lasting coverage counts towards that.

Awshort (talk) 11:37, 25 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Politicians, Theatre, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems like a promotional political page as they don't quite seem like a notable actor. SportingFlyer T·C 23:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dogan Kımıllı

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also violates WP:CoI. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Architecture, and Turkey. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. In theory, a mayor of a city of 250,000 people could be notable, but the SPA who created this mess is not helpful. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per faliure of WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV, which the refs are not. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} (at 14:27 UTC on 25 May 2025)
Delete Lacks sufficient RSes to bolster inclusion. Let me know if more sources are included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Germain

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. After the recount, he is now a failed candidate for office, which is not notable enough for an article of his own. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Zinderboff (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous career with the CBC. Rushtheeditor (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zinderboff. Because he lost the election, this article will not be qualified and fails GNG. Steam5 (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-known CBC journalist. This article has been improved a lot since creation. Moondragon21 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable journalist. The article has multiple good sources, and more can surely be found based on his career hosting a number of notable shows. I think we're getting a little too hung up on the fact that he was a candidate in an election - he was notable before that. MediaKyle (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Echoing MediaKyle's comment. He was notable beforehand, but the fact he lost so narrowly after a judicial recount adds to that notoriety. MauriceYMichaud (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although he lost the recount and thus isn't notable as a politician per se, he already had preexisting notability as a journalist before jumping into politics — seriously, Canadians have known his name since the 1990s, and the fact that nobody got around to creating the article until he appeared to have won election as an MP isn't relevant. Article does need some improvement, but he had preexisting notability as a journalist long before narrowly losing an election — so I've already reformatted it to place more emphasis and improved sourcing on the journalism. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Bearcat, MediaKyle and others. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 18:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Losing an election is irrelevant to WP:NPOL since the article subject has established notability prior to involvement in politics. ZachH007 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 18:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person seems to meet the WP:GNG. There are arguments that since he lost his race that makes him not notable but there seems to be sufficient RSes to justify notability independent from just his political career. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thought I'd be a delete going into this one but if you remove all of the political content, he's notable as a journalist. SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasiruddin Patwary

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

WP:TOOSOON and depth coverage unavailable in reliable sources. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 04:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Easy meet WP:GNG. As a politician, he has received significant national independent news coverage. Dv24mail (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage is about the National Nagorik Committee or the National Citizen Party and press briefing speeches, but there is no in-depth coverage about him and about his biography. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 06:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nasir's words and statements as a politician have received significant national independent news coverage. In the current political context of Bangladesh, he is a young politician holding an important position in a political party. He has not received much coverage on his biography. I think it can be keep. Dv24mail (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Which point of WP:GNG does the subject meet?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nasir's words and statements as a politician have received significant national independent news coverage. In the current political context of Bangladesh, he is a young politician holding an important position in a political party. He has not received much coverage on his biography. I think it can be keep. Dv24mail (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have spent the past several months deleting articles about minor party leaders, from Canada to India. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nasir's words and statements as a politician have received significant national independent news coverage. I think it can be keep. Dv24mail (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I don't see any WP:SIGCOV. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most coverage is about the party, not the Nasiruddin. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Bondegezou (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found it helpful on numerous occasions in my work, it saves me so much time rather than having to go into individual constituencies to find out. It exists for countless other countries and deleting it would only hinder. I would agree that if it were being created now then it would be problematic but it would ADD burdens, admittedly for only a few people but us nevertheless, rather than making anything more simple or easier to use. Please keep this genuinely very helpful article. Kepleo123 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid navigational article, even if it might need additional sources beyond the single one. A merge is not a good option because the other article is too long already. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a valid navigational article? Nearly all losing candidates don't have articles to which to navigate, so the main navigation is just to the winner, but we already have List of MPs elected in the 2024 United Kingdom general election that covers that. How many different ways do we need the same information? Bondegezou (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is it's value? Its value is in its use. I use the page regularly to access information. I find it an invaluable resource. We would not want to delete something if there is data showing that the page is well used. No data is being provided to justify its deletion. Graemp (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because nearly all of them don't doesn't mean there's anything at all invalid about this particular article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Martin

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the very comprehensive nomination. I would not oppose a redirect to next year's congressional election, such as 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive nomination. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are not inherently notable for Wikipedia - I would have !voted delete on the other candidate as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination rationale and further find that the article subject isn’t notable simply by virtue of being a political candidate. Specifically, WP:RS coverage has not reached a WP:SUSTAINED level that would justify notability under WP:NPOL. ZachH007 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I have just come across this AfD; I will not have time to research and add additional sources by the time it closes, but I would like to put some effort into doing so, and turning the current article into a draft would facilitate that.Sumana Harihareswara 03:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donn Favis

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

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

Draftify and redirect to Marikina#Local government: Still a major figure in local politics; gaining notability in the foreseeable future is not out of the equation. On a related note, if that is the threshold, then Xyza Diazen should also be rediscussed.

TofuMuncher (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TofuMuncher if you want to take action on that page you can. Politicians have notability requirements, where if they hold a certain position they can be considered automatically notable, but they can still be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searches have turned up sufficient in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support that the General Secretary of the AIADMK meets the WP:GNG notability guideline. Reliable sources are cited to verify this. Since 1977, individuals holding this position have played significant roles in both Indian national and state-level politics. They have influenced key political alliances — supporting the Janata Party government in 1979, the Congress government under Narasimha Rao in 1991, and the BJP-led government in 1998. AIADMK, under its General Secretary, has allied with national parties multiple times, impacting national outcomes. Notably, from 2014 to 2016, the General Secretary led AIADMK as the third largest party in Parliament with over 50 MPs across both houses. Kalpana Sundar ^Talk 07:06, May 23, 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

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

comment The consensus has agreed, I understand, that ambassadors are not inherently notable. This is despite Wikidata's consensus that Ambassador is not someone's job, but it is an award. Noting that other people are being mentioned in the rationale above. I note that we have over 100,000 people on Wikipedia who are notable because they were chosen by a town somewhere to kick a ball on their behalf. If they go on to represent their country then they become extra notable...(alongside well over 20,000 others - not 200) as long as they keep kicking a ball then they may be made ambassadors for the UN, leading charities or companies. I feel that the basis of this argument is that "ambassadors are not notable" - which is an idea that has never been proposed or agreed. This person has two national awards - the burning spear and being recognised as a representative of her country by her country and several others. You may not think that the American ambassador to Malawi is not notable - but it makes no sense to ignore the award and recognition that was given to that person when they were appointed. Ambassadors in Malawi are not only appointed by the President but they are grilled by a parliamentary committee to check that they are a notable candidate for the award of this position. Victuallers (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - maybe there's been a misunderstanding, my argument wasn't that "ambassadors are not notable", it was that - based on my current understanding - they don't have presumed or inherent notability, which is why I searched for SIGCOV, attempted to evaluate the burning spear award. and looked into the possibility of a national biography entry. Zzz plant (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I live in the U.S. so my access to information about African diplomats to European countries may be limited compared to, say, people who live geographically closer. Ergo, it interests me greatly to read a Wikipedia biography about an ambassador from Kenya to Finland, Latvia, etc. Notwithstanding the remarks made about quantity and quality of sources found, IMHO, it would be a pity to delete the article and lose the historical facts regarding diplomacy. (I came here because of the deletion notice at Women, but my comment stands regardless of the subject's gender.) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that at one point being an ambassador was considered notable, now (I'm told) its not. So it was notable, and its not now. Are we now to discount an ambassadorship completely? That would appear to take a binary approach to a notability decision that this very process shows is loaded with opinion. Surely we should not be looking not for a new argument, but a small piece of evidence to add to the substantial piece of evidence of a national award (ie being made an ambassador). It seems to me that evidence that was once thought to be totally persuasive is now being discounted completely (mistakenly IMO) as no longer relevant. There are several independent sources that record that she has the award of being an ambassador. It is being argued below that "it is not because of the sources in the article." But, there are still several independent sources if we consider ones that support the award of ambassadorship and the other national award. Victuallers (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: First, for those unfamiliar with AFD, please do not only present an argument but your outcome preference in BOLD, your choices are Keep, Delete, Draftify, Redirect or Merge. It really helps a closer as does indicating what policy or guideline supports your argument so it is not just based in your opinion. This usually involves an evaluation of sources in the article or ones you have located. As for ambassadors, I know we delete a lot of their articles, mostly through PRODs but also through the AFD process. Most of the time, the discussions do not get this level of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Thankyou for the discussion, my argument for keeping the article as is, is as follows:

In the NPOL guidelines under the subheading Politicians and judges, it includes politicians who are quote "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Further in this point's explanatory note (8) it states "...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Slaughter as a local Welsh politician has indeed gained independent news feature stories about him. Here are links to several of them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50368944

https://nation.cymru/news/anthony-slaughter-re-elected-as-leader-of-wales-green-party/

https://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/10945089.penarths-anthony-slaughter-elected-deputy-leader-of-welsh-green-party/

Further here are two articles BBC News articles whereby he is mentioned in passing because he is the leader of the Wales Green Party (non-feature articles):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56644323

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2520dndy6o

Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leader of a significant political party. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 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]
I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 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]
Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find SIGCOV about time as Republican Party chair, and NPOL does not seem to extend to appointed cabinet officials. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of this AfD has been complicated by issues in the article. The department was listed as transportation vs transformation. They also describe him as a judge, which while technically his title, does not correspond to the typical usage of the word most people associate with judicial and the potential for being a superstar lawyer whose legal work can pass GNG. The facts: He was the county executive of the third-largest county in Arkansas (Washington County) for four years, a candidate for statewide office, a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, and is the current chairman of a major statewide political party (the Arkansas Republican Party). None of these by themselves are presumed to meet WP:NPOL. I understand there are disagreements about cabinet members and as a result I do think there is a need to clarify WP:NPOL at some point, but I think that is a discussion best had elsewhere. What I have not seen in this the keep votes is a discussion of existing sourcing to see if he is a figure who is notable for meeting general notability guidelines.

The only non-local news coverage of his time as Washington County Judge were routine mentions of his run for Lieutenant Governor in the context of other statewide office holders surrendering the primary to now Governor Huckabee Sanders. His cabinet position was at the Department of Transformation and Shared Services. It's basically the IT department of the state with other responsibilities for state property. It is not a particularly large department and I don't think any work done there would meet any test of historic significance that would warrant its subject receiving a stand alone article. I did not come across anything other than newswires (not independent of subject) in my NewsBank or Google searches. On party chair, there is coverage of a lawsuit that involves him as a party chair, but I do not think (from Google) the partial mentions of him in his chairman role responding about a lawsuit against the organization qualify as significant coverage. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it's common for political biographies to have a lot of primary sources, this is too much. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not opposed to a redirect, as suggested, in this and similar cases. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 24 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 ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([44], [45]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]), primary source election results ([54], [55], [56]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([57], [58], [59]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([60], [61], [62], [63], [64]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.

Harding’s creation of the Transparency and Integrity Hub was widely reported on as an Australian first in public sector accountability, and the platform has since gone on to win multiple awards for excellence in governance. Her leadership in transparency and open government has been cited as a model across local councils nationwide — this is not routine coverage. It's coverage directly tied to reforms that positioned Ipswich as a benchmark for integrity in public service.

She has been profiled and quoted in national publications (e.g. The Australian, ABC News, and Brisbane Times) on issues beyond just local council matters, such as integrity, government reform, and the broader challenges facing local government post-administration.

These are not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or strictly WP:LOCAL stories. There is sustained, significant, and thematic coverage of Harding's efforts as a reformist figure in a city recovering from major scandal. Furthermore, WP:NPOL outlines that political figures merit a standalone article when they have held a significant office, especially when their work has attracted meaningful coverage. The role of Mayor of Ipswich — one of Queensland’s largest and most politically scrutinised cities — clearly meets this threshold. The fact that Harding's governance is the subject of national discussion and awards only further reinforces this.

Yes, the article (like many local politician entries) includes primary sources — but these are verifiable and properly cited alongside reputable secondary sources. If you want more, allow me the oppurtunity TO add more. It is unreasonable to dismiss a subject’s notability purely because official council statements or bios are included for factual grounding. The argument of WP:SYNTH also does not apply where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material.

To remove a page like this, particularly when Harding remains in office and continues to garner national attention, seems premature and contrary to WP’s mission of documenting notable public figures whose actions affect Australian governance.

Let’s improve the article, not delete it. Remarka6le (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH absolutely applies where context is clearly and faithfully drawn from the cited material. If you are drawing context that's not present in secondary sources on Harding, you are engaged in original research, which Wikipedia does not allow. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I believe your interpretation of WP:SYNTH is being applied too rigidly here. The policy does not prohibit contextually relevant information so long as each piece is verifiable and used within its intended scope. None of the sources in question ([23]–[27]) are being used to draw conclusions about Harding herself that are not explicitly supported by the sources. They are used to establish a critical and well-documented event: the sacking of Ipswich City Council.

The policy on synthesis (WP:SYNTH) is only violated when sources are combined to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But in this case, the sources all clearly state that the council was dismissed due to systemic misconduct, and that a period of administration followed. That is an undisputed historical fact, covered broadly and independently in reliable media — including at the national level. Stating that Harding was elected as mayor following that event is not original analysis; it’s chronology.

Wikipedia:No original research even clarifies that "rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." That’s precisely what’s been done here. There’s no leap in logic, no implied conclusion, and certainly no novel interpretation. It’s simply a well-sourced recounting of events that are directly relevant to Harding’s notability as the first post-dismissal mayor.

What would constitute a violation is failing to cite those events and instead summarising them unsourced — which would make the article unverifiable. The argument that mentioning the context of her office constitutes SYNTH would set a troubling precedent: it would mean we couldn’t refer to major public events unless every article about every individual involved was named explicitly in the same source. That’s not how encyclopaedic writing works, nor how WP:NOR is intended to function. Remarka6le (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Even if there is more non-routine coverage, this is basically a promotional biography and not an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern around promotional tone, but I’d argue that’s a solvable issue through collaborative editing, not a reason for deletion or redirection.

If there are parts of the article that read as promotional, strip back the tone, add balance, and bring in more neutral language where needed. That’s exactly what Wikipedia’s editing process is for. Deleting the entire article — especially when there is now more non-routine, nationally relevant coverage — feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Redirecting to List of Mayors of Ipswich also isn’t a constructive alternative. That page is a shell — it lacks meaningful detail, context, or the capacity to fairly represent Harding’s role. Collapsing a complex and award-winning tenure into a bullet point does a disservice to readers and the subject. Remarka6le (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the matter of sources [23] to [27] — these are not being used to make claims about Harding personally, but rather to establish the extraordinary circumstances surrounding her election. As the first mayor following the dismissal of Ipswich City Council for systemic misconduct and corruption, Harding's role cannot be meaningfully understood without reference to that context.

The scale of the council’s dismissal is directly relevant to the significance of Harding’s office. It is not possible, nor responsible, to write about a reform mayor brought in after a scandal of this size without referencing the event that made her election necessary in the first place.

Wikipedia requires verifiability — I can’t simply say “she was elected after the council was sacked” without reliable sources to confirm that. That’s exactly what [23]–[27] provide. They document the reasons for the council’s dismissal and form the factual, contextual bedrock for understanding Harding’s tenure.

Removing those references or dismissing them as unrelated misunderstands how context works in biographical writing. Harding’s notability is inextricably linked to the fallout of the corruption scandal. That context isn’t WP:SYNTH — it’s essential, and well-sourced. Remarka6le (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: just being a local mayor does not mean a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. The "best" articles here (ABC) were in the "local politics" section. I just don't think they're enough to show Wikipedia notability, since all local politicians receive at least some coverage. Also if you are new here, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLUDGEON. I do not think you are bludgeoning yet, and you are allowed to argue your point, but it is a good policy to know. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary sources about Harding say that she was elected after the council was sacked, then Wikipedia shouldn't say that. To use primary sources or sources that don't mention her to make that claim about her is a form of WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The council’s dismissal is a well-sourced public fact. Using those sources to establish a timeline is not WP:OR — it’s verifiable background. No interpretation is being added. Saying “she was elected after the dismissal” is a factual, time-based statement that doesn’t require the dismissal and Harding to be in the same sentence in a source to be accurate, as long as both are independently cited. That’s consistent with policy. Remarka6le (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. The sourcing does not meet our expectations, per WP:GNG. Size of municipality does not matter - what matters for local officials is whether there is enough reliable sources to say more than "the mayor exists." We want to see independent sources that discuss the impact of the mayor/local official had on their municipality or their region. If sent to draft, this would need to come back through AFC --Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as this article has a number of issues including lots of references with passing mentions leading to WP:CITEKILL. It reads more like a profile piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Note I haven't seen an article with significant coverage here yet, with sources put forward appearing to be routine coverage - there are lots of these references. The only reason I'm not !voting Delete is that there may be enough to meet WP:BASIC but I just haven't been able to find these. Nnev66 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftification helps nobody if the article topic is not notable. Some clearer source analysis might help reach a consensus on this one way or another -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With respect, the claim that Teresa Harding is not notable remains an opinion — not a settled fact — and one that is not universally held in this discussion. She holds a significant office in Queensland’s 6th largest LGA and has received national coverage for substantive reform efforts, including Australia’s first Transparency and Integrity Hub.

It’s also worth noting that many other mayors from Queensland’s largest LGAs already have standalone articles:

Adrian Schrinner – Brisbane (1st)

Tom Tate – Gold Coast (2nd)

Peter Flannery (politician) – Moreton Bay (3rd)

Darren Power – former Mayor of Logan (4th)

Rosanna Natoli – Sunshine Coast (5th)

Teresa Harding – Ipswich (6th, under discussion)

Troy Thompson (politician) – Townsville (7th)

Geoff McDonald (mayor) – Toowoomba (8th)

Bob Manning (mayor) – Cairns (9th)

Many of these articles have remained in mainspace for years — including Peter Flannery’s, which has existed since 2020 — despite being far shorter, less sourced, and in some cases offering little more than routine electoral information. If those are considered acceptable, it sets a clear precedent for Harding’s article to be improved, not removed.

If there are concerns around tone, depth, or sourcing, draftification via AfC is a constructive middle ground. It allows those willing to improve the article the opportunity to do so, while ensuring it meets appropriate standards before returning to mainspace. Deletion or redirection is unnecessary and inconsistent in context. Remarka6le (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hence the relisting comment of 'if'. The point being that the place to establish consensus on notability is at AfD, not through a backdoor draftification, in my opinion. If the topic is notable, sending to draft should not be necessary, since AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. If it is not, there is no point in sending to draft. Of course, a consensus could still emerge to send to draft, but I'd like to see some further discusson wrt to notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't matter if other articles exist or not. Some may need to be deleted, some may be notable for other reasons. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason for Draftification is to give a newish editor some time to understand WP:GNG requirements, clear out sources that aren't needed in the article, and clean up the article. Ideally they would do that via AFC, but since we are here now at AfD, but 1-2 weeks might not be enough time, hence recommending taking back to Draft. The most ideal is for editors !voting keep is to list the three best sources for notability. If these sources are deemed routine, it's unlikely there is enough for GNG/BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- as nominator, I would be happy to have the redirect restored, but I am almost always willing to give a good-faith editor time to polish up an article that may not be ready for mainspace in its current form. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and restore redirect Seems to be the best course of action given the quality issues of the article. Remarka6le seems to be willing to improve it, and subject does appear to have received more news coverage since the last AfD. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on it under the guidance of, or in collaboration with, an experienced editor to ensure it's brought to a standard everyone is comfortable with. Remarka6le (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of sources, so many knit-picking go on, do people forget we have WP:BASIC, this more than qualifies. I've seen far worse articles kept than this. multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly satisfies WP:BASIC, with multiple independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources in national outlets like *The Australian* and *ABC News*. The notion that references to the council’s dismissal must specifically mention Harding's name in every article is a misapplication of WP:SYNTH. WP:BASIC exists precisely to prevent this kind of excessive pedantry from derailing articles about legitimately notable figures. The nomination leans heavily on WP:NOT, yet disregards that WP:BASIC alone is sufficient for inclusion. If the nominator, and those supporting the deletion submissiom, feel the article is too promotional in tone, they should address those concerns and improve the article, rather than seeking to remove one that clearly meets the minimum notability requirements. Given that the article satisfies basic notability criteria and the issue largely concerns tone or minor concerns about coverage, this call for deletion could be seen as an example of WP:Overzealous deletion. Wikipedia’s focus should be on improving articles to meet standards, rather than unnecessarily removing those that meet the minimum requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QLDLG (talk • contribs) 06:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so if the main concern is the tone, wouldn’t the simplest solution be to just add {{ad}} to the page? That way, it flags the issue for others and encourages edits to bring the writing in line with a neutral point of view? Remarka6le (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination asks for redirection, not deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We’re currently in an Articles for Deletion debate, and redirecting this page to a list of Ipswich mayors is essentially a form of deletion. Remarka6le, I think adding the template is the way to go. While I disagree with the nominator’s reasons, I do agree that the tone could be improved. I see this article as a good candidate for WP:AQU — it has potential, and we should work on improving it rather than rushing to delete. WP:BEFORE steps should’ve been followed before this AfD, and we should have explored options for improvement. Applying WP:DOUBT and WP:BATHWATER, we should aim to fix the article, not toss it out. QLDLG (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE was indeed done; it is a breach of WP:AGF to assume it wasn't. The debate is whether the sources that exist in the article and outside are routine coverage of a local politician or significant coverage that contributes to GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS @QLDLG, it is unusual for a new user's first edit to be to create a user page with userboxes, etc, and then the next three edits to be to an Articles for Deletion discussion. Did you edit here under another account or as an IP editor? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casual Wikipedian in the past (last edit 2023), that account was vanished due to it being linked with a now deleted university email. This Article (and subsequent nomination for deletion) was shared in a local political discussion group on Facebook and I felt the need to contribute. Apologies if my earlier comment came across as a breach of WP:AGF — that wasn’t my intent, I'd like to outline why I said that:
Per WP:BEFORE, if an article can be improved through normal editing, it’s not a candidate for AfD (C-1), and I believe that’s the case here. Adequate sources clearly exist, quoting C-4, "the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination".

Looking at the page history, the article was nominated on the same day Remarka6le began working on it — that’s not a reasonable amount of time (IMO) to allow for development or collaboration (C-2).

I also couldn’t find any concerns raised on the talk page beforehand, and cleanup tags only appeared after the nomination (C-3).

Were these issues raised directly with the article's contributors? Because from my point of view, it feels like some of the standard steps to improve rather than remove were skipped. QLDLG (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QLDLG Thanks for explaining the history. It would be very unusual for a new user to know all these WP policies. (I would recommend describing that history on your userpage so other editors don't make assumptions about alternate accounts.) Would you also post the Facebook link where this discussion is being discussed? If there is off-wiki WP:CANVASSING going on, the closer should know about it. To address your points, no attempt to discuss with contributors was necessary because there was already an AfD consensus for a redirect, and frankly, Remarka6le should have brought it to WP:DRV before attempting to overturn the consensus. They didn't, so there's no prohibition on bringing a second AfD when someone is contravening a previous consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the discussion in question initially focused on the lack of coverage on Paul Pisasale’s page, but naturally shifted to Teresa Harding’s page once her AfD prominently displayed above it was pointed out. Since you're neither a resident of Ipswich nor an alumni of the university, you wouldn’t have access (or be granted access) to the Facebook group, so linking to it wouldn’t be useful. If there had been as much activity here as on Facebook, you’d likely have seen the discussion by now.
That said, I still think it would have been better to engage directly with the contributor. Remarka6le is clearly a new contributor, and their edits are clearly made with genuine intent to improve the article. As an experienced editor, you would know how important it is to collaborate and support new contributors. I worry that experiences like this could discourage someone who might have been a great asset to Wikipedia.

Regarding the second AfD: While there’s no rule against nominating a new AfD, the process should still be handled with care. The original AfD happened over a year ago, and Remarka6le created the article only to see it nominated for deletion less than a day later. A more reasonable approach would have been to wait at least a week to give them a chance to develop the article further or, at the very least, reach out to point out the previous AfD, maybe even offer a hand in writing the article. Rushing into a second AfD without giving the new contributor time to engage with the article is counterproductive.

QLDLG (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should make fewer assumptions about where Wikipedians are or are not resident. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You note on your userpage that you’ve done paid editing for the American Bankers Association, you consistently use American spelling, you’ve travelled to all but one US state, and many of your article subjects and edits focus on US-based buildings and religious figures. Based on that, I felt it was a reasonable inference that you're US-based. In any case, I’ll leave it there — I've said what I needed to and we’re edging into WP:BLUDGEONING, and I don’t want to derail the discussion further. QLDLG (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This discussion has been canvassed in a private Facebook group; see disclosure here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep There is significant coverage about her in digitised newspapers, not just when she was appointed to the Lincolnshire County Council, but also when she was appointed Director of Education in Surrey (reported not just in Surrey), and appointed to the South-West of England Regional Development Agency. I will add more sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss on a merge or keep per policies for a clear consensus? All other suggestions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~HM19 Message here; no calls 10:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First woman to be chief executive of a county council. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 27 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]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[b971-1] Lockwood, Charles (2009). "The Green Quotient: Insights from Leading Experts on Sustainability". Internet Archive. pp. 171–178. ISBN 9780874201215. Retrieved May 23, 2025.

[1]

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects