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

Results breakdown of the 2025 Portuguese legislative election

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

Unnecessary. Article will, when the results are known, contain the same information as contained in the constituencies articles. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COGCON

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

Notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Successor Support System

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

Is this notable? I can find no articles about it online. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Faith, Hope

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was a soft delete back in 2022, recently undeleted without improvement. 3 of the 4 sources in the article do not even mention the subject. I'll quote the previous nominator's (Vacant0) rationale, since it still applies: "I've only found passing mentions such as: attendance of a protest during the 2022 North Kosovo crisis, announcement that they will take part in the 2022 Belgrade City Assembly election (they ended up placing second to last with only 5,000 votes), an anti-government event that was organized by its leader (Nemanja Šarović) and the announcement that Šarović formed this movement. Additionally, this movement has not been represented in any legislature since its foundation, and it seems to entirely be focused on the actions and announcements of its leader (its facebook page can be also seen as proof of this besides these sources that I've listed)." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nemanja Šarović: The movement has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Its activities are mostly tied to its leader Šarović. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote/Comment: The page was undeleted at my request, and my motivation for wanting it restored was largely technical. (Before yesterday, the Nemanja Šarović page included a link to the entry for "Love, Faith, Hope" on the Serbian language wiki; this struck me as bad form if restoring the English language page was an option.) I've just undertaken a rewrite of the page, adding some information about the movement's failed 2022 campaign in Belgrade and its non-campaigns in 2023 and 2024, as well as mentioning Šarović's role with KTV Zrenjanin. My view is that the increased media spotlight on Šarović in recent months has likely pushed the party over the threshold of notability, though I won't object if the consensus is to delete or merge the page – I'd just request that people review the page in its current form before finalizing their decision. CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Meyers

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

U.S. military officer, known for being relieved of command of the U.S. base in Greenland for apparently political reasons. But that is the only context in which I can find media coverage of her, making this a WP:BLP1E case. The article is also about essentially nothing else but that incident. Said incident is already covered in about the same length at Pituffik Space Base, to which this title could be redirected. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed GNG, weak sources as most of the sources are ot reliable, independent. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia and isn't worth the space it takes up. This was a very minor newsflash but it is so over and nobody cares. 204.111.161.248 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some coverage found about the email [1], [2], [3], [4]. I suppose this could also be mentioned in an article about the base, I'm not sure the "email incident" would be notable enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both my parents were in the Air Force. My mother began serving in the 1940s. I think women’s participation in the Air Force, and in all government positions, is important. Col. Meyers service in Greenland is part of history and should be retained in Wikipedia. 2600:1700:FCA0:1700:D5DF:7A7:54C4:4B1B (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scaife Foundations

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

Sufficiently lacks WP:SIGCOV altogether despite current grouping structure. Notability is not inherited from founders who do receive some local press coverage for interfamilial litigation over estates that mentions subject(s) in passing. All else is WP:ROUTINE for philanthropic organizations. SunnyLetO (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Movement (Iceland)

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

Looking through sources that I was able to find online, I did see brief mentions of the party, mostly on visir.is, but did not find any sources that would convice me that the party has received significant coverage in independent sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, and Iceland. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirecet to Ástþór Magnússon Wium. Geschichte (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Overgrow

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

Unnotable. I looked it up and didn't find any RS, just Facebook groups with fewer than 500 members. Althistwikibox (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decentralist Party of the South

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

No refs on the page for many years. Maybe there are offline or other sources in other languages but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Peru. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Note for example "Después de su derrocamiento, regresa al Perú y participa en la revolución de 1931 en Arequipa. Impulsa la creación del Partido Descentralista del Sur. Preside la Junta Provisional de Gobierno constituida para convocar inmediatamente elecciones. Cede la presidencia a don David Samanez Ocampo, que luego encabezaría en Lima la Junta Nacional de Gobierno." ([5]) - So the PDS leader became the interim president of the country. Multiple sources affirm that PDS was represented in the Constituent Assembly, and that it brought David Samanez Ocampo to power. --Soman (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok good. Add three good sources to the page and I'll withdraw the afd. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD works. Notability is not judged by the presence of sources in the article, nor is AfD supposed to be a forum for clean-up. I refer to WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, this has been unsourced since 2009, there has been plenty of time to add sources. You here claim that there are plenty of sources that meet the GNG, so if it is that easy then add them. If not, your claims are not verified per Wikipedia:Verifiability JMWt (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JMWt the verifiability policy applies to articles exclusively. It does not apply to discussions. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman I agree. It might help if you listed a few sources here at the AFD to show they exist -- not everyone speaks enough Spanish to search very effectively to check. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: Can you provide at least 3 reliable sources that have given significant coverage? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Decentralist Party. Alberto Vegara's chapter "The Fujimori Regime through Tocqueville’s Lens: Centralism, Regime Change, and Peripheral Elites in Contemporary Peru" in Peru in Theory (ed. Paulo Drinot, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014 ISBN 9781137455260 doi:10.1057/9781137455260_2) on page 23 indicates the PDS was a merger of the Nationalist Agrarian Party and the Decentralist Party formed for the 1931 elections. Vegara notes the PDS won 33 of 145 seats in the 1931 Constituent Assembly election (there's some discrepancies with other sources on the the total number of seats won, which I assume has to do with the NAP seats being recorded as independents and the Decentralists separately). The party name could also be translated as Southern Decentralist Party. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa NZ Youth Party

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

There's no coverage beyond what I can find in the article, and it's gotten almost no votes, though it hasn't garnered RS coverage like Vermin Supreme has. Jay Cubby 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Jay Cubby 15:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is primarily about Terry but he does not have his own article (nor do I believe the perennial coverage of a candidate satisfies WP:NBIO/WP:GNG). Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has numerous problems (see talk page). Problems include excessive citations, reliance on self-published sources, and being mostly edited by a single user. 1101 (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. This was snow closed as Keep in November and notability is not temporary. Further, AfD is not cleanup. There's no valid reason for deletion given in the nom. BusterD (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits, I've never seen a page deleted because it had too many citations. This can be addressed using normal editing procedures. ...being mostly edited by a single user is a provably incorrect assertion. Self-published sources is something we might discuss after this is kept. This procedure is BOTH snowing AND eligible for speedy keep. BusterD (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination statement does not give a valid reason for deletion and there does not appear to be any other reason to delete this article. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#3 and WP:NOTCLEANUP and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Not a real rationale for deletion. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD isn't clean-up. Furthermore, the nominator added a long list of issues to the the article without bothering to start a talk page discussion for more than one of them. This looks like an attempt to shut down the article rather than concern regarding notability. Cortador (talk) 11:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly do seem to have indiscriminately applied every cleanup tag they could. To my reading, those look inapplicable. I agree this looks like an attempt to overturn previous consensus by brute force, not reasoned argument. I look forward to User:Talib1101's rebuttal. BusterD (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep this is what WP:SNOW was designed for. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per BusterD "This was snow closed as Keep in November and notability is not temporary. Further, AfD is not cleanup. There's no valid reason for deletion given in the nom." IP75 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per BusterD and Cortador. Extensive citation is common when faced with baseless and vociferous denials and accusations of biased sources. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article isn't in good shape, but it's been through AfD before and it very much has established notability. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 19:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these are issues for the talk page, not here. It's actually been improved since the last AfD, which doesn't always happen. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up. I made a few changes to the page, as tagged, and discussed my changes on the talk page, just like I should. See? Easy-peasy! Bearian (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination statement is flawed as excessive citation and the article being substantially edited by a single editor are not valid reasons to delete an article. Such issues are addressed by normal editing. Mekomo (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets GNG. The issues with sourcing can be improved through editing. >>> Extorc.talk 07:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adhunik Bharat Ke Brahmarshi Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This article is also nothing more than a promotion. This book is not significantly covered by secondary sources in depth.Clearly fails WP:NBOOK. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source 1 is the book itself. Sources 2 and 3 no longer work and the Internet Archive is just showing blank pages and broken images. Nothing to indicate notability. Astaire (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Among the listed source in the current version the first citation is the book itself. The second, based on its headline is just a book release announcement. The third, again based on its headline (tr. "Bhagwat praises Nahar's book on Deendayal Upadhyaya"), which given all three's affiliation with RSS is not the least bit surprising or an independent opinion. The fourth source (p.24) does provide some independent commentary but that one piece in a trade-publication is not sufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Even searching for sources in Hindi produces nothing better; just this hagiographic review contributed by a reader in a newspaper blog. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meme hack

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

This seems to be an article on an obscure, disused term that was coined in the late 90s to early 2000s and is only used in two sources, and doesn't even seem to be meaningfully distinct from something like culture jamming or détournement. The second source is particularly weak as it doesn't even really provide anthing other than a definition on a defunct right-wing blog with very little information or further context. Iostn (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Détournement as an WP:ATD per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile government takeover

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

Article of dubious notability, having been rejected multiple times. It appears that the rationale is "not meet wp:NSONG. This article needs some input as to whether it should deleted or not, because there are sources that contribute to notability but it might not be just enough. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this source contains daily dot deadline billboard and indy100. all of these are credible sources. although some of them are not considered to be credible sources in the credible sources list by themselves. However all 4 of those sources contribute to notability. The msn source is actually Distractify which I did not realize is a very short article. the yahoo entertainment source is actually from a source called mandatory. Mandatory is a fairly unknown source but it does talk extensively on Hostile government takeover. There is also the official Last Week Tonight episode that was mentioned in the deadline article. This may be unnecessary because the deadline article talks about it extensively. The Resetera source may not be necessary which is why it's marked in bold. it has an embed of the original video around the time the TikTok was first made and is useful since TikTok doesn't give upload dates. I think hawk tuah only has 9 sources if you don't include the source that cites it's youtube video. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is an additional source that can be used which is moby's remix of Hostile Government takeover. however sources on it aren't credible so the original TikTok would have to be sourced. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is a mess (name not being properly capitalised, MSN/Yahoo cited instead of the original source, talk page content put on top of the article), but there's sufficient sourcing in "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it". Cortador (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. the original sources for the msn(Distractify) and yahoo entertainment(Mandatory). hopefully that doesn't change your mind. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Cactusisme: move the page to draft. Waiting for the page to be deleted and move it backed. Anyway Please don't draftify the page when it's on AFD. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, alright. Shouldn't this be miscellaneous for deletion? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you cause the problem then your solution to the problem you caused is a solution you proposed. obviously the outcome of the page depends on the articles for deletion discussion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the draft get published in mainspace? This doesn't seem appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should note the existence of Draft:Hostile Government Takeover, which would be the correct proper-name song title if notable. Also, the deletion logs of Hostile Government Takeover, Hostile government Takeover and the deletion log of this deletion proposal might also be of interest. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - its a pretty sloppily written article, but a dedicated Billboard (magazine) article and getting coverage for being discussed on a major late night television show are pretty strong arguments towards notability. I'd lean closer to cleaning up or draftifying than I would deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song entirely; without the LWT notice, it's just another viral thing that would struggle to get 30 seconds otherwise because most mainstream news shows and articles would not highlight this as a viral trend, and the sources for it (discounting how the creator doesn't understand content syndication by using web portals as sources) are fully unreliable of the 'explain it to me as if I was five and give me some terrible Taboola ads too' type. This isn't even considering the content of the article, which gives me a flashback to 2006 article standards in the worst way. Nathannah • 📮 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so youre essentially saying that Hostile government takeover remixed by Moby covered by John Oliver sold as a song on spotify with around 400,000 streams doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. the hostile government takeover song from Billboard currently has 796,000 views.(admittedly it's growth is slowing) But I appreciate your feedback on the article. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discounting the social media and unreliable sources, we're not really left with much other than pages that are just summarizing what other people say on social media. Yes a dedicated Billboard article is impressive, but there really isn't much more than that of any other viral tiktok sound. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do you mean your not counting indy100 deadline or the dailydot. admittedly you already mentioned billboard. those other sources were prima facie information and were used for self evident information like view counts. I marked the sources as primary sources in bold but admittedly there needs to be a better system. maybe someone might have an idea how to do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indy100 deadline dailydot and billboard are considered sources that can be used for notability. there were other sources distractify and mandatory covered by msn and yahoo entertainment respectively but they don't contribute as much to notability. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Songs go viral all the time and I could find no evidence of long term notability. The article is in really rough shape, I tried my best to delete obvious nonsense for the sake of anyone coming across it, so WP:TNT probably applies as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG, but sympathetic to draftifying on WP:TNT grounds I'm really surprised it made it into the mainspace in this shape. In my view, there are four sources which pass WP:NSONG: the Billboard, Deadline, Mandatory, and indy100 articles. Cradleofcivilization, I say this only respectfully, but the article would be less likely to be deleted if you reformat to resemble comparable articles about viral songs - see for example United Breaks Guitars. Try to use the Infobox template. Flip^and Flopped ツ 06:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I would but I don't have permission to post a photo of the album art for Hostile Government Takeover. Id appreciate it if someone added an infobox. I mean it's a good idea, but youre not allowed to post photos on wikipedia you don't have the rights to. At least I think that's the rule. It's definetly good advice. the page went through a lot of edits but you may have seen the most up to date version of the page. Anyway thank you for the good advice. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay well I added the infobox. unfortunately it doesn't contain the album art. I added Spotify as a source so I could reference it's metadata. I cleaned up the second paragraph slightly because it didn't flow well. The source is a bit confusing so there are I think 2 confusing sentences on the page. Essentially the song hostile government takeover is based on a edm remix of a viral tiktok of A gift from Todd singing hostile government takeover. the full song is then based on that edm remix. Those are only two sentences though. the rest of the page flows pretty well. Although im a little confused about notability as that's been the only notes I've received up and till this point. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there's some confusion, AFAICT, it's only in main space because Cradleofcivilization decided to skip AfC and moved it themselves despite their inexperience. Technically as they were autoconfirmed and don't have a CoI AFAIK, they're allowed to do that, but I'd agree it was a major mistake and would be better if this is moved back to draftspace and allowed to go through AfC or at least is only moved back to main space by someone other than Cradeofcivilization. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is not true. this is what happened after a failed move review. I went against pt eilsworth and put the article in mainspace. then pt elsworth put the article back. Toadetteedit declined my article when I put submitted it in articles for creation april 4,2025. I asked her why she originally accepted the article. she simply said she made a mistake. I made a post on my talk channel setting the record straight which I did not think Toadetteedit would see. I resubmitted the draft because there was nothing that could be improved in the draft in regards to notability. it had more than enough sources which left me in a bad position. toadette sent the article that was in articles for creation to draftspace to see if it should stay on wikipedia or not. Keep in mind she may have originally approved the page. It was just a chance circumstance that after pt eilsworth sent the article back to draftspace. I happened to be up when Toadetteedit was up. cactus later renamed this article to draft then after it was vandalized nominated for miscellany for deletion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Cradleofcivilization has been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 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 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party (2nd nomination), which has attracted a delete !vote, despite this nomination still being open and linked from the article. I note this for the benefit of any potential closing admin and/or relister. (I have no opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch It was just a mistake on my part to create a second deletion nomination page. It was my first time creating a deletion page. I apologize for my mistake. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have procedurally closed the other AfD and am copying over the following !vote from there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor non-notable South Korean political party. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a supplement to the reason for deletion, this Wikipedia article has referenced articles and bibliographies, but they are not about the Grand National Unity Party, which is the main topic of the Wikipedia article, but merely about people who appear in the Grand National Unity Party article in the course of discussing it. As such, they do not constitute evidence for the Grand National Unity Party, and there is no mention of the Grand National Unity Party in the article. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jang Sung-min instead of deletion. Seems to be a minor party created for his presidential run. It would be similar to how Picardie debout redirects to François Ruffin. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jang Sung-min as this cannot be a stand alone article because of its failure to meet WP:NPOL requirement. The party did not win any election run before being dissolved a year later. Mekomo (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

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)

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then your argument is that being different and notable is not different and notable enough to be delineated on a website that literally is about informing people how things are different and notable. Your argument is just talking in circles. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We will wait with baited breath and stop the world to wait for your opinion. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[6] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[7] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [8], this is an opinion piece [9], [10], [11]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [12] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So wealthy well-connected podcasters get the social credit, but the minions get a little blurb that will be deleted by the Wikipedia Hatekeepers when they want to feel powerful, because they are meaningless humans otherwise. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[13] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist talking points and elitism isn't a policy-based argument. JDiala (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NebulaDrift (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost none of these keep !votes have any relevance to our notability guidelines. Do we have WP:GNG/WP:NBIO here or not? That's the question at hand. Getting a lot of attention on social media or having a highly subscribed Substack are not relevant to WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I mentioned in my "Keep" !vote that the article passes GNG based on the availability of the reliable sources. That includes The Washington Post and others. The first relist was warranted, but this second one now is unjustified and the article should be closed as a "Keep" IMHO. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize there was doubt about whether the subject meets WP:GNG. There are many reliable sources. Here's a couple from a quick google search [14][15]. My comment about the Substack subscribers was addressing the appeal to WP:BLP1E which only applies to low profile individuals. Both this delete discussion and the first one from September centered on BLP1E so you didn't see comments addressing GNG since that didn't seem up for question. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per WP:GNG, there are perhaps enough reliable sources, but the article needs major shortening with the current RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Excalibur Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.

Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature – Where the party is mentioned (and per others AfDs). Svartner (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue: thoughts? it's lio! | talk | work 07:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the redirects are unhelpful and unnecessary. However, as nobody has really engaged with the AfDs on this topic area specifically (minor parties in BC), I am not strongly opposed to also closing this discussion as a redirect. Yue🌙 07:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting to the above target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Electoral history of Jitendra Chaudhury

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable national-level leader, detailed history is already merged with the article Jitendra Chaudhury. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 00:03, 13 April 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 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Lists, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Duplicate of content at Jitendra Chaudhury#Electoral history. No need for separate article. Obi2canibe (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Roupas

AfDs for this article:

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

It turns out a nomination I made a decade ago was never completed. This is my effort to complete it. This article states that Lee Roupas was a local elected official and a political staffer. It was created by a user whose only other contributions were for Roupas, a political ally of Roupas, and a political opponent of Roupas.

Lee Roupas was a local elected official as the township committeeman elected in the Republican primary amongst Palos Township residents (an electorate of 3,053 voters) and then later chosen among the 80 committeemen to be the county party chairman. While local officials are neither notable or not notable, the bar requires meeting a 10-year historical significance test that Roupas does not meet. Nor did anything of note happen that would warrant him getting an article for it happening.

The article also covers his political staffer roles. The use of vague terms like "staff" are meant to hide his title for the 2004 Republican National Convention was "assistant to the director for communications." This was not a notable role nor are hired mid-level roles for state parties notable roles. We often remove state party chairs. Given the political chapter of his life has largely ended and that he has since he has moved to a neighboring county to be an assistant state's attorney (this would be hired staff not an elected role or political appointment), his article now reads as masking the lack of notability via building a biography. Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources seem to be about a political staffer, nothing notable. I can't find any articles about this person. Not sure what the AfD in 2011 was about, I suppose we had different notability standards then. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. For context, the first AfD ended in "no consensus" after one keep vote and after relisting resulted in a single addition vote for weak keep. A total of 3 users participated and contributed a few sentences in total. As the deletion stream for politics demonstrates, such an AfD would be relisted for a second time if done today. There was a second nomination that was a botched creation by me when I was less familiar with AfDs. In retrospect, I think making a 3rd nomination instead of trying to recreate the 2nd nomination page was an error on my part since it will create the illusion that there have been two discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The few sources that give WP:SIGCOV are about his career not his political staff appointment. Those about his career pass WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What sources offer SIGCOV about his legal career? Everything in here is local coverage about a local figure. Let's review the citations: his middle initial in a legal directory, a student newspaper about a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL student council race, a self-published letter to the editor to a political blog, three paragraphs in a local newspaper about a local appointment reserved for his political party, a quote given in a North Carolina newspaper about a referendum of which he is not even tangentially the subject, public statements as the president of a statewide niche occupational group that would not pass what is laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) at least one of which is self-published. I also did a newspaper search before nominating this yesterday and found nothing that says his legal career is any more notable than any other attorney in a local prosecutor's office.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Fu

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

Negative undersourced BLP. Most of the article text is a WP:COATRACK for negative undersourced BLP material about someone else. I prodded this but my prod was removed by User:A. B. who provided as evidence for notability a newspaper article stating in vague terms legal charges against the subject and another newspaper article with a very brief mention that he was sentenced, neither used as footnotes for anything. I don't think these provide WP:SIGCOV. His position as deputy mayor does not pass WP:NPOL and the conviction does not have the evidence of lasting interest needed for WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to David’s comments:

I added 3, not 2, refs including a NY Times front page article
News and newspaper searches turned up more out there.
The South China Morning Post article is exclusively about Lan Fu’s troubles
When searching for refs, add Xiamen mayor to filter out other people with that name.
This was my edit summary when removing the PROD: ” remove PROD. Notable but the tagged concern remains: this may be more about the _alleged_ kidnapping of his son, Lan Meng, by Chinese authorities in Australia as a hostage for Lan Fu's return. We don't have a Lan Meng article”
This article is likely not a BLP since all the refs said LAN Fu was sentenced to death 2 decades ago as I noted in another edit summary. (There’s no lingering on Chinese death rows).
WP:NPOL: Xiamen has over 5 million inhabitants; it’s larger than every North American city except NY and larger than any city in the EU.
Re not adding footnotes to go with the refs: I’d already spent 60+ minutes doing the WP:BEFORE and I was late for lunch
- I tagged the article with an inline template and moved on.

I encourage others to look at the existing refs and what else is out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's best to cover this as a biography article, but the scandal itself and his involvement is covered in several books [16] [17] [18] for just a few, there are many more. He was a very major player in this scandal and he was a public figure that was convicted so at the very least his name should redirect somewhere. Xiamen is a city of 5 million so there's also probably coverage of him as a mayor in Chinese. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above as well as PARAKANYAA‘s. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: or merge to an article about the corruption scandal. The NY Times article is about a bigger scandal, Fu is mentioned briefly, archive here [19]. The SCMP source is probably better [20] (archived copy), but they both deal more with the scandal than about the individual. I suppose Fu could be notable, but there is a decent amount of sourcing about the corruption trial/event (even the books cited a few comments above mention more about the event than about this person, who is only mentioned). Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Well, you say redirect, but we don't have any article to redirect to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely sourcing in Mandarin, the scandals were probably the only thing dramatic enough to make it to Anglophone printing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to create the article I suppose. We have at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep this until we have a stub to merge it with. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyn Free

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

Redirect to 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma. This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This person is a former congressional candidate and former district attorney. The election itself was particularly unnoteworthy and has had no lasting signficance. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Brandon Bochenski as Mayor of Grand Forks or Kane as the county executive for Knox County.

While the article mentions she is the first woman and first Native American to be a district attorney for two specific counties. Johnston Murray served as a Governor decades prior. Alice Robertson, Bessie S. McColgin, and Lamar Looney all held office in the 1920s. She was predated by a number of female local politicians as well. This assumes it is true. While I do not believe Kalyn Free would lie, the citation for the first is self-published and I have found nothing at NewsBank to serve as a nonprimary source. She could be mistaken.

In an effort to see if Free's legal career meets GNG, I reviewed the informal list provided by User:Bearian and have found nothing to establish GNG is met here. She was the President of the Native American Bar Association in 1998. Given their more recent 990s on ProPublica's website, I'm not sure that is notable enough to move her towards meeting GNG. This article has been marked with issues since May 2017. It's time to make a decision. Mpen320 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Ethnic groups, Law, and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC but remove issues (even to a stub). I think there is enough sources from reputable organisations including this pub by the University of Oklahoma Press (already in the article) to demonstrate notability. Tamsier (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up. Is this the entirety of the mention of her in the Voices from the Heartland: Volume II citation? It's a single paragraph in a 250-page book. I do see her name is mentioned on another page in the book, but that search does not allow me to preview beyond two lines of page 69.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, in addition to the other sources cited is sufficient to confirm notability in accordance with our notability guidelines. It is not a one line mention as per the spirit of our guideline. We don't necessarily need a whole page dedicated to them for notability. That's why I say perhaps remove the issues and reduce to stub if necessary using the already reliable sources cited. In my opinion, that's the best way to go, but as far as notability, there are sufficient sources confirming notability, and at the very least, passed the BASIC test. Tamsier (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for fourteen years. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and I do not believe she meets WP:BASIC based on being included as one of dozens of subjects in a book, even if that book was published by a university press. I belive I make my point why the rest of the coverage is either run of the mill or does not contribute to GNG and I'll just let the AfD play out.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is mentioned in the news pretty regularly. Yuchitown (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mellon

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

This is an elegantly WP:REFBOMBed BLP on a UFO True Believer (TB). In that respect, it stands out from the BLPs of many TBs. On closer examination, however:

The essence of his biography is exclusively sourced to non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources like the UFO group "To the Stars Academy," and a disclosure document filed at opensecrets.org; or, to non-WP:RS sources like a show page for a History Channel Ancient Aliens-type fantasy show ("Unidentified! Inside America's UFO Investigation").
This is legitimized through extensive REFBOMBing in which a dozen RS (e.g. Vice, The Guardian, etc.) are crammed into the article. However, on close inspection, each of these simply contain one sentence quotes from Mellon; no biographical detail or detail of any kind.
This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article is the only independent biographical treatment of him and it's two short and scanty paragraphs [21].

A standard WP:BEFORE finds more numerous instances of one sentence quotes from him all over the media, but nothing proving WP:SIGCOV. The only exception I've found is a single NewsNation story, however, NewsNation is not usable as a source for UFO TBs as per our decision in WP:UFONATION. Finally, Mellon served briefly (it appears less than two years) as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Pentagon. While sub-cabinet officers often get benefit of the doubt for WP:N under WP:POLOUTCOMES, we have never extended that all the way down to the lowly rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary (which is below Assistant Secretary, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Secretary; there more than 100 DAS' in the USG at any one point). Chetsford (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Wowk

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

Borderline speedy deletable as an attack page. Not notable as a politician, he is "notable" "for his numerous criminal cases", as the lead of this article proclaims. This boils down to a failure of WP:SUSPECT, with just one actual conviction (for evading provincial taxes, hardly something we write articles about), and then a lot of charges, accusations, and gossip about his wife. Fram (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose he fits all the criteria of WP:BLP, in such that he has more than 2 reliable major sources talking about him. If you don’t like the tone of the sources that is an entirely different problem and not exactly one for grounds of deletion. Scuba 13:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Backlog? Fram (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I was on mobile and meant BLP not BL, I'll fix it now for posterity. Scuba 13:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale behind "sufficient coverage" means you can't count the number of sources necessary to show a clear notability of a subject. For a BLP concentrating on negative activities, the bar is higher, in my view. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread BLP, and specifically WP:BLPCRIME, if you think "more than 2 reliable sources talking about him" is "all the criteria of BLP". Fram (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well we have 11 sources, and he has been found guilty of his crimes. so I'm not sure why you're invoking WP:BLPCRIME here Scuba 13:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What crimes? Income tax fraud and storing a gun improperly? He isn't Jack the Ripper, these aren't notable crimes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the article goes, he is not even conviceted of storing a gun improperly either, only of provincial tax evasion. But we do have "Wowk had run a computer consultancy named TKW Communications which, according to former employees, hadn't paid taxes from 2000 until they where caught in 2004, and that Wowk destroyed most of the tax records to prevent them from falling into auditor's hands": in reality, it is an allegation by one employee, and he doesn't say that "Wowk destroyed" anything, but that "He also stated that he would destroy all documents long before any auditors came in".[22] So that's some clear BLP violations right there. Fram (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, a one-time political candidate that had untaxed smokes and skimped on paying provincial income tax... That sounds like a character in crime noir thriller, nothing we'd use for an article in Wikipedia. This is silly. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has sufficient media coverage to have a Wikipedia article. Twitter trolls have Wikipedia articles. a PPC candidate who runs a nationwide Chinese prostitution ring should have a Wikipedia page. Scuba 03:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's still not illegal... A failed political candidate with an "adult" career that is legal, isn't notable here. I'm not sure what else to tell you. You might not like what the guy does, but this isn't a morality wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not speedyable since the information is reliably sourced, although the excessive could be trimmed somewhat. My chief problem is I did a search for news sources, found all the ones already in the article, and then drew a blank. A genuinely notable figure would generate far more news coverage to the extent we wouldn't be running out of source material. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reliably sourced page with " material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person" is also an A10 candidate of course, not only unsourced pages can be A10 deleted. Fram (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how reporting on someone's brothel where they pimp out their own wife is harassment or intimidation. Scuba 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how accusing a BLP of 'pimping out their own wife' is not grounds for a ban. 206.83.102.22 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Income tax fraud and improper weapons storage hardly are notable. Being a political candidate, never won a seat, does not meet NPOL. Just an individual that appears to have made poor choices in life, but nothing for Wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The big thing the articles talk about is how he runs a brothel disguised as a Chinese massage parlor, and how he also "consults" 80 of them across the country. Scuba 03:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable person that does this is still not notable. If the brothel is your whole "notable" reason, that's not enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being in possession of untaxed tobacco? Seriously, this is not notable. I'd venture that a large majority of smokers in Canada have done this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more important criminal charge is the breaking the terms of bail and then harassing a police officer, the tobacco thing is just another thing that was listed in the source article and is not the centerpiece of this article, his prostitution ring and then political campaign is. Scuba 03:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have reliable sources from 2021 and 2024, which appear to confirm his notability WP:BASIC, CBC by Geoff Leo, Regina Leader Post by Brandon Harder. The articles are 3 years apart and the subject was in the media. He won a Governor General of Canada award for "Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal" in 2021 [23] which would appear to confirm WP:ANYBIO, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". The article does need some work, it does read like an attack page, but that can be trimmed down. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 18:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal article and see what it actually is? "The medal recognizes members of recognized Canadian fire services who had served for 20 years, ten years of which have been served in the performance of duties involving potential risks." This is the exact opposite of a "well-known and significant award or honor", I didn't even know it existed until today, not to mention it would mean that every Canadian firefighter who served 20+ years would automatically be notable for a wiki article.⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Oaktree b. As far as I can tell, the only crime he's even convicted on is tax evasion. However, this article is highlighting the criminal charges of a non-public figure who ran for a minor party in 2019 once. Per WP:BLPCRIME, he is presumed innocent of the charges until convicted.⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a low level individual who has been accused of several low level crimes and convicted only of a low level tax charge. Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of people that some editors consider sleazy. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note the significant media coverage. Scuba 18:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Local man gets arrested again" is not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Results_of_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election_by_riding#Southern_Saskatchewan. My reasons for voting to redirect are the same as those voting to delete.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if a redirect is wanted it should be recreated after deletion as this article's history is full of BLP violations, just look at what I removed! 206.83.102.22 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an interesting case because it raises the issue of how an encyclopedia should respond when someone gets 15 minutes of local attention due to being a bit off. The issue is not mentioned at WP:NOT because policies do not need to list every bad idea. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Hinton

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was: There is no inherent notability for ambassadors. One of the sources deals with Hinton in depth. I couldn't find any other sources that go into some depth. Thus, this person fails notability criteria. Schwede 66 18:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 18:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this not meet NPOL? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. There is no inherent notability for ambassadors. If that's changed, please show me where that's documented, Zanahary. Schwede 66 20:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is an ambassador not a politicians who has held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Schwede 66 05:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not politicians, in democratic countries they are not elected representatives. They are simply employees of a government of the day and can be considered civil servants. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ambassadors are not inherently notable, many have been deleted. It needs to meet WP:BIO which this one doesn't. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per LibStar's comment. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More potential sources appear to exist at the Ukrainian version. Not !voting but that may be worth investigating. Mach61 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Ritchie (diplomat)

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

No independent reliable sources about her. What we have are either dependent sources (her employer, her former school), or sources about some event where she is present or which she supported. Should be a redirect to List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malawi (I haven't attempted this first, seeing that the "notability" and "third party sources" were removed without actually adressing these issues). Fram (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think "were removed without actually adressing these issues" is meant to mean "were removed without actually adressing these issues" (to my satisfaction). Also "some event where she is present or which she supported" includes holding a reception at her official residence on behalf of her country where a minister gave their support to her employer (the King)" and the reporting of events where she is the primary (and essential) person at the event. Victuallers (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a diplomat holding a reception is "some event where she is present or which she supported", it is not a source about her, just doing her job as an intermediary: like you said, "a reception at her official residence on behalf of her country where a minister gave their support to her employer (the King)" is not something which contributes to her notability. Fram (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malawi: most reliable coverage is in-passing FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Manickam

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There are no sources that cover the subject substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Singapore. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not fully added onto the page yet - but there's a lot more sources from local media about her, hence there is certainly a lot more sources to add Aidanic (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret M. Otteskov

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and I could not find sufficient sources to establish the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Africa, and Uganda. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Vanderwaalforces, Kindly recheck those references before nominating the article for deletion!

Also, kindly note that I have added a few more citations. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree. There is no credible rationale here to oppose. People who are received by Queens and ministers as the leading representive of their country are rarely unnotable. If they were of no consequence, then the media would cover that as a major story.... and they'd become notable. Victuallers (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I used to be of the opinion that all ambassadors were notable, but I've been convinced otherwise as consensus has changed. In this instance, there's not a single reliable source independent from any government. Bearian (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED. Barron Trump was recently closed as a redirect, and many of the arguments for he being redirected apply to Tiffany as well: the article isn't very long, she isn't in the public eye very much, and coverage of her invariably mentions her father. Both Barron and Tiffany are adults now. Some presidential children have their own articles; many do not. Her notability hasn't been discussed in nine years (during which there were multiple Barron AfDs) so discussing it now seems fair. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. _pbp 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; the decision with respect to Barron Trump has since been reversed, and in any case this is both an WP:OTHERSTUFF assertion, and one where the subject at hand is clearly more notable. BD2412 T 14:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assertion "clearly more notable" needs some evidence backing it up... _pbp 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the complaints about Barron in the discussion was that he kept a politically lower profile, whereas she was a speaker at the Republican National Convention, with the requisite press coverage. BD2412 T 17:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany in turn keeps a much lower profile than Junior, Eric and Ivanka though... _pbp 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She was already deemed notable by the community in two previous AfD attempts, becoming so thanks to media coverage the first time her father ran for President, and notability is not temporary. While she is less political than the rest of the family, her fashion business and occasional speeches in connection with her father have generated media coverage. Also, a person's love or hatred of the limelight is not part of the notability calculus, and we do not have a mathematical formula here for how "low" or "high" someone's profile should be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient WP:SIGCOV to estabilishes WP:GNG per her own. Svartner (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the amount of significant coverage is massive, as the article clearly shows. Passes WP:GNG with flying colours.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been deemed notable by the folks on here in three previous attempts to kick her off here! The editor who keeps nominating her must have some serious TDS issues. May receive the help they so desperately need!Subman758 (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous nominations were almost a decade ago by different editors, and AfD #3 was only closed as keep because it was right after AfD #2. _pbp 16:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been deemed notable. She meets WP:GNG. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Frank

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

Fails WP:NSUBPOL. A member of a 1,600-population local council with minimal coverage in reliable sources is not notable enough for a standalone article. CROIX^talk 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Hamer

AfDs for this article:

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

The only sources seem to be about Hamer's political campaign, nothing to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL unless she wins an election. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was deleted in the past for being non-notable, nothing has changed to make her notable enough to keep. GraziePrego (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- She's up for elections, & has been hiding this information that has recently come out in the press. She has, in fact, been campaigning on the exact opposite of what is the truth ie presenting herself as a renter when really owning multiple multi-million dollar properties in multiple countries. How is this not notable enough to keep? This information absolutely should be out in the public. Did she propose it for deletion? ExpertEgeo (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like political commentary rather than a policy-based reason for why her article should be retained on Wikipedia. GraziePrego (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a candidate in the federal election is about your platform and how you identify yourself.
    
    Amelia Hamer has identified herself as a renter that understands first hand the struggle of making rent each week.
    
    News has found out that Hamer actually owns two properties for herself invalidating her claim that she is a 'renter'.
    
    I think its fair to allow the reader on wikipedia read what information or 'political commentary' that she has offered and then have a counter-claim with a highly regarded piece of investigative journalism. A statement of fact is not political commentary as Amelia Hamer is indeed a landlord who owns two properties as provided by her in The Age article. 128.250.0.193 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not fame nor importance and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political campaigns. Uncle G (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That she may or may not have been hiding something which would hurt her election campaign is irrelevant. The only thing of any relevance is whether she satisfies our notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, this article must remain regardless of whether Ms Hamer wins or loses the 2025 Australian federal election. Deletion of this article is not acceptable. Unskathd (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is enough coverage to pass. The press articles about her are more focused and organic than the usual election candidate announcements, statements or press releases. She is seen as a "high profile" candidate. Mekomo (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noting that this discussion is being tweeted about, so some first-time users may come in just for this discussion. GraziePrego (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Delete: All of the coverage is in relation to her being a political candidate, which is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Even the landlord stuff is in relation to her being a political candidate. If she wasn't a candidate then we would have no idea about the landlord stuff because it wouldn't be reported on because she is not notable. She may or may not be successful in the 2025 Australian federal election which is a little bit less than a month away. Therefore as a WP:ATD I suggest moving to draft. If she gets elected the article can move back to mainspace and if she is unsuccessful then it doesn't come back unless there is in depth coverage of her in secondary reliable sources, which are independent, for something else other than her being a political candidate. Given the proximity to the federal election I had thought that perhaps this should be sent to draft, however GraziePrego has informed me below that a superior version exists in draft. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath just as a note, there is already a Draft at Draft:Amelia Hamer which is more comprehensive than what is currently here. GraziePrego (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it clear that this should be deleted then. @GraziePrego, thanks for drawing my attention to that. TarnishedPath^talk 12:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that draft does not include the most notable information about her, namely that she campaigned on a platform of being a renter and was then discovered to be a landlord owning multiple properties around the world. 121.45.42.90 (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read up on what WP:NOTABLE means on Wikipedia. GraziePrego (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the draft can be copied into the existing page as the current page is already GNG passing with existing sources. Content discussion in this case has nothing to do with what should be a speedy keep decision. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She campaigned as a political candidate. End of story. Political candidates aren't notable just for being political candidates. Take away the reporting about them being a political candidate and there's nothing. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Take away the reporting about X being a Y and there's nothing" can apply to literally anyone or anything "Take away the reporting about Obama being President and there's nothing", "Take away the reporting about Michael Jordan being a basketball player and there's nothing", "Take away the reporting about Australia being a country and there's nothing", and could be used to justify the deletion of every article on the site. We don't do thought terminating clichés here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The coverage of her political gaff, with her Paltering & Lying by omission about her trying to connect with millennials and youth voters by describing herself as a "renter", while leaving out the fact she has real estate interests in the UK & Australia worth roughly $2 million AUD that she is renting out, is more than enough to satisfy GNG. NPOL is irrelevant. The Guardian, SBS & Nine News stories about her renter lie scandal are significant coverage, from a reliable source indecent of the subject, as is the Cherwell article about being removed as Oxford Student editor (this may feel irrelevant to some people, but it is clearly a GNG passing source). A quick google search found additional GNG passing sources, not that it needs them, because it already passes GNG. The quality of the article is irrelevant to a deletion discussion. This should be a Reason 3 WP:Speedy Keep as this nomination is completely erroneous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Normally just being a candidate doesn't pass notability, but the "renter" thing added to being a candidate makes her notable. Newystats (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being a landlord isn't notable and neither are having scandalous nude photos or allegations of cheating in school. Non-notable political candidate otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No-one is saying she's notable because she's a landlord or had a nude photo taken. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So she's a non-notable political candidate, you pull out that coverage, there is nothing left. Running for office isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because people aren't notable because or not because of their profession. They're notable or not notable because of Wikipedia GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. All verified, trusted and reputable information regarding Ms Hamer can remain on this article. Anything unverified and untrusted can be edited out. This article regarding Ms Hamer is NOT to be deleted. Unskathd (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have requested a speedy deletion. The article (and all its previous versions) contain contentious/ libellous info that is unsourced about a living person and active politician. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. That is completely out of line and wrong. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. All of your claims are completely false. Everything was fully sourced from credible sources. Wistherdisc (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy, and removed the nude image stuff which appeared to be unsourced. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We silently EC'd on this. I also declined the speedy and removed the silly claim of the nude image. The article needs better sources and some editing, though. —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "nude photo" was her with a group of other Uni students, all covered up by newspapers sitting on a couch. There is an article about it from the (barely reliable) Herald Sun behind their paywall if anyone cares that much about it. I know I don't. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nothingburger to me, not worth including even with sources. —Kusma (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This article is NOT to be deleted. Ms Hamer is currently standing for Australian election, and all currently verified and substantiated news and information regarding Ms Hamer must remain here. This is not up for negotiation. Unskathd (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, unelected candidate. Even so, would require a lot of work to meet wikipedia standards. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NPOL only provides a guideline on people who are presumed to be notable, it is not an requirement that must be "passed" in addition to WP:GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's longstanding convention on wikipedia that a unelected candidate is not notable and routine coverage received during the election cycle does not count towards GNG. I say this as someone who !voted keep for the same reasons you did in the first deletion discussion. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO, in the section regarding NPOL, specifically mentions that candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". The subject here does, as they have received multiple pieces of significant coverage. The supposed "convention" regarding NPOL is WP:OTHER and irrelevant to GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this candidate notable outside of the election coverage? It is a bit of a stretch to label a longstanding precedent WP:OTHER. I suggest you take a look at the arguments made in the first deletion discussion and Common outcomes#Candidates. GMH Melbourne (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first discussion is in the past. We're talking about the page as it is now with multiple sources of reliable independent sigcov. Your second link is an irrelevant essay & essays do not represent consensus. Once again there is confusion over the lack of "presumptive notability" for unelected candidates in general, with the notability conferred by passing WP:GNG as an individual subject. Amelia may lose her election and never win an office covered by NPOL but she will still be notable enough to have an article under GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is someone with significant clout, power & money behind her election campaign, which she is running on the basis of sheer lies. Wikipedia is usually the first source of information for people, and I would say it is in the interest of the general public in light of the upcoming elections that this article be left online. ExpertEgeo (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a liar isn't notable, lying politicians are sadly a dime a dozen, everywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a liar is notable is decided by how sources cover said liar (e.g. take a look at George Santos). How common liars are in general isn't relevant. Cortador (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing for notability then, a person running for office is also common, you can replace this name with any other. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least until after the election, as her candidacy contains misinformation that this article corrects, and should be in the public view. Perringaiden (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article appears to meet GNG and NPOL (even if the latter is, as I would argue, less relevant due to GNG being met so fully). KwanFlakes (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I say GNG is met due (at least in part) to the news coverage received to date having been so extensive. KwanFlakes (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable candidate. Wikipedia is not for political advertising Servite et contribuere (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, this article does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. I think Draft:Amelia Hamer is better sourced and stands a much better chance of meeting at least WP:GNG. --DesiMoore (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether Amelia Hamer (the person) meets WP:GNG, which has not much to do with the content of either the draft or the article. (The draft or article may demonstrate that she meets the GNG, or it may not; her notability will not change if we delete either or both of draft and article). —Kusma (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough coverage to justify an article, including some older coverage (e.g. here). Additionally, none of the deletion arguments made here are sound e.g. whether or not Hamer has been elected isn't relevant. Cortador (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Keep contents of Draft:Amelia Hamer carries sufficient detail to pass WP:GNG the draft should be the base article. Gnan garra 05:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hamer meets WP:GNG through significant coverage in basically all Australian WP:RS, here's The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian for starters. The Guardian story calls her a "high-profile candidate" and notes her family connection to former premier Rupert Hamer. Jpatokal (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the general issue, but the articles in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald are written by the same writer and (at least so far as I can see in the preview shown to me as a non-subscriber) are identical. They don't separately count towards GNG. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted (the Age one is paywalled so I couldn't actually read the content). But here's a different The Age story, plus SBS, news.com.au and the ABC as well. Jpatokal (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All stories are primarily about them being a political candidate. Per WP:OUTCOMES#Candidates Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having presumptive notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, e.g., Candidates of the 2025 Australian federal election#Victoria where they are already listed. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline states that merely being a candidate in and of itself is not notable (in the guideline's words, "presumptive notability"). However, candidates like Hamer that have stories devoted to them in every major newspaper and TV channel in Australia are notable. Or are you arguing that they don't meet WP:GNG? Jpatokal (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stories primarily devoted to them being a candidate. Political candidates are not notable just for being political candidates. TarnishedPath^talk 07:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are dodging the question. Do the sources meet WP:GNG? Yes or no? Jpatokal (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of WP:NPOL is analogous to WP:BLP1E in broader terms. The event being the subject's political candidacy. Take away the canddicay and there is nothing. TarnishedPath^talk 03:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you do agree that the sources meet WP:GNG, and are now advancing theories for why Hamer is not notable anyway?

And since you mention WP:BLP1E, one of the three prongs of that test is that person is a "low-profile individual", which Hamer clearly is not; the Guardian even explicitly calls her a "high-profile candidate". Jpatokal (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. TarnishedPath^talk 05:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your refusal to answer the question suggests that you agree the sources meet WP:GNG and you're unwilling to admit it. If this is not the case, tell me why they don't. Jpatokal (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to WP:SATISFY you. Drop your WP:GASLIGHTING. TarnishedPath^talk 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here from Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Unelected political candidates with notable coverage. It's a bit of a gray area, but I'm inclined to say that these sources probably do not count toward GNG because they don't have significant biographical coverage of the subject. They describe her not even in the context of the election, but in the context of one specific dispute within the election. SNGs do not override GNG, but WP:BLP1E does. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A requirement of WP:BLP1E is that the person is a "low-profile individual". Hamer does not qualify: she ticks basically all the "high-profile" boxes of WP:LOWPROFILE (seeks publicity, has given interviews, sought a political position, consistent pattern of behavior) and the Guardian even explicitly describes her as a "high-profile candidate". Jpatokal (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want to be pedantic, which we should, because pedantry is what makes the site function, Hamer is not solely notable for the election she was also the subject of a GNG source for losing her role in the The Oxford Student. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not already won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But the existence of some campaign coverage does not in and of itself translate into a "passes GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL" card — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would be rendered meaningless and unenforceable since no candidate would ever have to be measured against it at all. So candidates have to meet one of two tests: either (a) they were already notable enough for an article for some other reason, independently of their candidacy, that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway (the Cynthia Nixon test), or (b) the campaign coverage demonstrates a credible reason why the person should be seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm, in some way that even if they lose the election they'd still pass the ten year test as a topic of enduring significance anyway (the Christine O'Donnell test). Neither of those have been demonstrated here, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are misconstruing WP:NPOL, which is designed to weed out small-town mayors and the like, and explicitly states that unelected candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline".

The three pillars of WP:GNG are 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable sources that are 3) independent of the subject. The average candidate does not have this; Hamer does. Jpatokal (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpatokal, I don't think it's WP:AGF to accuse someone of wilfully misconstruing guidelines. This is hardly Bearcat's first Wikipedia edit. You're also accusing TarnishedPath of "dodging the question" in the thread just above. There's no need for the temperature of this deletion discussion to be so high. GraziePrego (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GraziePrego Fair enough, I have deleted the word. Although I continue to be frustrated that WP:NPOL has been repeatedly trumpeted here as somehow overriding WP:GNG, when the guideline itself spells out that this is not the case. Jpatokal (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in agreement most specifically with Bearcat and TarnishedPathta. I will note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer was to move to Draft Space which I frankly disagree with. We cannot allow Draft Space to become a series of campaign brochures that rear their heads prematurely every time someone wants to create negatively-toned pages about a candidate they oppose.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an odd strawman, since the actual article (not the one in Draft space) does not seem to contain any NPOV violations as I type this. Jpatokal (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you read this AfD and the article, it's pretty clear this article exists as a way to put out negative content about a candidate on a website on the first page of Google even if that negative content does not violate NPOV (a concession I am not making or not making). There is a fine line between assuming good faith and naively ignoring the motives of an article's recreation. One of the contributors here knows the cash value of the property the candidate is stated to have owned. As I mention, on policy grounds, I believe the figure does not meet GNG or NPOL. That is what my vote is based on. As a matter of advocating for a full deletion, I believe if this goes back to draft space, it will simply be brought out again before the election whether in good faith by an editor who thinks it is important or in bad faith by a paid operative. I thought it was more well-established political candidates did not go into draft space to avoid this very issue.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's fault coverage of her life is negative. It also doesn't mean she's not notable. Perhaps if she heals lepers, walks on water or finds the holy grail there would be some reliable, "positive" coverage, but ultimately that's not Wikipedia's job, it's hers. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an American and a Democrat, I don't particularly care if a right-wing Australian candidate has negative coverage. As a Wikipedian, I do care if pages are being created against NPOL and GNG. I think I've made my points the candidate does not meet GNG or NPOL and that this article was taken out of DraftSpace in bad faith. This happens in every election where obvious failures of GNG and NPOL are voted keep by people who either support or oppose the candidate so the content of the page is on the first page of Google on a respected source three weeks before the election. After the election, if she loses, this will be a minimally contested 2nd nomination in six months. If she wins, then she's an MP and meets NPOL and GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the election, if she loses, this will be a minimally contested 2nd nomination in six months - couldn't agree more. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:CRYSTALBALL and not a legitimate reason to dismiss notability passing GNG. In 6 months she might never be seen again in public life, or she might be the Victorian State MP for Hawthorn taking over from Pesutto, either way the article stands on GNG already. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @AusLondonder, @Grahamec, @SportingFlyer, @LibStar, @Meligirl5 and @Bearian as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amelia Hamer. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, in the strongest possible terms. First, thanks for the ping, TarnishedPath. The consensus that I discussed in the last AfD has gotten much, much, much stricter. The consensus isn't changing. It's almost a full year later. In the meantime, the deleted articles about political candidates in the United States and India (after their respective elections) have become a veritable bloodbath. We have deleted all sorts of articles about candidates from local elections in New Delhi to the United States Senate. I've lost track of the number of times we've invoked NPOL against candidates who were doing well in the polls. The instant case is perhaps the prototype: our website becomes a springboard for attacks and counterattacks in a political campaign. The Aussies might not be aware that the richest man in the world is trying to cripple our charitable foundation by using political articles against us. TL;DR: this article and its draft must be deleted and protected from re-creation until after the election. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHER. Your WP:POLOUTCOMES from the first nomination is an irrelevant essay and is not consensus. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHER doesn't apply as the exact same article is under discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:OTHER is an "irrelevant essay" as you like to put it. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curious. So you can tell the difference between an essay and a guideline, you just refuse to admit it when you're relying on essays not guidelines as incorrect reasons to delete. To get back on topic, GNG is what matters and that IS consensus and a guideline we must follow, and the consensus from the previous deletion is now irrelevant as circumstances of the article and it's sourcing have changed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. In assessing whether Hamer as an unelected candidate has met WP:SIGCOV we need to assess whether the coverage included in the article is primarily coverage of her or of the election itself. With the exception of one article from her student days, the sources used are either coverage of her preselection or of a controversy during the election campaign. Major party preselection outcomes for Australian federal elections are routinely covered. The coverage afforded to Hamer from her preselection victory – while possibly more than average – does not seem substantial enough to justify an article on its own. The coverage about her status as a "renter" likewise does not seem substantial enough to meet the SIGCOV. Many candidates have controversies arise during election campaigns, most of which are "flash in the pan" in nature and bubble away for no more than a few days as the media cycle moves on. This controversy has not yet been deemed significant enough to feature in the main 2025 Australian federal election article, and would be no more than a one-liner. With that in mind, I can't see it being substantial or notable enough to justify an entire article about Hamer. I would favour deletion for now and in similar circumstances for other non-incumbent candidates not otherwise notable non-politically, with rare exceptions such as preselection in a "guaranteed" Senate seat. If and when Hamer wins the election then by all means revive this. I T B F 📢 10:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Evans (Australian politician)

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL for not occupying any notable political office, and WP:GNG for not having sufficient sources that satisfy WP:IRS and covers them substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deputy mayors are rarely notable and no inherent notability. Fails WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable beyond being Deputy mayor, as evident by the 16 sources on the page. Viatori (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Trammell

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

Non-notable author, professor, and political candidate. He received some national coverage in 2014 because he was the Democratic nominee in the race where Dave Brat primaried out House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, but not very much. The fact that news coverage of him completely dried up after the 2014 race shows he is not a notable person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is clear that he does not merit inclusion for his political activity which consists of run of the mill party activism, the 2014 US House election, and a respectable overperformance in a special election earlier this year. This is why professors who run for office are always a tricky one for me. The article is clearly created due to a candidacy, but they might qualify for their professional work. The Mount St. Mary's University directory says that he is at present a Department Chair (which is not to say that Department Chair shares a definition with "chair" at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). Ultimately, I think this will need to be judged with Wikipedia:Notability (academics) with no regard as to his candidacies. He has a bibliography at Amazon which is NOT self-published works. He also has a number of results on Google Scholar, EBSCO Host, and JSTOR pending verification it is the same Jack Trammell. The article needs an update and to be reframed away from his candidacies. I do hope to have a formal vote before the close of this AfD, but I'm in "weak keep" to "keep" territory at the moment.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Letizia Giorgianni

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

The sourcing of this article is very weak for a BLP. I do not see any significant independent coverage online, even though she passes WP:NPOL. Janhrach (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. Janhrach (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the nominator mentions, the subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the Italian Parliament. The sourcing currently present in the article certainly leaves a lot to be desired, but from a cursory search there seems to be enough to surpass WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article may be a copyvio, it seems to closely follow this. Janhrach (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely no copyvio and passes WP:NPOL as a national deputy. Cavarrone 05:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. But it looks like an unattributed translation of the older it.wiki article], so needs some work. PamD 07:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And after keeping, Move to Letizia Giorgianni per sources and it.wiki. PamD 07:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also support the move after a Keep !vote per WP:COMMONNAME. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject satisfies notabaility requirements (WP:NPOL) as a member of the national legislature of Italy. There is no additional requirement to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 10:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

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

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:
  
  The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision^[1].
  
  So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:
  
  Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.^[2]
  
  So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might do to revisit some tacit assumptions, David Eppstein. I found a potted biography preceding the main interview in Richardson & Slack 2005 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRichardsonSlack2005 (help), and whilst it has degrees, awards, and books it has no mention of membership of that organization. The claim to membership was not in this article for the first 10 years of its life, only being added without source nor edit summary in 2017. It's not even made in Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which merely claims, with zero sourcing, membership of a predecessor organization. Is the whole back-and-forth above based upon assuming as a given a claim that is not actually true? Certainly, even with the assumption, what the status of the SCCR is is irrelevant, as the (unsourced!) claim is that this person was a member of an appointed council of university professors in the Cultural Revolution HQ that preceded the 1984 foundation of the SCCR. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Richardson, Mark; Slack, Gordy, eds. (2005). "Mehdi Golshani: The Ladder To God". Faith in Science: Scientists Search for Truth. Routledge. pp. 121 et seq. ISBN 9781134516568.

Guy Schwartz

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

Lack of any notability whatsoever - prior print sources were bogus and unverifiable. Biased and POV statements littered throughout the article and the subject has flaunted said article on social media (facebook) many times. Large chunk of contributions to the article are from suspicious anonymous IP addresses that have only edited that page, as well as Guy Schwartz's own wikipedia account. Subject has not established notability and this page should be deleted. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Journalism, Television, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the article is unsourced, so that's of no help. I don't find anything for sourcing. Could be notable, but the lack of any kind of sourcing isn't helpful. Could be a hoax or an LLM article for all I know. Could likely speedy this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the nominator the ip who removed the references which are shown here on the basis that they were bogus such as the Houston Press?. However, I did find this piece in the Houston Press here so maybe they weren't as bogus as is claimed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also found these other Houston Press articles about him here, here,here, here, here, and here. Going by this evidence the other references removed such as Billboard may be genuine as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, yes I am the user who called the Houston press in an attempt to independently verify the articles he cited on his own wikipedia page - none of those print articles existed according to them.

Your first link to houston press is talking about MARTY schwartz, not Guy Schwartz - Marty is a youtuber with infinitely more notoriety.

Of the rest of the articles you linked, guy schwartz is the main subject of only TWO of those articles - and not to mention, they are all by the same publication. Which per WP:GNG - "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

The only cited source within the entire article that I could find that had any direct ties to guy schwartz was yet another Houston Press article from 2007 entitled "South By Due East↵Racket heads for Austin as Guy Schwartz and M. Martin bicker over the history of a local festival" and it was incorrectly cited for a statement that claimed they have been running said festival since 2003 - which the article mentions nowhere. Thus why I pulled it from the article.

Perhaps Guy Schwartz could write a new wikipedia page about himself with info from those two articles that he is the subject of, appropriately citing things that are within those articles for the information therein. But the article as it stands is a plethora of wild unsupported claims - such as claims of a 2016 presidential campaign that are based in nothing but fantasy. Claiming he toured with Duran Duran, Todd Rundgren and Huey Lewis.

If Guy Schwartz was truly notable, then one would think he would manage more than a couple articles in Houston Press about his band. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Billboard references I confirmed were bogus through online archives of those issues he claimed he was in.

It also doesnt change the fact that none of those articles you linked were cited within the page. Had they been, this may have been a different story. Albeit the issue still stands: Per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Brandonac4473 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I've removed the Marty Schwartz reference. Agree more sources are required, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree more sources are required for notability, then please consider changing your recommendation to delete. Brandonac4473 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly remove the bold in your request as it might be considered a !vote and it is assumed that nominators are generally in favour of deletion and cannot !vote. ◇Not sure it is appropriate to ask a voter to change their suggestion the way you did, but maybe that’s not an issue. -Mushy Yank. 18:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - unbolded that word.

They can obviously do whatever they want, but I figured asking them to reconsider their vote would be appropriate considering that they now agree with the basis of my issue with the article to begin with - that more sources are needed. Brandonac4473 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet fully convinced that additional sources do not exist so am sticking with my keep vote pending further evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle has bits of coverage about him; including this presenting him as "an icon of the Houston scene". -Mushy Yank. 00:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(and same media: https://www.chron.com/entertainment/music/article/guy-schwartz-new-jack-hippies-1979508.php (based on an interview)+ or this (short/similar to first and with similar appraisal, "a Houston institution"); this interview at Rag Radio (with an extensive presentation) (see WP:INTERVIEWS, an essay) can serve is this is kept to expand and verify. So that imv, he might meet one or two of the inclusion criteria as defined in the guideline about WP:Notability (music), namely:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"

(excludes interviews) and/or, more likely:

"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city"

Houston is a city. GS, at 73, seems to be listed among the most prominent Americana musicians of its local scene. Ergo (weak) keep? If kept, the article, currently tag-bombed, should be cleaned up. -Mushy Yank. 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these articles you linked support the plethora of claims made throughout the article?

This is why my attempts to verify them were so exhaustive. There are no credible sources for him having ran a 2016 presidential campaign, no credible sources for having toured with Duran Duran or Huey Lewis.

He might've passed WP:GNG if those articles were properly cited within the article but they weren't cited at all.

And Houston Chronicle calling his band an "icon" is a stretch particularly when their latest "music video" has 48 views on youtube. link

Houston Chronicle is open for business btw for paid promotions. Brandonac4473 (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if notability is established, WP:NDELETE still says a wikipedia article must cite sources for whatever information it presents - regardless of notability.

The entirety of the article is filled with unverifiable claims. He still doesn't pass WP:GNG in my opinion but the criteria to delete the page has absolutely been met per WP:NDELETE even if he is truly notable. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it, then and remove everything you think is inappropriate (please do not WP:BLANK the page, though). As for the idea that a page about a "truly notable subject" should (or even could) be deleted because the page has no sources cited, although sources exist (and in the case of an/this AfD, especially if sources are presented!!!!), I am very sorry, but: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Just read Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_based_on_the_existence_of_suitable_sources,_not_on_the_state_of_sourcing_in_an_article, which is a WP:guideline. "WP:NDELETE" is an essay (="the advice or opinions of one [..] Wikipedia contributor[s]", not a policy or guideline). You are totally free to cite it and it is not a problem, but it has little, if any, weight as an argument to delete a page. (I completely disagree with that essay, personally, and find it is full of wild and reckless assertions). Also, articles that do not pass WP:GNG but meet a given WP:SNG may be kept, depending on the case. Best, -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so you disagree with WP:NDELETE, thats fine.

Do you think Guy Schwartz meets WP:SIGCOV?

A brief mention in a list of other houston musicians seems like a trivial mention. Brandonac4473 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N. The phoney 2016 presidential campaign with no citations to back it up says everything to me. Nominator appears to have tried to independently verify the print articles thoroughly. My own searching of “Guy Schwartz” on the internet doesnt produce much either, except for his wiki page. Non-notable. Brenae wafato (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found this here about his supposed 2016 Presidential bid but he doesn't seem to have made the ballot according to official records, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so this guy connected with me on a site called ome.tv and one of the first things he told me to do was check his wikipedia page, trying to tell me he was famous. i googled him and literally this was the only thing i found on him. given that... seems like he shouldnt have a wikipedia page LOL. he has no followers or coverage anywhere else.

i saw the notification at the top of his article inviting me to leave an opinion..

so i'd say delete but i also dont know how wikipedia works. but this guy is not famous or notable and definitely shouldnt have a wikipedia page if he just goes around telling random people to check it out and has no real coverage anywhere else lmao. 24.27.40.108 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input from other experienced editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norachit Sinhaseni

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and I don't see evidence that this one passes WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. The coverage is brief and routine coverage of him in the context of his job, not WP:SIGCOV of him. Please ping if I missed any qualifying sources in my search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Thailand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is quite incomplete. After his ambassadorial posts, he was Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs, then spokesman of the 2014 junta's Constitution Drafting Committee, and later a representative of Thailand to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. He also had an executive position in Centara and some other companies. But there's not much in-depth coverage. There's an interview in The Nation covering him as an individual, but it's an interview.[24] There's this Khaosod profile piece,[25] but it only lists his positions in résumé format. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Guangzhao

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

Does not meet GNG, and this person's positions fail to meet NPOL criteria either Cinder painter (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article erroneously stated that he was party secretary of Inner Mongolia, a position that would probably make him automatically notable. Based on the cited sources, he is only party secretary of the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department, which is not a position that makes him automatically notable. I have corrected the article accordingly.

Though he is not automatically notable under NPOL, I have not yet done a search for sources to check if the GNG is met. Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhuang, Yu 庄彧 (2021-06-22). "郑光照任商洛市委书记(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Party Secretary of Shangluo Municipal Committee (Photo | Resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网地方党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月出生，2016年起任商洛市委副书记、市长。原任商洛市委书记的郭永红近日已任陕西省副省长。郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the database of local party and government leaders of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao was born in September 1966 and has served as deputy secretary and mayor of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee since 2016. Guo Yonghong, the former secretary of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee, has recently been appointed as vice governor of Shaanxi Province. Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics."
2. Shi, Lanlan 石兰兰 (2016-08-27). "郑光照当选商洛市市长(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao was elected mayor of Shangluo City (photo | resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月生，此前担任渭南市委常委、常务副市长，近日已任商洛市委副书记、市政府党组书记；原任商洛市长的是陈俊，女，1960年10月出生，近日已任商洛市委书记（相关报道）。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the data of the Party and Government Leaders Database of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao, born in September 1966, previously served as a member of the Standing Committee of the Weinan Municipal Party Committee and Executive Vice Mayor, and has recently been appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee and Secretary of the Party Group of the Municipal Government; the former Shangluo Mayor is Chen Jun, female, born in October 1960, and has recently been appointed as the Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee (related reports)."
3. Hai, Jun 海军 (2022-12-04). Zhang, Xuedong 张雪冬; Liu, Ze 刘泽 (eds.). "郑光照在凉城县宣讲党的二十大精神并开展林长制巡查工作" [Zheng Guangzhao preached the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in Liangcheng County and carried out forest chief system inspection work]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "11月28日，自治区副主席、公安厅厅长郑光照到乌兰察布市凉城县，为机关干部和基层民警宣讲党的二十大精神。"
  From Google Translate: "On 28 November 28, Zheng Guangzhao, Vice Chairman of the Autonomous Region and Director of the Public Security Department, went to Liangcheng County, Ulanqab City, to preach the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Party to cadres and grassroots police."
4. "郑光照同志简介" [Brief introduction of Comrade Zheng Guangzhao]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-07-29. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月生，在职研究生，中共党员，现任内蒙古自治区副主席、政府党组成员，自治区公安厅党委书记、厅长、督察长，自治区党委政法委副书记（兼）。"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, is a postgraduate student and a member of the Communist Party of China. He is currently the Vice Chairman of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and a member of the Party Leadership Group of the Government, the Party Secretary, Director and Inspector General of the Autonomous Region Public Security Department, and the Deputy Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Autonomous Region Party Committee (concurrently)."
5. Li, Zhiqiang 李志强 (2016-08-06). "陈俊任陕西商洛市委书记郑光照任商洛市委副书记" [Chen Jun is appointed as the Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee, and Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。历任咸阳市粮油食品土畜产品外贸公司副经理，长武县副县长，"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics. He has served as deputy manager of Xianyang Cereals, Oils, Foods, Local Products and Livestock Foreign Trade Company, deputy county magistrate of Changwu County, ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zheng Guangzhao (simplified Chinese: 郑光照; traditional Chinese: 鄭光照) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these appear like basic political profiles, which would be a run-of-the-mill career. IgelRM (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources provide significant coverage about the subject. The guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline do not exclude an article on a politician who have had "a run-of-the-mill career" if the politician has received significant coverage as is the case here. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you see as significant besides being chosen as secretary? IgelRM (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on this[26] which confirms he was a National People's Congress delegate in 2018. Per WP:NPOL a member of China's national legislative body is presumed notable. The sourcing found by Cunard addresses verifiability of his positions. Oblivy (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meenal Choubey

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

Mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chhattisgarh. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the guideline also mentions Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage - there are many news about her from google search.
Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Bash007, can you atleast give 3 sources? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok @Reading Beans..

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30] Uncle Bash007 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Bash007, these are routine coverages about things that were said. What we look for are in-depth, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and these doesn’t cut it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my comment. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of Raipur passes WP:GNG have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards, how does the mayor of a city pass GNG? And I’m seeing press releases and speeches here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7] ^[8] ^[9]

References

^ Bajpai, Shashank Shekhar (4 March 2025). "रायपुर महापौर मीनल चौबे ने संभाली कुर्सी, शहर के चहुंमुखी विकास का किया वादा". Nai Dunia (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ Marut raj (28 March 2025). "रायपुर में 4 नए फ्लाई ओवर और कामकाजी महिलाओं के लिए 3 हॉस्टल बनेंगे". Sootr (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ "RMC's 1.5k crore budget prioritises urban devpt". The Times of India. 29 March 2025. Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ Hitavada, The (6 February 2025). "BJP's Minal Choubey pledges to prioritise basic amenities". The Hitavada. Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ "Raipur: जानें कौन हैं मीनल चौबे, जिसे बीजेपी ने रायपुर नगर निगम से मेयर प्रत्याशी के लिये चुनावी रण में उतारा". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). 27 January 2025. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
^ Mallick, Avdhesh (28 March 2025). "Raipur Mayor Meenal Chaubey Presents ₹1529.53 Crore RMC Budget, Focus On Women Empowerment & Infrastructure". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
^ Behera, Partha Sarathi (1 March 2025). "Develop public facilities based on citizen input: Raipur mayor Meenal Chaubey". The Times of India. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
^ "Raipur mayor's oath-taking sparks debate over religious slogans". cgkhabar.com. 28 February 2025. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
^ तिवारी, पवन (15 February 2025). "raipur news people choose us for development know what meenal choubey said after the victory". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). Retrieved 6 April 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's the mayor of a city with a million people, not Schenectady. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Big Population is common in India, that should not be compared with western cities. GrabUp - Talk 04:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every Chinese mayor is entitled to an entry we follow this “one million population”. The subject clearly does not meet NPOL#1 and the sources presented as evident to everyone is not GNG-worthy. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meenal Chaubey is the currently serving Mayor of Raipur, which is the capital city of Chhattisgarh, India. Holding the mayoral office of a state capital is a position of significant political importance and public interest. Her election has been covered by multiple reliable and independent news sources such as The Times of India, NDTV, and Hindustan Times, which establish her notability under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG) and WP:POLITICIAN. Furthermore, her political career, public engagements, and influence on local governance are well-documented, making her a notable figure in Indian municipal politics. Deletion of such a page would remove verifiable and encyclopedic information about a currently elected public official.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesurajsahu (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPOL also states mayors do not inherently fail to meet notability either. WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that regionally significant mayors tend to survive. Raipur is a capital city of a province, the 45th largest city in India, and in 2025 (at the time of her election) has an estimated population of 1.5 million. Honestly, this would be like arguing a 21st-century Mayor of Boston is not notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 21st century mayor of Boston is not inherently notable. NPOL#1 makes provisions for international, national and state-level (for countries that use that system). Nothing there is made for cities or local government areas. The mayor of Aba or Lagos (both in Nigeria) are not inherently notable. Now, for NPOL#2, the sources here are not independent of the subject neither do they give in-depth coverage of him, so, it fails that too. If population of a city is now the basis of notability, an RfC should be opened for it, until then, I don’t think that this !vote is policy based. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 21:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I consider much of this to be a non-sequitur, but I will assume good faith. My response was primarily meant to be additive to what others have said. I don't need to be the Xth person to type the words "meets GNG" when I can point out HOW I agree with people who have made this point (in this case she as a regionally important local official can meet GNG as most in her position are able to). I perhaps could have made that clearer that I find the sources found by others to be sufficient combined with the probability of even more such coverage existing. Also, in my experience, these kinds of replies to everyone with whom you disagree in the same AfD tend to backfire. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the mayor of a city of 1 million people. That, combined with the coverage, make it highly likely that this person is notable. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, Well? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sorry, I !voted twice. Bearian (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[1] "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[2] "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

[g169-3] Bajpai, Shashank Shekhar (4 March 2025). "रायपुर महापौर मीनल चौबे ने संभाली कुर्सी, शहर के चहुंमुखी विकास का किया वादा". Nai Dunia (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[q418-4] Marut raj (28 March 2025). "रायपुर में 4 नए फ्लाई ओवर और कामकाजी महिलाओं के लिए 3 हॉस्टल बनेंगे". Sootr (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[y307-5] "RMC's 1.5k crore budget prioritises urban devpt". The Times of India. 29 March 2025. Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[q637-6] Hitavada, The (6 February 2025). "BJP's Minal Choubey pledges to prioritise basic amenities". The Hitavada. Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[m618-7] "Raipur: जानें कौन हैं मीनल चौबे, जिसे बीजेपी ने रायपुर नगर निगम से मेयर प्रत्याशी के लिये चुनावी रण में उतारा". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). 27 January 2025. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

[r405-8] Mallick, Avdhesh (28 March 2025). "Raipur Mayor Meenal Chaubey Presents ₹1529.53 Crore RMC Budget, Focus On Women Empowerment & Infrastructure". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

[o828-9] Behera, Partha Sarathi (1 March 2025). "Develop public facilities based on citizen input: Raipur mayor Meenal Chaubey". The Times of India. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

[z867-10] "Raipur mayor's oath-taking sparks debate over religious slogans". cgkhabar.com. 28 February 2025. Retrieved 6 April 2025.

[g406-11] तिवारी, पवन (15 February 2025). "raipur news people choose us for development know what meenal choubey said after the victory". Navbharat Times (in Hindi). Retrieved 6 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects