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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Party (UK)

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

Clearly not the name of the party according to Zarah Sultana herself:

https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1948341850311426407?s=19

The party, as of writing, still does not exist- therefore this is WP:TOOSOON— Czello ^(music) 12:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. — Czello ^(music) 12:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per the clear WP:SNOW below. Happy for someone to close this. — Czello ^(music) 13:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is wrong, then a move is in order, not a deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article. A confusion has arisen over the name. I've edited the article to reflect that, but after reviewing sources, Your Party seems to be the nearest thing we have to a WP:COMMONNAME for now. As per others, what we call the article is a separate discussion. I think the party clearly meets WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — party with 2 MPs is notable in British politics. Simply not having a permanent name doesn’t merit WP:TOOSOON DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The website exists: https://yourparty.uk And in the absence of any other name, details about the party's formation has nowhere else to be written than this page. WillSmith (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we went through a similar discussion for America Party at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America Party (2nd nomination). The website for the party exists at the moment. If the name is the issue, a WP:RM should be set up. Keivan.f^Talk 12:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The party has certainly recieved enough coverage to meet WP:GNG even the formalities to make it an official party have not been done or they haven't they picked an official name. Lots of things can be notable but also be Untitled. I'm actually not sure that the article name should be Your Party unless that emerges as a WP:COMMONNAME but that's a move discussion, not a deletion one. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Launched today by notable politicians, has sufficient coverage on sources. Needs moved to a better name, but AfD is barely worth discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Czello, it's snowing. Do you just want to withdraw this AfD? Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm clearly in the minority and, indeed, it is clearly a snow case - so yes I withdraw it. I may have jumped the gun in nominating it; as you say, a rename would be more appropriate — Czello ^(music) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- having a physical office is not necessary when they're already a declared and launched political party. (See National Citizen Party). Goku from bd (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed not to be the actual name of a political party. Article is therefore not required. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robriotuk (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a thought experiment, imagine the party said that in order to show how different it is to the existing political party system it is not going to have a fixed name. Would some of us still maintain the position that it can’t have an article? (Of course, under UK electoral law, it would need to register under a particular name with the UK Electoral Commission, but English-language Wikipedia articles about political parties are not necessarily named after UK Electoral Commission registered names.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of movements in Wales

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

This is an arbitrary list of some of the movements in Wales. It lacks any evidence of a collection of movements and looks like a WP:COATRACK to hang links to particularly political causes. It does not pass WP:LISTN because there is no treatment of such a broad and arbitrary list. It is notable for what it lacks. For instance, the Apostolic movement is entirely missing from the religous section, despite being a very notable and peculiarly Welsh religous movement. There are many other examples, and the claim it captures historical movements is particularly hard to entertain (e.g. where is the disestablishment movement, liberal movements, Sunday School movement, etc.) But a list of movements is just to disparate and broad for treatment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Texas state legislative special elections

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

It is entirely unnecessary to have a separate page for a category of special elections when there is only one election in that category. It has also been found by consensus for other pages like this that special elections that are not particularly notable should be merged into the nationwide page for that year's state legislative elections. There has been basically no widespread media coverage of this election that I believe raises it to the threshold of notability. Even if it is notable, it should be moved to an individualized page like 2025 Texas Senate District 9 special election. OutlawRun (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfectly fine page as there is no 2025 Texas elections page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a 2025 Texas elections page. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis DFL

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

Notability isn't established, content is POV, and edits were only made on the first two days of the page's existence (June 1-2). There's a lot of POV content here right now, which isn't well-sourced (e.g. ideology in infobox). In part, this article feels like a way to include POV claims about the DFL that would be erased sooner on a more-viewed page.

The History section is not especially specific to the local endorsing unit but rather to the history of the DFL and general history of Government of Minneapolis, repeating information already on, or better suited to, those pages, and is poorly sourced. The founding date claim in the infobox copies the state DFL, and "recent activity" just summarizes existing pages on those elections.

I propose MERGING the structure section, and possibly other relevant info, to the Party Organization section in Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (which could also mention other localities if needed), and MERGING composition history (currently under Election results section) to the election pages Minneapolis City Council and Mayor of Minneapolis. Some of the content here would do better as a general "politics in Minneapolis" page, which would be a more appropriate place to discuss political party strength over time. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Minnesota. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I tried to AFD some similar local party articles in New York to no avail. This one seems to have some notability as a major local party. And there are mentions in media of this organization. POV is a separate issue, certainly. Metallurgist (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MERA25 Hessen

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "consider merge or redirect to MERA25 as preferred WP:ATD". However, like I always do prior to prodding, I did consider a redirect to MERA25, but it is not mentioned at that target, so that would be inappropriate. And there is really nothing of substance to merge. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Land Restitution Movements in Zimbabwe and South Africa

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

The article looks like it was generated by an LLM. I have already removed non-existent references that were probably hallucinated by the LLM, and the claims that those references purported to support. The remainder of the article is poorly sourced. The topic looks as though it is notable, but I suggest WP:TNT because the content, as unchecked LLM output, cannot be trusted. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Topic is probably notable but LLM-generated articles are a concern with WP:V. Let someone redo the article from scratch. Also, I just don't want to encourage editors who think they can create a junk article with ChatGPT in 30 seconds and rely on other editors to clean it up. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT applies, but I'm not even convinced the topic is notable. It's titled like an essay. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - another story / essay from this creator, who has "written" other AI disasters, at the worst possible time, during the battle of the Billionaires. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to obvious LLM usage. The article was created because of this editathon. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-African Congress on Reparations

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

The article looks like it was generated by an LLM. I have already removed non-existent references that were probably hallucinated by the LLM, and the claims that those references purported to support. The remainder of the article is poorly sourced. The topic looks as though it is notable, but I suggest WP:TNT because the content, as unchecked LLM output, cannot be trusted. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, History, Politics, and Africa. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly notable, but the article seems unrecoverable. Let's start from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 10:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably notable but with the WP:V concerns raised by LLM used, the article can't be trusted. Also we should not encourage editors who want to create articles with LLM's and then wait for others to fix their problems. Let them redo it the right way. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we never trust the article, we trust reliable sources. If the topic is notable, reliable sources exist. —Rutebega (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Unsourced or unverifiable claims by LLMs are not more dangerous than those inserted by random IPs, and they have no bearing on deletion policy. Grind this thing down to the stump by all means, but deletion seems to me totally symbolic and a much bigger waste of time. —Rutebega (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing an essay, which also almost immediately notes that However, some articles do reach the so-called TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and gives editors a clean slate. I would also note unsourced or unverifiable claims by LLMs are more dangerous, because they're clearly made up out of cloth, but are presented with authority. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The creator claims to be a "story teller" but seems to be making up stories: several pages created by AI have been deleted or in the process of being deleted for the same reasons. This could not happen at the worst possible time. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Disagree with the keep vote. If the claimed notability of the subject relies on made up sources, then the main problem is not cleanup being needed, it is notability. Yue🌙 22:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Yet another article created because of this editathon. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We really need to contact the editors running this edit-a-thon about all the AI-generated/WP:SYNTH articles being created as a result. Half of the suggested article titles in the "article list" are not suitable for Wikipedia articles, and sound like the titles of argumentative essays instead. ApexParagon (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, not only due to the AI-generated mess with fictitious sources this is, but also due to the topic not being notable enough for its own article.

If more reliably sourced info on reparations can be added to Pan-African Congress (there’s only a sentence about it right now) then redirect there. Due to this article being fully/near-fully generated by AI and having fictitious sources, and containing a lot of info unrelated to the Pan-African Congress, nothing should be merged. ApexParagon (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Maron

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

Outside of unsuccessful campaigns for office (WP:POLOUTCOMES), the sources are only brief mentions, not really going in-depth about the individual, with some not even mentioning the subject that I could find. She has been involved in various organizations but still, no significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like reasonably significant coverage to me, as does this (a campaign gets mentioned, but just briefly; it's not candidate coverage.) Both are NY Daily News, so they only count as one source, but still an indicator. Also, about different events, so it's not a WP:BLP1E matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may have accidentally linked the same source twice Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I was fixing that while you were noting it! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (might even be WP:SNOW) - I'd say the combined coverage easily passes WP:GNG at this point. WP:NPOL points out that being an unelected candidate doesn't automatically guarantee notability, I'd say between the two unsuccessful ones and announced third and all the other coverage on her political or anti-trans views easily passes the hurdle.

I pulled up some of the 2024+ sources cited and this A Culture-War Battle Convulses a School Panel in Liberal Manhattan - The New York Times article centered on her is very much in depth coverage on her (mentioning her 24 times throughout the article). The article In Private Texts, NY Ed Council Reps, Congressional Candidate Demean LGBTQ Kids – The 74 is another pretty deep coverage with 34 mentions. NYC elected officials, teachers protest at right wing Moms for Liberty event and National debate over transgender athletes comes to New York City - POLITICO & Moms for Liberty's NYC event may have attracted more protesters than guests - Chalkbeat is also centered on the discourse around her.

Also while I was looking at sources, I came across a whole other scandal from 2024 that isn't even mentioned in the article, but likely should - apparently she was removed from her position, following an investigation by the New York Education Department in June 2024 (NYC Removes Two Parents From Local School Boards Over Behavior - The New York Times & NYC Ed Dept. Orders Parent Leader to Cease ‘Derogatory,’ ‘Offensive’ Conduct or Face Removal – The 74) and subsequently a judge re-instated her Citing Free Speech Violations, Judge Reinstates NYC Parent to Ed. Council – The 74 - the article currently only mentions her removal due to WP:PIA comments, but it looks like it was actually based on both PIA, as well as transphobic comments made, so we should add those sources and ammend the article.

So I'd say overall, just from the few above that would likely already be enough for GNG, combine that with her prior failed runs for political office, the stint in the school district, and now another run puts her into perennial candidate territory and we can probably add her to the List of perennial candidates in the United States as well. Raladic (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Education, and New York. Raladic (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I shouldn't !vote, because we have mutual connections, but I feel obligated to say that she has gotten a lot of free press, in part due to being a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything that's not local campaign coverage. While some perennial candidates are eligible for articles, I don't see that shows she's made any lasting impact as a failed candidate in any of the sources. Sources above aren't helpful either as they enter into the routine - any headline which describes someone as "A Manhattan parent" necessarily implies the person the article is written about isn't known to the public by their name. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the transphobia/hate-speech council removal and federal judge reinstatement of her on free-speech grounds case I referenced above, and her related involvement with a SPLC tracked extremist hate-group and their events? I just found a couple more sources on that: Ousted NYC school board member seeks job back as controversial regulation faces legal challenge, Federal judge reinstates ousted NYC school board member Maud Maron, cites free speech, NYC school board members with ties to right-wing Moms for Liberty ousted in local election? The countless WP:RSP's coverage of this, which has nothing to do with her failed or ongoing political candidacies, is more WP:SIGCOV than we have for many articles and easily passes WP:NBASIC, ignoring the several political candidacies coverages, is easily enough to justify the article.

I think the current presentation of the article has some weight issues as it currently looks primarily (especially the lead) focused on her failed/ongoing political candidacies, and the section on the other coverage is missing a lot of the content (including most of the sources I listed in the AfD here) that should be added.

You called out that some of the headlines don't say her name (some do, but most reference her role as a school board member as that's more head-liney), but keep in mind that WP:HEADLINES calls out that we don't pay much attention to them and source our articles from the body of the sources. Raladic (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a school board in America is a political entity and that's pretty clearly all local political coverage to me. SportingFlyer T·C 12:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Strong coverage that isn't just local campaign coverage; things like this New York Times piece have just a passing mention of her history as a candidate, and are not done in the heart of a campaign, while this Daily News piece doesn't mention any candidacy. The idea that a headline has to mention the subject by name in order to indicate their notability is at odds with our standards on both headlines and notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of several articles as highlighted by Raladic and Nat Gertler including CBS News, New York Times, New York Daily Times, meets WP:SIGCOV. SDGB1217 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Militant

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

Nothing but an dicdef with usage examples --Altenmann >talk 17:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dicdef. The article is about the term "militant", not about militants. Anerdw (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've often thought WP:DICDEF gets thrown around too much at AfD, but in this case it is absolutely proper: the lede is even The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and it is generally used to mean vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in "militant reformers". No issue with recreation if we can write a topic about militants. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very rarely have I seen an article that is so explicitly a dictionary definition. Militant (disambiguation) should be moved to this title and I think some brief discussion and see also is okay there but not a page like this. Reywas92^Talk 21:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Surayeproject3 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand this is a dictdef, but the word militant is extensively used in Wikipedia, and MOS I believe prefers it over the use of terrorist. I would think its certainly a notable topic because of this, and the article simply needs to be developed more. Metallurgist (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Lair (book)

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

Borderline failure of WP:NBOOK. The author and publisher are both non-notable. There are three sources in the article and I could not find more during WP:BEFORE. The second source [1] seems fine as an independent review. The first source [2] has a conflict of interest: the reviewer discloses at the end that he was a guest of honour at the launch event of Wolf’s Lair. The third source [3] is mainly a short interview of the author, which is excluded under WP:NBOOK: publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Astaire (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Military, Politics, and India. Astaire (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Politics (1950s)

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

Delete. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. In fact, I'd go so far as to say there is no coverage of this concept. A search of EbscoHost via the Wikipedia Library does not reveal a 1950s "New Politics." JSTOR likewise turned up nothing. A search of Adlai Stevenson New Politics on the Internet Archive reveals a number of results, but a reading of those books does not show it as a 1950s Stevenson-centric movement, but rather as a descriptor of McCarthy and RFK Jr in the 1960s. A search of Illinois Periodicals Online, an NIU project, the only context of "New Politics" is a review of a book about opposition to Daley the First. Mpen320 (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept does not seem to exist outside Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was not sure when added the links whether this was original research or not. It seems plausible. I'm still not sure. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly I've found quite a bit of information linking Stevenson to a "New Politics" movement. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and in the book "Battling Bella: The Protest Politics of Bella Abzug" which would be able to give a definition if I could access the full text. I can't access almost all of these, but there's clearly some sort of topic here. Whether it's about a 1950s concept currently discussed in the article or a 1960s-70s concept I'm not completely sure, and it's completely unsourced at the moment. However, I'm convinced that if someone put work into a New Politics (Democratic party) article it would absolutely be a notable article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is probably an article in a somewhat broader topic, as SportingFlyer suggests, but this current article isn't it and it doesn't currently have the sources to improve it. Warofdreams talk 22:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) — Tamil Nadu

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

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:16, 17 July 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 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability. The Post article only discusses the communist party in a single sentence and only to note that it fared even worse than other parties. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prob keep - it feels like the Tamil Nadu state committee of the CPI(M) has independent/separate notability from the central politbureau. Here are some recent press about their activities 1 and 2 and 3. Seems like other good RS probably exist showing that the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the problem of these radical, Modernist parties is that they're all "action" without results - no policies they got instituted, no elections won, no political lobbying. It's news about games where nobody wins or loses. Bearian (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by no elections won given they have members in the Lok Sabha and state assembly. Unless I'm missing something, those politicians were elected. JMWt (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. If there is more coverage found, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments and sources from JMWt. This has sufficiently distinct sourcing from other Comm parties and would seem to be notable for its area and political scene. Alternatively, a merge and redirect target should be deleted, but I would be hesitate to outright deleted this article. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secretary of the Democrats of the Left

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

Probably not notable as no Italian article Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Italy. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable article My Google search showed no related significant coverage Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Another subpar deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Delete - to have sufficient notability for inclusion there would have to be sources that discuss the role of segretario nazionale and I'm not seeing them. It could be that they exist in Italian but maybe not given this was quite a minor party which dissolved a while ago. Seems a mention of the people in the role on Democrats of the Left is sufficient for the moment and someone could spin off a properly sourced page on this topic if the sources are found. JMWt (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democrats of the Left#Leadership, where there is already considerable overlap – without merge due to being unsourced. No doubt sources exist about the party and about people who have served in this position, including news about events involving people who were acting in this capacity, but not able to find anything that amounts to significant coverage about the position itself, discussing its role and powers within the party, selection criteria/election process, etc. No evidence that it is particularly remarkable or substantially differs from what is expected with similar positions in other political parties to an extent that warrants an independent article separate from the one about the party, nor a sufficiently long list to qualify for splitting due to size. — 2406:3003:2007:1F3:B4FC:62FA:6BF7:F6CD (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Louisiana Senate District 14 special election

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

Also nominating the following:

Building off previous consensus that state legislative special elections are not inherently notable. See previous discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Alabama Senate District 5 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Rhode Island Senate District 4 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Oklahoma State Senate special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Connecticut House of Representatives District 40 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Delaware Senate District 1 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 California's 32nd State Assembly district special election

I don't see a reason why any of the pages I'm nominating rise above your average state legislative special election in terms of notability. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Louisiana, though merging to a newly created 2025 Louisiana elections page could work if someone was willing to make that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Is there a reason why you're taking these to AfD instead of just being BOLD or using a merge discussion? These aren't really AfD material as we don't want to lose any of the information, they just don't need individual pages. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Atriskofmistake (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The prevailing opinion so far is to merge, but for a merge to be a feasible outcome, the target must exist as an actual article, and not merely be a redlink.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Massachusetts House of Representatives Bristol 3 special election

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

Building off previous consensus that state legislative special elections are not inherently notable. See previous discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Alabama Senate District 5 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Rhode Island Senate District 4 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Oklahoma State Senate special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Connecticut House of Representatives District 40 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Delaware Senate District 1 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 California's 32nd State Assembly district special election

I don't see a reason why any of the pages I'm nominating rise above your average state legislative special election in terms of notability. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Massachusetts, though merging to a newly created 2025 Massachusetts elections page could work if someone was willing to make that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, information may need to be updated as a recount seems to have happened (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEEEelqF0lg) Atriskofmistake (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The prevailing opinion so far is to merge, but for a merge to be a feasible outcome, the target must exist as an actual article, and not merely be a redlink.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Maine House of Representatives District 24 special election

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

Building off previous consensus that state legislative special elections are not inherently notable. See previous discussions:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Alabama Senate District 5 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Rhode Island Senate District 4 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Oklahoma State Senate special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Connecticut House of Representatives District 40 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Delaware Senate District 1 special election

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 California's 32nd State Assembly district special election

I don't see a reason why any of the pages I'm nominating rise above your average state legislative special election in terms of notability. I'd support a redirect to 2025 United States state legislative elections#Maine, though merging to a newly created 2025 Maine elections page could work if someone was willing to make that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for reasons I have stated previously, and I would appreciate it if these articles were not deleted before a merge page could be created, as has happened a few times, despite there not being a strong consensus for redirect as opposed to merge, or in fact a stronger consensus for merge. Atriskofmistake (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think most of the special elections that do not garner much media attention should not have their own pages. I think the most warranted places for these elections would either be on a page like 2025 Maine elections or as a subsection to 2026 Maine House of Representatives election, when that page ends up being made. Having separate pages for every single election is unnecessary and bloated.

I'd also add 2025 Texas state legislative special elections to the list of pages to delete. OutlawRun (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The prevailing opinion so far is to merge, but for a merge to be a feasible outcome, the target must exist as an actual article, and not merely be a redlink.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Downer

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus Fails WP:NPOL, has only been a political candidate. Also WP:NOTINHERITED, a lot of coverage refers to her as the daughter of Alexander Downer. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Downer family. Notability is not inherited and as a failed candidate for political office, they would not meet NPOL. I'm not seeing enough here to say that their journalism or diplomatic careers meet notability standards.

Bkissin (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a perennial candidate such as Sharron Angle. In the alternative, merge selectively and redirect to her family's article. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a candidate he is notable Monhiroe (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful candidates don't meet NPOL. Obviously you haven't read this article as the article subject is female. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - had to think about this one, but she is not a perennial candidate - she ran twice and attracted some media because of her family ties, and we say nothing about her that isn't the fact she lost two elections in two years. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the pages on the election or on her family's article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a number of different outcomes being argued for so there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Internationalist Movement

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

Non-in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Print sources that mention the group (that I could find) are limited to works authored by Maoists or which feature very brief mentions. To my knowledge the group did not do anything significant; most online mentions from unreliable sources like Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist blogs note its members made a joint declaration (as most organisations would do), but nothing else. Yue🌙 05:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 05:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia has dozens of articles on communist "internationals" like this one, see Category:International socialist organizations. I suspect that most of those organizations have received no more dead-tree coverage than this one. However these articles do serve a navigational function by grouping together political parties that agreed with each other enough to form an organization of this type. In that respect the section listing member parties is probably valuable to some readers and it's a shame to lose it. But WP:GNG is king so I don't expect this to be enough to save the article. In this particular case there's probably some worthwhile content that could be merged to Revolutionary Communist Party, USA if the article is deleted.Prezbo (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTADIRECTORY Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure how I feel about this. Seems a bit more substantive than the other two related noms, but seems barely notable. Metallurgist (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six citations given, three are from unreliable primary / self-published sources and three are scholarly articles from the same author, Benoît Cailmail. Cailmail mentions the RIM in passing in all three articles as the theses of his works are on the communist movement in Nepal.
Knowing the influence of Shining Path (one of its members) as well, I searched for mentions of Movimiento Internacionalista Revolucionario, but failed again to find significant coverage in reliable sources.
The most likely place to find reliable coverage for an organisation most active in the 1980s and 1990s is in physical print materials, but I doubt that would be a fruitful search given the group did not do much together aside from having a publication, which many communist groups do. Yue🌙 05:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a poor citation or stub tag. Nearly every group in RIM has been involved to some extent in armed revolution in their respective countries, with the PCP, TKP/ML, CPN(M), CPI(ML), and GRIA being the most notable. They're also notable as being the international group within which the primary basis for the ideology of Maoism was laid. Their "joint statements" (which they had many of in their 20+ years of intensive organizing) have influenced the current revolutionary movements in India, the Phillipines, Palestine, etc. Strongestsoldier465 (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reasoning, new account with only three edits, each to an AfD I started. Organisations do not inherit notability from other organisations parent or subordinate to them. Your best counter would be to find reliable, in-depth coverage of the group, which I failed to do with my access to scholarly sources in the UBC Library.
An alternative to deletion that I think would be appropriate would be a redirect too Marxism–Leninism–Maoism, as there is nothing reliably sourced in this article that can be merged into the target. Yue🌙 07:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I am not entirely sure. I was just saying it is more substantive. It does have 291 links to it, but most of those are probably from the template. The Mao one is a real link tho. I would support redirect and delete it from the template. Metallurgist (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Higino A. Acala Sr.

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

Barely any reliable sources seen in Google Books and in an outside search. His role doesn't seem notable, as he doesn't have any coverage (the movement seems quite notable but only in law sources). Other than that, he isn't notable whatsoever. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was unable to find a copy of the listed reference - Elvin A. Cabañero; Higino M. Acala Jr. (2000). Biography of Higino Acala Sr - on the Internet; though as one of the authors appears to be his son, it is probably not sufficiently independent regardless. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some more time looking for sources with a number of search queries, but none have returned any significant coverage (actually, this returned almost no sourcing at all besides name-drops in lists of lawyers in the Philippines [10]), and I do not think the book above would be reliable as it is written by two relatives. The subject did not hold an WP:NPOL-qualifying position, nor does he appear to pass WP:GNG. There is no obvious WP:ATD target, so delete. Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump–Powell conflict

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

Appears to be pretty textbook definition of trump cruft. One sided dispute with just comments from Trump. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I planned to work on this later today. Powell and the Federal Reserve's stoicism is not unexpected and not the barrier for article creation; the AfD rationale, in general, lacks substantive policy. To preemptively address notability concerns, this dispute goes far beyond comments; the White House is now investigating the Federal Reserve and could use that as the basis to remove Powell, an unprecedented action. There are much more sources than what has been provided here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using these awful short footnotes. They are a pain to use in visual editor and it's annoying to readers who have to click the footnote a second time to actually see the reference. This should only be used when many citations require page numbers, like for academic topics when it's more common to cite a book by an author multiple times, not general news sources. I want the name of the article cited, not "Smialek 2019a." Anyway, History of monetary policy in the United States is unfortunately pretty weak, particularly for recent history, but I think something like Monetary policy of Donald Trump would be more appropriate. It's not a personal conflict, it's one-sided complaints with policy implications. Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this AfD. I wouldn't be opposed to a rename, but let's not assume that this is an unviable article, either. Plenty of sources that can be included. What other editors should note is that, as of these last several weeks, firing Powell is not just a common Trump lament, but a potential effort from within the White House. A CNN article lightly covers that and aptly notes other dynamic at play. In terms of tangible notability, a Google search for Trump and Powell yields hundreds of usable results that are continuing to come in; for that reason, writing the Second presidency (2025–present) section has proved difficult. The Responses section is also an area that would show notability. It would be amiss not to mention the jockeying for Powell's successor, though I intentionally avoided it in this article as it is not directly relevant to the conflict, which is why a move might not be a bad decision. I'll leave my comment with a Reuters article from six hours ago that broadly covers the implications of the conflict on investors. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even from this morning, Trump drafted a letter to fire Powell and waved it around. There is much more to this than what is in the article and this AfD was created too hastily. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into Powell's article. This doesn't deserve its own separate article. CNC33 (. . .talk) 15:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Crufty and not really notable. Could go on eithers page or a Trump subpage. Nothing has happened with it yet, so its just the usual Trump bluster that would yield a hundred articles a day. Metallurgist (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a consensus to Merge but I'd like to be more certain of the target article. It's too bad these news stories get created too early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am against merging this because there is a lot of reliable sources and details to write on the topic and merging it into either biography would be undue weight for the amount of content that a reader interested in this topic per se would appreciate. To me the topic meets GNG with these sources

[15] Czarking0 (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's simply Trump's obsession of the week, at this point, and in any larger context it's going to arise out of the reality that a competent Fed chair isn't going to have the servility to do Trump's bidding. Maybe there's some room for an article on Trump's overall interactions with the Fed, of which this would be but a small part, but really, it's that "small part" thing that governs this. Mangoe (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Powell article, brief mention there is fine. Trump has beef with a different person almost daily at this point, this doesn't feel different than any other of these spats. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Columbus, Ohio

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

WP:NOPAGE. I believe previous discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in Baden-Württemberg, where a broad topic is given a hyperlocal framing, are relevant here. This article is essentially a history of racism in the United States - the Great Migration, Jim Crow laws, redlining, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. - as applied to a single city. It would not be feasible to have hundreds of articles about "Racism in X U.S. city" with generic content like this. There is nothing extraordinary about the history of racism in Columbus in particular to justify an article. For example, the article currently says that Columbus is the 55th most racially segregated city in the U.S. out of 112 cities - right in the middle of the list. Some of this content can be selectively merged to Columbus, Ohio and Columbus Division of Police. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Ohio. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and seems a bit coatracky. Metallurgist (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first 4 paragraphs of History section to Columbus, Ohio#History, delete the rest. Much of this article (sadly) applies to just about every major city in the US, making this a bit of a WP:COATRACK for a generic topic. Other parts of the article might be merge-able to Racism in the United States, as a city-specific example. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG, as there are plenty of great sources here which are specifically about this large American city. It is fine to have local history in Wikipedia naming particular people, places, and events, even if other cities have comparable circumstances. And other places in Amercica do have similar circumstances, because in Category:History of racism in the United States by state or territory, we have several hundred other articles about location-specific circumstances. The nominators are correct that Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles, but I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of documenting the intersection of cultural heritage and places, especially when we have so many sources. I also recognize WeirdNAnnoyed's complaint that lots of the history is repeated from other places, but in this article, I see either uncited claims which have other Wikipedia backing like links to main articles which do have citations (" safe for African Americans to visit... only four survive: the Macon Hotel, the Hotel St. Clair") or kind of routine, but with a local authority cited like https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2714730 . As a general principle, I would support anyone creating articles for any well documented civil rights movement in any city, regardless of potential repetition, just so long as there were local sources and wiki-notable concepts to report. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
passes WP:GNG I actually don't think it does. This source is specifically about racism and public health. This source is specifically about redlining. This source is 80 years old and is mainly about "Negro life" rather than racial discrimination. And the other sources in the article are even less useful. Where are the sources that discuss "racism in Columbus" as a whole, uniting the different topics discussed in the article? If there are none, this runs into WP:BADTHINGS issues, as other users have said.

Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles Not only are there no other "Racism in X U.S. city" articles, there are not even any "Racism in X U.S. state" articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only subnational article about racism in any U.S. location. And there is probably a reason for that: the creator (who is now inactive here) appears to have been very passionate about creating articles on local Ohio topics. Yes, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, but the argument grows in strength when there are hundreds of cities and 50 states, all of which you argue could have their own "Racism in X" article, and yet none of them exist. We should ask ourselves why that is. Astaire (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Astaire: Wikipedia's bar for passing GNG is very low - just two articles on the topic. I se no ambiguity about this article passing GNG. For a topic, we need articles which address that topic, and there is no identify a broad textbook with a unifying vision. As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative.

While we do not have other racism by American articles, we do have demographic by city articles including LGBTQ culture in Chicago and History of African Americans in Houston. Intersectional topics in Wikipedia are inconsistent because they are low-readership and because we have few editors. Despite this, building out local culture is common in Wikipedia and we have many such articles, even if we do not have complete national sets.

The creator - whose page I watch, and through whose talk page I found this discussion - has been prominent in Wikipedia for their views of thoroughly documenting culture by cities. I think this is a good thing, and wish local historians and interested community members would build out whatever local perspectives they like. Wikipedia does not have a size limit, and we have no need to prune content which passes fact-checking and topical relevance just because a topic is local to the level of a city. Even after all these years, it is also still okay to do new things in Wikipedia. Interest in city history is quite common in every city in the world, even if our Wikipedia editorial ancestors hardly did this. I am in favor of every city in America building out articles like this if anyone organizes content of this quality. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative. Yes, this is exactly my point: there are sources which cover aspects of the subject, but no source that directly addresses the topic of "racism in Columbus" as a whole. So the case for GNG is dubious.

Compare this with your example of LGBTQ culture in Chicago, where the "Further reading" section gives three whole books that are directly about the general subject.

There is a stronger case for reworking this into History of African Americans in Columbus, à la your second example, since this article is already halfway there. And there are indeed sources which address that topic as a whole: e.g. [16], [17] Astaire (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia wants unifying narratives, and this article is deficient for not having one. Despite that, I still feel that GNG is a much lower standard than that.

It could be nice to have an article titled, History of African Americans in Columbus, but if we did, this content would be WP:UNDUE to merge into that for showing a long focused history on only one aspect. We could not just rename this article to be about culture. Also, I do not think we should delete the content of this article just because it is not connected as a subtopic to something higher in the hierarchy. I could establish a brief parent article if that helped the case for this one, but if I did that, the parent article would be a placeholder for a later editor to add more and contain a subsection on racism which pointed to this article. I do not think it is realistic to attract anyone to build a Columbus focused African history article in the next few years though. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources give unifying narratives over decades, from probably 1800s to 1940s. From the wiki article -

"Frank Uriah Quillin, who wrote in his 1913 book The Color Line in Ohio: A History of Race Prejudice in a Typical Northern State: 'Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has a feeling toward the negroes all its own. In all my travels in the state, I found nothing just like it. It is not so much a rabid feeling of prejudice against the negroes simply because their skin is black as it is a bitter hatred for them.'"^[1]^[2]

References

^ Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.
^ Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.

Bluerasberry (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, there is no guarantee 2 sources will be considered enough. I guess it could happen, if they are great on-topic sources with extensive coverage etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing notable about racism in Columbus Ohio. Was racism in Columbus more notable than Birmingham Alabama? Racism occurs everywhere, that doesnt make it particularly notable here. There may be a case for History of African-Americans in Columbus, Ohio, as suggested above, but this aint it. Metallurgist (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. 71.231.11.148 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This IP appears to be blocked for vandalism and the vote ought to be discarded or removed. Metallurgist (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994

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

Not notable. Landpin (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is scholarly commentary including [18] and [19] (just reviewed the abstract for the latter, but those two sources are not at all exhaustive for an otherwise simple AfD proposal) SportingFlyer T·C 10:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this looks formatted like an LLM... but it's not an LLM. SportingFlyer T·C 10:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Controlled waste. I don't think the individual regulations need standalone articles. This should be discussed holistically in a main article with these sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate target, possibly the Environmental Protection Act 1990, under a new section there. Bearian (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to British environmental law or another suitable target. Highly dubious independent notability. —Rutebega (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999

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

Not notable. Landpin (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Environment. Landpin (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs an update, but appears easily sourceable through scholarly texts on water regulations: [20] SportingFlyer T·C 10:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Water supply and sanitation in the United Kingdom#Water regulation. I don't think the individual regulations need standalone articles. This should be discussed holistically in a main article with these sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Reyeas92, or to Water Industry Act 1991, with a separate section. Bearian (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Reywas92. Sources I can find either mention the legislation only in passing or discuss it only in combination with other similar regulations. —Rutebega (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above Metallurgist (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Equality Party (Australia)

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

Non-notable party that was deregistered due to lack of members. I was unable to find any significant coverage about, only minor mentions. I ignored WSWS and Mehring Books's coverage about the party, as both of the organizations are controlled by International Committee of Fourth International. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOL. Prior its deregistration, the party never won any seat as it consistently scored less than one per cent vote in all elections and finally without members. Patre23 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL is not an exclusionary criteria, failure to satisy NPOL does not indicate a lack of notability. The SEP's forerunner was the Socialist Labour League, the Australian affiliate of Gerry Healy's SLL/WRP. The SLL played a not inconsiderable role during the rise of the far left in Australia politics in the 1960s and especially the 1970s. It is discussed across numerous texts examining far left politics in Australia of that period (and to some extent Britain as well); WP:NEXIST. Will post sources shortly. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn that would likely however justify an article on the SLL, but not on the SEP. If it's a "successor" to that as you say, then we'd typically consider it a different organisation (not least because Gerry Healy's organisations were a different one). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's a reason due to size or significant ideological break, ongoign parties are redirected from their original names. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting from Healy’s organisation would be a significant ideological break in this case. There seems to have been a big bust up in the original Fourth International (colour me shocked) and the ICFI split away from Healy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside who split from whom, the SEP identifies with Healy and the SLL, no one else in Australia claims to be the successor party to the SLL. The ICFI is just one of the many Trotskyist internationals, but it is the one founded by Healy and the one the contemporary SEP parties worldwide claim as their international. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The various elements around the splits seem vague at present. I'm still however minded that the SLL (unless we've got evidence of electoral activity) should be treated as a separate organisation, and therefore doesn't carry notability over to SEP. This would be similar to consensus elsewhere, such as for Socialist Appeal (1992) and CWI which both treat successor groups as not inheriting notability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Committee for a Fourth International or Delete. No demonstration of notability, sources online look to be largely from the group itself (WP:ABOUTSELF). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sourcing on the SLL/SEP (Australia): two pages on origins and scope of the SLL,^[1] news report on Australian state government investigation into the SLL,^[2] party's newspaper from the 1990s held in the IISH's archive,^[3] multiple discussions of ASIO surveillance of the SLL and its contacts with Libya and Iraqi diplomats in Australia,^[4] discussion of the party from former member,^[5] discussion on the SLL and SEP from author with another party (SWP/DSP) of the Australian far left,^[6]

References

^ Alexander, Robert Jackson (1991). International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-0-8223-0975-8.
^ "Investigation of SLL charge". Australian Jewish Times. 25 May 1978.
^ "Workers news: weekly organ of the Central Committee of the Socialist Labour League, Australian section of the International Committee of the Fourth International". zoeken.iisg.amsterdam.
^ Blaxland, John; Crawley, Rhys (26 October 2016). The Secret Cold War: The Official History of ASIO, 1975-1989. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 978-1-952535-48-2.
^ Mitchell, Alex (February 2012). Come the Revolution: A Memoir. NewSouth Publishing. pp. 438–440. ISBN 978-1-74224-107-4.
^ Percy, John (2005). A History of the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance. Resistance Books. pp. 204–207. ISBN 978-1-876646-53-0.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for input on Goldsztajn's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm personally not convinced on these sources being relevant, it's a bit hard to justify notability of a party that was formed in 2010 based on sources that are all discussing a forerunner from 50 years ago. What it suggests in fact is a complete lack of notability for the Socialist Equality Party, given an absence of RS about this incarnation. They might by able to justify a short/stub article on the Socialist Labour League if someone wanted to create it, but that's as far as I'd go. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems pretty clear that the Socialist Labour League is notable based on Goldsztajn's sources (here are a few additional newspaper sources: [21] [22] [23]), the question is just to what extent the Socialist Equality Party is a true successor. This source calls the SLL the "forerunner" of the SEP. This description of an item in a university library catalogue says The Socialist Labor League (SLL) is now known as the Socialist Equality Party, and still has a presence in Australia. This book refers to The Socialist Equality Party, formerly called the Socialist Labour League. Those obviously aren't particularly good or definitive sources, but in the absence of strong evidence otherwise and given that we don't have an article about the SLL, it's enough for me to think that it's reasonable to consider both names for the party to be within the scope of this article. A split or move could always be considered later. MCE89 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Trotskyite Socialist Equality Party, formerly called the Socialist Labour League..." (Political Handbook of the World, 1999 p.58), "In 1983, more than 60 agents were working inside target organisations, including the Socialist Labour League, the forerunner of the Socialist Equality Party." Mike Head, (2017) "ASIO's 'official history': More unanswered questions." Alternative Law Journal, 42(4), p.308 doi:10.1177/1037969X17732710. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question, how can a book from 1999 refer to the name of a group only called the "Socialist Equality Party" in 2010? Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this catalogue entry referring to a document titled "From the Socialist Labour League to the Socialist Equality Party : perspectives resolution of the Socialist Labour League, adopted unanimously at its 17th National Congress, June 8-9 1996", I reckon the current article is wrong and they actually changed the party's name in 1996. This source says In June 1996, the SLL held its 17th National Congress to begin the process of transforming itself into the Socialist Equality Party. None of the current sources seem to support the claim that they changed the name in 2010. MCE89 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WSWS is its own website though, which we should be avoiding as much as possible. This is in a nutshell why all these Trotskyist group pages on this site are so painful to untangle, because the only people that really seem to care about them are themselves and other groups, who will all run multiple websites and faux "publishers" in an effort to make themselves seem far grander and reputable than they are. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh agreed, I'm not suggesting that it's a source that contributes towards notability — I'm just saying that it indicates that the 2010 date in the article is probably wrong and that the party actually changed its name in 1996. MCE89 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is why I think for now we could have this moved to Socialist Labour League and sourced up for that, but as the Socialist Equality Party we don't have anything to say why it should be considered notable since becoming a political party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting bogged down in the minutae of Leninist party orginisational theory, the difference between 1996 and 2010 in this particular party's own terms is irrelevant. What's clear is that the common name for the party from 1996 onwards was the SEP. The fact they even report their own electoral results prior to 2010 *as the SEP* reinforces the point (2004 federal election, 2007 federal election). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case @Goldsztajn, but even if you move the start date from 2010 to 1998, we still run into the problem that the sources still predate and are instead concerned with the SLL.

We needs sources to establish the notability of the SEP on its own terms. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a content discussion, not a notability discussion. Notability of the SLL/SEP has been established. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a notability discussion too. And while I agree the SLL has been established to be notable, the SEP still fails notability in line with prior discussions we've taken part in where a move to becoming a political party was treated as a major enough change that it required a new article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which "prior discussions we've taken part in"? Do you mean this discussion? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two that come to mind in terms of discussions have been what to do with CWI[24] and Socialist Appeal[25] where successor groups didn't inherit notability. In practice this also seems to have been observed with how Socialist Party (England and Wales) is its own article despite a rebranding of what was Militant tendency (or at least those who hadn't split off).

So not carrying over notability and thereby having an article for SLL and then justifying the SEP on their own merits would be the norm from my experience of this subject. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of generic names of political parties

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

I am very confused by what this page is trying to do. By what logic are communists included, but liberal and green parties excluded? How is that more "generic"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that is just a poorly worded first sentence; liberal and green parties are included in the list. Curbon7 (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if they are, I don't see why this list is, or why it would be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unnecessary list of political parties across national and continental frontiers. If this was a disambiguation, then it would have been fine. Almost every party on the list is a disambiguation and the parties are based in different countries. I do not see the usefulness of this list here. Patre23 (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprisingly, a proper navigational page under WP:NLIST, and it's been around since 2003. It is, essentially, a list of disambiguation pages, is surprisingly well visited for what it is, and serves a unique purpose, since the list of political parties is hugely cluttered. Furthermore, "I'm confused" isn't a proper deletion rationale. SportingFlyer T·C 18:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not pass WP:NLIST. It does not fill any recognized need (whether the purpose is "unique" is irrelevant, you can construct a plethora of unique lists out of OR constructs), a citationless list based on an arbitrary standards is not the way to solve another list's length problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a navigational list, citations are not required. This list supplements the category Category:Political party disambiguation pages (they may have diverged in purpose at some point) and the criteria is not actually arbitrary, even if the list could use a cleanup and maybe a rename. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says they may be if deemed necessary - this is not. If they have diverged in purpose then they no longer have any relation to each other. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely and entirely disagree with your argument that this is useless. Let's see what others say. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and reorganize to List of political party disambiguation pages. That seems to be by and large what this page actually is, is more clear to the reader, and is a concrete criterion for a list. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this, but I wonder if there's a better possible title as this list is meant to include Communist Party (disambiguation) but not Communist Party of Nepal (disambiguation). SportingFlyer T·C 09:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a valid navigational list (which is the only rationale that people are giving to even try to justify keeping this) because it doesn't actually help anyone find anything. You can make at least a reasonable argument for a navigational aid from a list of political parties in a specific country, but not...whatever this is. Disambiguation pages are there for topics that share the same name; we don't collate these into a list of topics, because dab pages aren't about specific topics. The question raised immediately above about exactly which dab pages should be on this is quite telling. If we have to even ask this, alarms should be going off that something is wrong with trying to make a list out of this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – works like a higher level of disambiguation page. Would be a shame to lose. It only has one incoming link and still gets some decent page views, so it is clearly helping someone. – Ike Lek (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:LISTPURP, which states Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. This list also passes WP:NLIST. There's no reason to not collate disambiguation pages, especially if it serves the reader well. Since this page is visited pretty often, I would say this list is useful.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straightforward navigational aid. To answer the nominator's question: this list is here for people who can't remember exactly what the party is called, or who are interested in browsing parties on a broad scale, and therefore need something more global than a single standard disambig for just "Centre party". The list is indeed a natural index. The initial sentence should be changed. Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was leaning delete, but the above arguments make good points that it gets a lot of page views for what it is and serves as an index. A rename may be justified. What threw me was I use the disambiguation setting that turns such links orange, which looks close to red for me, so I thought it was all redlinks at first. It should be linked from in more places tho, after a rename discussion. Metallurgist (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the name should be changed. The current title is confusing. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Trouble Lives On protest

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

The article has only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Per the WP:ROUTINE section, "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The article only lists cities that the protest in planned to happen. Possible WP:PROMO violations. There is nothing here that cannot be summarized in an article on Protests against the second presidency of Donald Trump. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just like that other one. Aneirinn (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I !voted to leave the aforementioned other one be for procedural reasons as it was sent to AfD just hours before the protests started, so it was a clear case of WP:RAPID/WP:TOOSOONDEL to me. This one, on the other hand, is still a couple of weeks away, so it's simply WP:TOOSOON. I say incubate it so the author(s) can keep updating it and submit it for review at a later date when it's more possible to assess its notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this completely. Historyday01 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing eith wrong with this page or the info on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5D10:DB00:3539:C6C5:9865:4425 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Vanilla Wizard. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we should be purging Wikipedia of an article with 30+ sources about a major demonstration being held this week. If tens of thousands of people are expected to participate in hundreds of locations, then this is clearly about a notable topic. I also don't think draftifying for a few days is necessary, but sure if that's the route editors prefer. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page up. I see no valid reason to delete the information about protests in the name of John Lewis! 70.22.242.87 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)— 70.22.242.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: per WP:RAPID and WP:NOTTOOSOON. ^EF⁵ 19:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This protest is just as important as the Hands Off and No Kings Day protests. Only problem is no numbers for turnout are reported yet. --74.215.89.126 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)— 74.215.89.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This protest is pretty important and saw multiple cities in the US states, territories and even outside of the USA joining the protests. Last time i checked, mass protests that cross national borders are pretty important.VitoxxMass _(Talk) 13:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester County Democratic Committee

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

Not notable and not well sourced. There is also a nomination for Erie County Democratic Committee and this article is even worse. Its also an orphan since 2021 and thats not likely to change. Metallurgist (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously removed a list of Democrats who represent the county in the state legislature and Congress. These do not have to do with the county committee, even if they may seek their endorsement. Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs to be expanded, but you can't argue that it doesn't pass notability. TheNewMinistry (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that on the NY county one as well, which may have a case, but what is the notability of this? The article has nothing on it and really no independent links to it. Metallurgist (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - needs expansion. I believe it passes notability requirements as the organization has a physical headquarters and staffed office, leadership structure, members, and events. Eulersidentity (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make it notable? Any number of things have those, but arent notable. Metallurgist (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. My understanding of the guidelines was insufficient and have rescinded my vote now that I am thoroughly acquainted with them. Eulersidentity (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free America Weekend

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

(completely rewrote) This page has a source have were deprecated AND cannot be trusted by the wiki on UFO topics, it is also written like a advertisement, with wording like "*city name* has planned a protest, it feels sort of like a advertisement you would see online in a forum.Shaneapickle (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait per WP:RAPID. We shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion for a lack of notability when the protests haven't even happened yet. See also my own essay WP:TSTD. After a few days, if the coverage is not sustained enough, we should merge into protests against Donald Trump. Additionally, the criteria for ITN are different from the criteria for an article outright. -insert valid name here- (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse is actually true- people should not be creating articles assuming they will become notable in future, they should wait until an event is notable and then and only then should they create an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were discussing whether this article should be created, I would agree with you (and with Vanilla Wizard that incubating in draftspace would be more appropriate). However, we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The correct thing is "it shouldn't have been created in the first place", therefore correct outcome is draftspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:NOTTOOSOON. — ^EF⁵ 18:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was made June 26th, 2025, this isnt a rapid or a not too soon violation. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shaneapickle, and the protests are today. The date of creation matters less than the current time in relation to the event date, which is ongoing. — ^EF⁵ 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Seems like just another protest, nothing special really. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and support a procedural early close as the nom did not provide any reasons for deletion, with their argument instead being that there was no consensus on posting the No Kings protests to In the News, which the nom erroneously interpreted as "a consensus that protests against trump shouldn't be on wikipedia." I think the nom is a well-meaning but inexperienced user who did not know that the bar for something being on ITN is not the same as the bar for being on Wikipedia (if failing to be on ITN is grounds for deletion, the page about the no kings protests would have been deleted by now). Personally, I think this one probably should have been in draftspace until the event actually happened. The large number of references is an indicator that the event is plausibly going to be notable enough for a standalone page after it's actually occurred, but there's no point in moving it right now while the protests are just now starting. A merge discussion can happen after the event ends and some time passes, and I'd prefer if such a discussion took place on the article talk page as I'm not a fan of nominating pages for deletion when deletion is not a plausible outcome. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit i didnt put any reasoning for deletion, but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was) I also agree this should have been draftified. Shaneapickle (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an RFC, NewsNation was considered "generally unreliable" strictly in the topic area of UFOs/UAPs, and is otherwise considered generally reliable; it has not been deprecated. I encourage you to read other people's comments carefully. -insert valid name here- (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "but this page according to people on ITN has a source that was deprecated and could not be trusted (News Nation or whatever it was)" - I believe that person's comment at ITN was talking about how the ITN nomination only mentioned one source in the ITN nomination template, and it was an outlet they hadn't heard of before, so they were not convinced that this news story is major enough to warrant posting to ITN (though I will say as a longtime ITN editor that the number of sources in the template / whether or not you heard of them is a bad rationale for opposing an ITN listing). That editor did also mention in their comment how strange and amusing it was that there's an asterisk in their WP:RS/P listing talking about their unreliable UFO-related content, but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The editor's comments at ITN were not talking about article content; they never said NewsNation was being cited in the article body (as of writing this, it's not in the sources list). But even if it were, as others have mentioned, that's okay: NewsNation is considered a generally reliable source with only one exception. But even then, even if it were a generally unreliable or deprecated source, and it were being cited in the article body, that's still not grounds for deleting the page, that'd just be grounds for removing the unreliable source through editing the page. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and revisit months later if it is having any lasting impact. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Protests in which thousands of people participate in hundreds of cities are notable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump without prejudice to recreation if notability is more clearly established in the coming weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or~~ delete just another in a string of protests against the President. It won't have any lasting notability. It didn't accomplish anything. All of the sources are just that something occured in the cities. This can be summarized in one sentence.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is barebones and lacks significance. Aneirinn (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Now there is a page for Good Trouble Lives On protest. At what point is this just going to be WP:ROUTINE? Having an article for every minor Trump protest is not helping Wikipedia's credibility against those who claim WP has a liberal bias. (And I am a Democrat).-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one's definitely WP:TOOSOON to be an article and I agree with moving it out of mainspace. But I wouldn't worry too much about the latter half of that !vote; those who claim WP has this bias or that bias are likely not going to be swayed by the mere existence of a low-traffic page like that. If you were to speak to someone who felt Wikipedia is too biased to try to understand how they arrived at that conclusion, you probably wouldn't get a well-reasoned answer based on a careful analysis of which topics are being covered. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope we've not reached a point in society where national or international protests with thousands of participants in hundreds of locations are considered routine. Also, I'm not sure what this has to do with liberal bias; we have articles for pro-Trump protests, too: March 4 Trump, Mother of All Rallies, Demonstrations in support of Donald Trump, etc. I'm not disputing that Wikipedia can have a liberal bias but in my opinion we should be creating articles for major demonstrations regardless of ideology, party, etc. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if this article is merged or deleted, but I don't see how eliminating the documentation of major political protests is a benefit to Wikipedia and its readers. We have good examples of what articles like this one can look like, so I would prefer to work towards that here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that conservatives protest too. However, these protests are forming at the rate of one every two weeks with different names. Whereas most types of protests are ongoing. These articles are just saying that people are protesting. I figure at this point that is WP:UNDUE for them to be given articles at this rate when all that is said is that there was a protest in this city and that city. I remember seeing KONY 2012 protests in my city, that wasn't included in that article, and it shouldn't it be. Note: I haven't even suggested anything against the plethora of other protests so far as those articles seem to have meat on their bones. If this article can have something more substantial than well a bunch of people held their signs in Scissortail Park on July ##, maybe I would be inclined to agree. Now for the argument that "hundreds of thousands of people participated." Hundreds of thousands of people went to the Thunder's championship parade. Do I think it should have it's own article? No.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no cities as far as I could tell were listed. With that being said, it almost makes articles like these for upcoming protests seem like adverts.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Another Believer. This already has shown some significant coverage, and is still under construction. Each section or article need not include every single viewpoint equally, as long as overall our content is consistent and neutral, as I've written in my user space. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not anything compared to the No Kings protests. While it received coverage, it is thin when compared to the major protests and actions of the last six months. It would be far better for it to appear on a list of similar protests. Thriley (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to compare this demonstration to No Kings, which was one of the largest protests in US history. We only need to assess if there's enough coverage to justify an article. Multiple editors here have proposed a merge to Protests against Donald Trump, which suggests the content at least has merit, but the parent article is quite lengthy and only going to continue to grow. Deleting this entry essentially scrubs mention of the protest from Wikipedia, which doesn't seem right. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be summarized in that article as "On July 5, 2025 there were the Free America Weekend protests across the country." This is WP:NOTDIRECTORY at this point. The article says nothing about why they were protesting, what their goals were, and the results (if any).- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've made your position quite clear, and I disagree that this content should be reduced to a single sentence in one article. I'm not sure how any of the six points at NOTDIRECTORY apply to an event that was held in hundreds of locations, if you could clarify. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 a simple list. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article is not analogous to a list of phone numbers. If there's not enough context, then we should be working to fix that. There's plenty of content to add about background, activities, organizers, locations, etc. There are Wikipedia articles for many similar protests and there's no reason why this one couldn't also be expanded similar to quality entries like Not My Presidents Day, Impeachment March, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has been AfD for a while and it is still a list of people protesting in some areas. Frankly, none of the other articles this year have a list of every protest. I will conclude with why haven't you upgraded it as you say? This and the more recent protest based on timing reads like an advert.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever, I get YOUDONTLIKEIT, but I'm moving on to other things. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this topic meet WP:NEVENT notability criteria on its own merits?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify It's been a week and I don't see this having any lasting impact based on what's currently in the article. I don't want to !vote delete just because it's still recent enough that it could change at any time, and would give people the chance to further develop it, but it should absolutely not be in mainspace as-is, because it's not clear this wasn't just a connected series of events in one news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a merger might make the article too long. FWIW, I took no part in this activity, because I've been caretaking for my partner. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note Bearian has already !voted before the relist.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a merge is unreasonable and the article has been significantly expanded and re-organized since nomination (80+ sources and prose grouped by region). I fully acknowledge much more improvement is needed; many of the sources need to be replaced and the paragraphs for almost every U.S. state need to be expanded. But, it seems pretty obvious to me that coverage allows for this expansion and this article can be made consistent with similar protest articles, including those about the ongoing string of major demonstrations hitting a roughly monthly cadence in the U.S. since Trump's election. I'll also note, many articles published this week about the Good Trouble protests also reference Free America Weekend in the context of the ongoing protests against the president, so it's inaccurate to say this is just a minor event in one news cycle. The presenting argument here and some other non-keep comments don't even address sourcing, so I hope that will be taken into consideration by the closing admin. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I don't see any clear secondary sources amongst the 80+ sources currently in the article. This makes sense - it's not long after the event, so it's mostly primary news reports or primary sources showing organised events. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Atta ul Haq Darvish

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

No reason given. Technical nomination only. AfD created improperly by Mister Bahattar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Please note that the subject appears to be a mmber of the Senate of Pakistan, which normally indicates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 08:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 08:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The subject of the article is a member of the upper house of a national legislature. Easily satisfies WP:NPOL. Lefcentreright Discuss 13:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Haffner

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

Filing on behalf of, and also because I concur with IP 2406 who brought this to my attention following some cleanup I'd done on it in the past. Haffner does not appear to have attained any notability nor did the song. The article is likely a copyvio but reverting 17 years of edits seemed counter productive when I have not identified sourcing on which to improve the article. I do not think a redirect to Barack Obama 2008 presidential primary campaign or 2008 North Carolina Democratic presidential primary would be helpful to the reader so not viable ATDs Star Mississippi 02:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Albums and songs, United States of America, and North Carolina. Star Mississippi 02:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks, Star!) I initially did a bit of cleanup on the article but it soon became apparent that it doesn't pass notability.

The only source cited on the page is in Wednesday Journal, a small local paper from where Haffner lived; being in interview format I would treat it mainly as a primary source. A search by name does turn up one other potential source, a 2024 piece (verify same person by comparing photo to Haffner's youtube and apple music/spotify artist pages) – aside from lacking relevant content, it is a low-quality regurgitated ~~interview~~questionnaire published by Voyage Magazine (no editorial oversight + other issues, see RS/N discussion, external writeup) and cannot be counted as a reliable secondary source. Subject fails GNG, as for the subject-specific guideline WP:NMUSIC, WJ source indicates that Haffner had only performed in local venues like cafes and bars; there is no evidence of advancing beyond that. Voyage mentions membership in a more recent band that received air time on two radio stations, but this claim is not verifiable, nor does it meet the criteria of "placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network".

Additional note: not counting cleanup edits, the sole contributor is a SPA, and I have turned up non-behavioral evidence that suggests WP:COI editing.

Concur that there is no value in redirecting to other pages related to Obama's 2008 campaign: not already mentioned therein and not notable enough to warrant a cleanup+merge.

Delete — 2406:3003:2007:1F3:B4FC:62FA:6BF7:F6CD (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fazal Ali Khan

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

This individual article fails in WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV. There is only passing mention in news articles from a single news organization. The other two sources also have only WP:TRIVIALMENTION that he was the son of Chaudhri Sultan Ali that doesn't confirm the notability even when his father's article doesn't even exist. Delete this article per WP:FAILN. Sybercracker (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Asia, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Sybercracker (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, the nominator has a best reason. It seems article have many issues with sources. Dolphish (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what issues? Elaborate Anpanman11 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources, so it's fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
british era contemporary gazetteers, reports, as well as modern news outlets and official Pakistan government sites in entionedhim many times. Aren't they reliable enough.? Anpanman11 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amay Bisaya

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

See WP:ANI incident for context. Amay Bisaya might be notable but it's better to start from scratch than incorporate the LLM inputs in the article's history. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ruslan

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

Former mayor of a city of 400,000, Indonesia's 32nd largest, does not qualify under WP:NPOL. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the city is irrelevent to WP:NPOL. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Experssing Islam ([9])}	No affiliation with the subject; academic analysis.	Published by a Singapore-based publisher ( Institute of Southeast Asian Studies). The chapter in question is by Robin Bush, who I assume is this person who I assume knows what she's talking about.	Discusses Ruslan's actions as mayor in the context of Islam in Indonesian politics.	✔ Yes
Unrest in Mataram Not Due to Ethnic or Religious Issues	Newspaper with no affiliation with the subject.	Despite the bad website design, the article is published in Kompas, a big national newspaper. I think it is probably reliable for local issues like this one.	Quotes the mayor and discusses the situation.	✔ Yes
Indonesian Investment and Trading Opportunity by Province, Regency, City. Vol. 4	If it's published by a national department, it should be independent from small-town mayors.	Apparantly published by the Indonesian Departement of Home Affairs	Eech. Based on the little sliver of a preview GBooks throws me we might have SIGCOV here, given it's a "profile". But based on the type of information in the article cited to this source (childhood, personal life) and the large amount of text cited to it (whole paragraph), I'm working on the asumption that it has SIGCOV. If someone wants to create an account with this sketchy website, they might get to find out.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep based on this table. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the table above, I found another source ([26]), in which a whole chapter is dedicated to reviewing the first terms of four regional leaders including Ruslan. Not -exclusive-, but certainly SigCov. Juxlos (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Kishor Awasthi Ji

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

Non-notable Indian politician who clearly fails WP:GNG, and WP:NPOL. Taabii (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – He may have received some local coverage as a party coordinator, but fails in WP:NPOL. Svartner (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
would such comments not be at risk of discrimination by his political peers? 31.205.145.5 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He contested a single election and finished third, it is an objective criterion. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Svartner (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

AfDs for this article:

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

relatively unknown person Parkslope1 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and New York. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved this nomination discussion to the proper venue, see [27]. @Parkslope1: It would be helpful if you can elaborate on why this article should be deleted beyond "relatively unknown person" — particularly what has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Kornberg that should result in a different outcome. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Note. @GorillaWarfare:. I want to note that AfD ended in No Consensus which I think is a common outcome when candidate articles are nominated for deletion during elections. In every election, there is a subset of editors and SPAs that think articles on candidates should exist "because election." This can either be for promotional or attack purposes or just Wikipedia is important and they think this candidate is important. Once the election is over, the lack of notability that has always been the case becomes clearer.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some unduly promotional and unduly negative edits in this article (and her opponent's) leading up to the recent primary. There's still room for improvement, but I think it's pretty reasonable now. In the time since the primary, a few unregistered and new users have popped in to make similar kinds of edits or argue for deletion when those edits -- which, in part, removed/misrepresented existing sources and cited instagram -- didn't stick. No success getting them to meaningfully engage on the talk page yet. A SPI is probably sensible, but that's a separate issue. Regardless, the argument of "relatively unknown person" is typically used to express that someone is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual, but that's not typically applicable to someone who runs for office. At the time of the previous AfD, notability was certainly borderline at best. Running an unsuccessful campaign does not itself confer notability, but the large amount of media it generates does help someone who came into that campaign with a borderline claim to notability. So at this point I think we're in clear Keep territory, and I'd encourage Parkslope1 to suggest specific changes based on specific citations on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Running an unsuccessful campaign one time is not enough to confer notability. The campaign did receive some media attention (almost all small local papers), as did other local campaigns, but the reality is that almost no other one time unsuccessful candidates for city council would ever be considered "notable" enough to have page. Kornberg's other work did not rise to the level of having a page and since the campaign ended she is not a public figure who merits a page. Pleasantpine (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Running an unsuccessful campaign one time is not enough to confer notability - this is a strange rebuttal to Running an unsuccessful campaign does not itself confer notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, given this, I take it you are the same person as Parkslope1 (who appears to be the same person as various unregistered users making the same or similar edits repeatedly prior to nominating for deletion). Please be advised editing from multiple accounts is not allowed on Wikipedia, as it gives the impression of multiple people being involved. I suspect this was just a mistake, not malicious (Wikipedia is a confusing place when you're starting out), but FYI for the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Kornberg. I hope now that the election is over, policy prevails.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking again at the sources that existed last time around, it does look like notability was shaky at best. I don't edit a lot of candidate AfDs, but it seems backwards to me that a borderline case would be kept at the beginning of a campaign and then deleted afterwards, as a campaign does tend to yield some sources that contribute to WP:ANYBIO (i.e. there is no scenario where someone's claim to notability is weaker after a campaign). I won't be too sad if this is deleted given the pre-campaign coverage is thin, but I disagree with what seems like a popular opinion across Wikipedia: that coverage of someone while running for office doesn't count for anything. I get it in the sense of "running for office doesn't guarantee you a Wikipedia article," but if you do so and the big papers bite and run stories about you, it does help. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think part of our difference of opinion is that I don't consider it a borderline case. At best, I think a stand-alone article for the subject is premature based on where the subject's career as a writer and intellectual is at presently. As far as why I think the subject is equally not notable as she was at the time of the last AfD. I am unconvinced that coverage of candidates in a campaign is sufficiently focused on the article subject (vs the campaign as an event) and that such coverage is sufficiently independent of the subject to count towards a subject's notability for a stand-alone article. None of the sources in the article at present lead me to believe that is not the case here. Given that WP:ANYBIO is merely a "likelihood" and involves significant honors or widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record, I'm not 100% sure an ongoing or unsuccessful candidacy would fall into it. --Mpen320 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I voted this way last time based on an in-depth review of her book, the Jerusalem Post article about her environmental activism, a Ms. Magazine article about her book and research, and the June 2025 city council primary coverage in general: one source while she was running and another after she lost the primary. Article meets easily WP:BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Birkhead, Nathaniel A. (August 29, 2023). "Kornberg, Maya L. Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process". Congress & the Presidency. 50: 367–368. doi:10.1080/07343469.2023.2249378.
2. Waldocks, Ehud Zion (February 2, 2010). "Pre-army academy students take green message to ministers. 'We realized that change must come from the gov't'". Jerusalem Post. ProQuest 319712020.
3. Stabile, Bonnie (June 9, 2023). "Amplifying Women's Congressional Power". Ms.
4. McDonough, Annie (December 27, 2024). "Maya Kornberg pitches 'pragmatic progressivism' in Brooklyn council race". City & State New York.; Oreskes, Benjamin (June 23, 2025). "Big Names, Bigger Money and Global Themes Color the N.Y.C. Council Races". The New York Times. ProQuest 3223474732.
- Reply. A single peer review is about the book, not the author. There's a reason she fails WP:AUTHOR. The Ms. Magazine interview is not independent of the subject by virtue of being an interview. I've commented on the other sources.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I can see your point about the environmental activism article being small amount of coverage that one might say borders on perfunctory. As you note to pass NAUTHOR it would be better to have more than one book review, but the book review noted above does provide an in-depth description of the subject's analysis of congressional committees and her suggestions to improve them, which gives insight into the subject. I'm most confused about how the Ms. article could be considered an interview and not independent - this article has the most significant coverage of the subject. Nnev66 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harrison (politician)

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

WP:POLOUTCOMES as an unelected candidate. Additionally, coverage does not show this individual meeting WP:GNG, with independent, potential significant sources being solely from The Advertiser (Adelaide) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ryan Harrison is a notable South Australian political figure who contested the seat of Unley in the 2022 state election as the endorsed Labor candidate. He achieved 32.1% of the primary vote and brought the margin to just 2.2%, resulting in the largest primary vote swing to Labor in the seat’s history (an 8.8% increase), according to data from the Electoral Commission of South Australia.

In 2025, following a refusal by the Labor Party to re-endorse him—despite his campaign success—Harrison founded and officially registered a new political party, *For Unley*. This party was gazetted by the South Australian Electoral Commissioner and formally published in the Government Gazette (No. 42, 4 July 2025): https://www.governmentgazette.sa.gov.au/2025/July/2025_042.pdf

Harrison is actively campaigning for the 2026 state election, and his continued political activity, creation of a registered political party, and historic primary vote swing meet the standards of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I intend to continue improving the article with independent, verifiable sources and maintain an encyclopedic tone. Aussiecontributor (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aussiecontributor your comment was simply moved to the bottom, not removed. I undid your duplicate comment that was added at the top of the page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because the subject doesn't hold a notable office (WP:POLITICIAN), the main thing at issue is his coverage in independent secondary sources. Just as a sidenote, the article cites Facebook as its third source, which is not a reliable source per our list of perennial sources. So we're left with the two articles in The Advertiser, which are just about the only sources that might be considered SIGCOV since the podcast is primary. But based off those two articles and what else I could find, the basic gist is: the subject well-known locally but not well-known enough (demonstrated by the lack of coverage) to pass the threshold of significant coverage here. GuardianH 09:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with GuardianH, the subject does not have significant press coverage to be considered notable. Also, the South Australian Government Gazette is a primary source and does not contribute to notability. ~ Nikoledood (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Running for office by itself doesn't meet our notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 07:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from electoral filings and his own website, the only sources I can find are two articles from The Advertiser on his defection from Labor. Seems like a case of WP:1E. Juxlos (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely even a 1E situation. Running for office doesnt qualify. Metallurgist (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oseleye Ojuka

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Regional party official and had an unsuccessful primary campaign for a governorship. The first source cited is a passing mention, the second is about his primary bid, it's not nothing but there's nothing else that I can find that rises to WP:SIGCOV, just occasional brief quotes in news articles. Here2rewrite (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's Christian, runs a business and didn't qualify for an election... That's about the extent of this article. Very much non-notable. Even the coverage in the article is rather limited. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: TNT. The writing is atrocious. Much of it is nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Yaseen

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BIO. A WP:BEFORE shows limited coverage, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. Also fails WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maldives. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hello, this article is based on a deputy minister currently sworn in to his position the presidential office links and ministries official website links of where his appointments are is a testimony and proof to his position maldives is a small country and we rely mostly on government resources to conclude the authencity and verify the claims sir. please have a thorough view. I understand there is not much sources or cites to highlight, could you please tell me how can I proceed ? NormadicEditor (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he is in the current cabinet of president muizzu´s with evidence to the publication of presidents office links verifying his stance. which is the official website of the goverment, fisheries is the biggest sector of our country and his appearance on wikipedia is required for maldivians as this determines information they want about their cabinet. especially someone holding a position in fisheries ministry. NormadicEditor (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:NPOL as a government minister in the Maldives. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the references of the article are just from the Fisheries Ministry and his LinkedIn. LinkedIn isn't a reliable source since it's self-published. Unilandofma^Talk 18:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the LinkedIn link Should be removed. If we omit links from the Fisheries Ministry (a government website) and the President’s Office as well, does this mean the current government is not considered authentic? if taking that to consideration and not his position these Maldivian articles shouldn't exist on wikipedia:Mohamed Maleeh Jamal Hassan Latheef

Be more considerate and approach with a solution based mentality, isn't that a mark of education and diversity, even though we are hiding behind our pens? :))

https://presidency.gov.mv/Government/Officials/141 Let me know if Maldivian government isn't verifiable!

He is the deputy minister of fisheries and Ocean resources, which other government website should the link be derived from ? please enlighten me about validity of Maldivian government I am always here to listen and get educated on :) NormadicEditor (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've never said that the current Maldivian government isn't authentic. Even if you omit links from the Fisheries Ministry, majority of the information starting from Early life and education to Personal life doesn't cite a source. The other two sources (which are from the Fisheries Ministry and The President's Office) only shows that he's a Deputy Minister and the date he was appointed on. Unilandofma^Talk 17:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have both agreed upon this. but the article still can be edited and kept Under WP:NPOL (Wikipedia's notability guideline for politicians), Thats what I have mentioned there :) NormadicEditor (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:V Verifiability, all content on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. A President's Office link (e.g., presidency.gov.mv) is considered a reliable primary source for factual claims like “Person A was appointed as Deputy Minister,” “sworn in on [date],” or “assigned to Ministry X.” NormadicEditor (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Under WP:NPOL (Wikipedia's notability guideline for politicians), a politician is presumed notable if they: Hold, or have held, a major national political office (e.g., minister, deputy minister, member of parliament), NormadicEditor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: NormadicEditor (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:BIO--VViking_TalkEdits 14:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's an unelected deputy minister; I don't see the WP:NPOL pass here and we have no claim that he meets GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For the avoidance of doubt: I was asked by the article creator, whom I'd just unblocked, to check in on this AfD. Unfortunately my finding is not in their favour.) -- asilvering (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Osyf

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

Non-notable individual running for public office. Fails notability metrics in WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. Recreate should he be elected next year. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is coverage [28], but he's a navy sailor running for office, I don't see anything to meet notability. Very routine career. The article now is barely more than a few sentences. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Connecticut, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or possibly redirect to an election page. He has zero military notability. Intothat darkness 13:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 2 as the expected ATD for a random candidate. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the election page, as per BottleOfChocolateMilk, and a common outcome as an ATD. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or maybe just delete. Does not meet WP:NPOLITICS or WP:GNG for that matter. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: Although yes not a lot of notability, it could be developed over time into a real article, so how about we move the page to draft and then put a Redirect. Fad8229 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete, does not meet WP:NPOLITICS, WP:GNG, or WP:CRYSTAL as he would be notable if he wins but that isn't for a year. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 2 as best ATD for now, and if he wins his election and becomes more notable, then this could always be updated at that time.
Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 2 per BottleOfChocolateMilk and the above unsigned comment. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Downer

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus Fails WP:NPOL, has only been a political candidate. Also WP:NOTINHERITED, a lot of coverage refers to her as the daughter of Alexander Downer. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Downer family. Notability is not inherited and as a failed candidate for political office, they would not meet NPOL. I'm not seeing enough here to say that their journalism or diplomatic careers meet notability standards.

Bkissin (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a perennial candidate such as Sharron Angle. In the alternative, merge selectively and redirect to her family's article. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a candidate he is notable Monhiroe (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsuccessful candidates don't meet NPOL. Obviously you haven't read this article as the article subject is female. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - had to think about this one, but she is not a perennial candidate - she ran twice and attracted some media because of her family ties, and we say nothing about her that isn't the fact she lost two elections in two years. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the pages on the election or on her family's article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are a number of different outcomes being argued for so there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Mahato

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

Non-notable politician, fails Wp:NPOL. No wp:SIGCOV is found except few news articles revolving around his murder case. His murder case could pass the notability as an event but not this biography. Zuck28 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, Assam, Bihar, and Jharkhand. Zuck28 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Li Qi (politician, born 1969)

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Nor do they meet WP:POL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Chinese language sources are found. Current coverage does not show sigcov Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources cited in the article are Chinese language sources. - Amigao (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say further sources. Two of these sources are decent and focus on what appears to be the same event. The others are not significant Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep meets NPOL by virtue of being a member of the 13th National People's Congress[29] This source and the political office are already in the zh.wikipedia article[30].~~ Oblivy (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could be incorrect, but I do not think this person is the same person as the one in the article you linked for zh wikipedia. They don't have the same name in latin or chinese characters. Li Qi is referred to as "he" while the 李静 article says she is female. They are listed with different birth months and represent separate provinces. This is not to say Li Qi is not notable, but that they aren't the same as the person you linked. Ike Lek (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Oblivy. He is holding a political position and based on the available references on zh.wikipedia. Gepeas (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it could be the translation program, but there is no politician named Li Qi in the source provided by Oblivy. There's a "Li Qiang", a "Li Qiuxi", and a "Li Qilin". Using "李琦", the Chinese version in the current article, and an un-translated version of the article, yields zero results.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally agree with Onel5969, sources cited in the article do not yield a result about any Li Qi. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 22:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, then why did you !vote keep? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: NPOL is a strong claim to notability but there seems to be some doubt whether this person meets it: there is evidence of mismatched identity
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added two more sources to the article. I think it barely meets GNG based on the sources now in the article. On the concerns about mistaken identity above, I agree that this article about the NPC does not seem to mention Li Qi; I can't find any evidence that he was in the NPC. The Chinese Wikipedia article linked above seems to be about a different person, Li Jing (李静) rather than Li Qi (李琦). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agreed that is an article about a different person, from another province. Apologies and I've struck my above comment and vote. The guy was county party chairman and provincial trade union boss. Is that enough for NPOL? With respect, the sources added by @Mx. Granger are fantastic for verifiability but I don't see anyone talking independently about him. Oblivy (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those positions would not meet NPOL, so GNG still needs to be shown Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. I reviewed the article sources. @The Account 2: Thoughts?

Czarking0 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In cases like this, I feel it's good to run a though experiment: if he was an American politician holding a roughly similar position, would he have been notable? There seems to be just enough sources covering him. The Account 2 (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Evans

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

Non-notable person who, while elected to the state legislature, left the state before taking office, fails GNG. Talthiel (talk) 00:04, 4 July 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 July 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NPOL says that notability "applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". So, even though she never took office, I believe the article has sufficient notability.

Notaoffensivename (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is she will never assume office, she left the state before she could. They even held a special election recently because her leaving caused the seat to be vacant upon the opening of the 2025 New Hampshire legislative session. Talthiel (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she never held office and never will due to the aforementioned special election, I fail to see how she is notable enough to require an article. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election. Yue🌙 22:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this page per WP:NPOL which says that notability "applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". Moondragon21 (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is "yet". Evans will never assume office as she left the district to live elsewheree, and bar being elected in that new area, she is otherwise not notable. Talthiel (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does meet WP:NPOL, when it states: "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", which this sentence specifies winning an election to a notable seat, but haven't been seated which this can clarify Evans being notable. There is the list List of members-elect of the United States House of Representatives who never took their seats, and all of them have blue links, and the list includes people who have not held offices before and were just member-elects to their first public office that they won the election for. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Election to a national legislature is far more notable than election to a subnational legislature, particularly a legislature with very small constituencies. A cursory glance at the individuals at the list you mention shows that many of them would qualify under different notability guidelines. Jack Swigert was an astronaut. Samuel Marx was a member of the New York City Council. Even in cases where I think notability may not otherwise be present, Luke Letlow was a particularly prominent COVID death. The articles are not X was elected to Y and then resigned before anything happened. Do you have three really good sources that back up Dawn Evans having a stand-alone article?--Mpen320 (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NPOL question aside, are additional sources likely to exist for WP:NOPAGE purposes? If all the article can ever say is "X is a politician who was elected in Y year, but refused their seat", then a redirect to the election article with a note they refused to be seated is sufficient. My experience with writing articles for NH state representatives, of which I have done several, is that non-incumbent/non-controversial candidacies themselves typically do not receive much coverage due to the nature of the state house. Curbon7 (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was thinking too. Certainly passes WP:NPOL, but we should consider a redirect per NOPAGE. I had a challenge even finding significant coverage that explained the subject's refusal to be seated and minimal coverage about the election itself. As examples, the article (as it existed on July 6), has a mention that the subject is a small business owner, but nothing more and there are certain attestations attributed to the local Democrats page, which I wasn't able to find a better source. - Enos733 (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Based on my above comment. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of WP:NOPAGE concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election. Article will be a permastub and NOPAGE better applies in this case. मल्ल (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election as an alternative to deletion. As far as the part of WP:NPOL stating "applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", I believe that is meant to clarity it is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to create an article for a state legislator-elect and thus we can avoid numerous AfDs for people who will (in 99.9% of cases) take office within a few weeks. I do not believe it means that every state legislator-elect is inherently notable even when there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I consider this a BLP1E situation (if that) and so I think a redirect is the best approach. Such an approach is also in line with WP:NOPAGE. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that's current policy. When the consensus changes it should be obvious. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 New Hampshire House of Representatives election per my comments earlier. --Enos733 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2024 election. The words have not, and will not mean very different things. From NPOL, have not yet assumed office implies that they will, and if an individual will never assume office then there is no claim to WP:LASTING notability. Agree that the wording at NPOL is used to avoid AFDs weeks before the individual assumes office. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the Delete/Redirect views have a numerical advantage here, it doesn't amount to a consensus. Lack of participation since the last relist makes me reluctant to extend this any longer. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kranjac

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

Former gubernatorial candidate who got 2% in the Republican primary and former mayor of a town with a population of ~5,000. Obviously not enough for a WP page, and I don't see any reason to think he passes GNG either. Most sources cited on the page are ROTM coverage and passing mentions in articles about the gubernatorial race. I'd support a redirect to 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see an abundance of sources that contribute to WP:GNG. Local-level politicians can lose an election, thereby not being inherently notable under WP:NPOL, but still be very much notable under WP:NBASIC. From what I can see, the subject of this article has received plenty of substantial coverage in a wide variety of publications. The article is actually pretty decently well written, too. MediaKyle (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he had coverage before he ran due to his time as mayor. Scuba 01:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Knox490 (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG and WP:MILL. He very clearly fails our tests for political officials, as the mayor of a small, albeit very nice, suburb of New York City, which I've been to. We routinely delete articles of statewide candidates, of both parties. As any person, he hasn't really done anything. There are tens of thousands of local officials in New Jersey alone, and he has yet to do anything significant to warrant coverage nationwide. 100% of his news coverage has been local media and blogs. As a Republican in 2025, he's literally run of the mill: 99% of current Republican officials support Trump and his OBBB, and the MAGA movement according to recent polls has 85% to 90% of rank and file Republican support. If he was campaigning for a balanced budget amendment, or was vocally against Trump, then he'd be notable. To paraphrase the old adage, man bites dog is news, but GOP local official supporting MAGA isn't news. I would not oppose a redirect as per nom. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a huge wealth of coverage, meeting WP:GNG. Ike Lek (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian's reasoning in part. Local politicians will always receive local coverage and therefore the coverage bar is higher to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm in accord with your reasoning. It's like a Venn diagram. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial election as a valid ATD. --Enos733 (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial election. Wikipedia is not the news. A majority of citations are election coverage of which the election is the subject and the candidate is secondary so I don't see significant coverage. He got 2% of the vote, so passing any sort of test of historical significance is very unlikely. While local elected officials are neither inherently notable or inherently not notable, only four sources relate to his local political career. It is not encyclopedic to give a subject an individual Wikipedia article because they renamed City Hall or sued the state in which they are in once. Some in this AfD note the wide amount of coverage. The New Jersey Globe, which has press corps credentials, is fifteen of 40 sources. There are diverse sourcing issues when 37% of the total sources are from one publication. This is before reviewing that some sources are not independent and others are questionable. For example, Shore News Network is almost certainly not reliable. It lacks bylines and appears to use a virtual mailing address. It also has a "submit news" feature that I am confident based on the lack of bylines and no press-association membership, is just used to launder press releases. The remainder of the article is the use of a Institute of World Politics press release to build a biography of every life event. Also, one of the forty citations is an explanation of who cohosted something with the College Republicans. Totally unrelated to the subject.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2025 NJ page. Focusing only on sources not related to the campaign, does not show enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[alive-1] Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.

[2] Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.

[3] Alexander, Robert Jackson (1991). International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-0-8223-0975-8.

[4] "Investigation of SLL charge". Australian Jewish Times. 25 May 1978.

[5] "Workers news: weekly organ of the Central Committee of the Socialist Labour League, Australian section of the International Committee of the Fourth International". zoeken.iisg.amsterdam.

[6] Blaxland, John; Crawley, Rhys (26 October 2016). The Secret Cold War: The Official History of ASIO, 1975-1989. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 978-1-952535-48-2.

[7] Mitchell, Alex (February 2012). Come the Revolution: A Memoir. NewSouth Publishing. pp. 438–440. ISBN 978-1-74224-107-4.

[8] Percy, John (2005). A History of the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance. Resistance Books. pp. 204–207. ISBN 978-1-876646-53-0.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects