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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics[edit]

Michel Pontremoli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Alito flag display controversy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and can also be covered sufficiently at Samuel Alito. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Christianity, United States of America, New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito. It’s notable when a Supreme Court justice who is hearing cases related to an attempted government coup is flying flags that are well established by news coverage to support that coup in front of his house. Also, the article is well-sourced enough to establish the notability of the topic. But it’s more confusing to wiki visitors to have a separate article for it, because when they come here looking for this, they’re going to be looking for it under his name. This topic belongs under a “controversies” section in the main article. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito: I agree that this event is currently notable, but I don't think it passes the 10YT. I think it should be selectively merged to Samuel Alito#Ethical questions without prejudice to potentially creating a controversies sub-article for Alito, since he seems to be racking them up recently. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito I too think this could be contained within a "controversies" section in the main article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meritt North[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
You don't make a writer notable by sourcing her books to Amazon as evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing her books to reviews of the books by professional literary critics in newspapers or magazines as evidence that they got significant attention. You don't make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to IMDb or her own résumé, you make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to reviews of the films or television shows that singled her performance out for third-party analysis. And on and so forth.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearcat,

I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised about the citations supporting the role of Krystle Minkoff as an actress. It is important to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and verifiable.

Regarding the citations numbered 12-17, I would like to emphasize that these sources are independently verified and adequately support her credited role as an actress under her given legal name, Krystle Minkoff. These credits are also reflected on IMDb, which follows strict guidelines for crediting individuals in the entertainment industry.

It is important to note that the aim should be to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia, not to indiscriminately nominate entire articles for deletion due to issues with specific sections or titles. Each piece of information should be evaluated on its own merits and improved where necessary.

There are numerous citations that document her work as an actress, voice actress, and author under both Meritt North and Krystle Minkoff. These sources collectively substantiate her contributions and career, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability.

I hope this clarifies the situation, and I am open to working collaboratively to address any specific concerns you may have to ensure the information remains reliable and well-documented.

Best regards,

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is room for improvement or a few items that you absolutely insist must be removed, let's work together to resolve them. I don't think that just because you may take issue with one or a couple items, that the entire page is not useful, informational, and in the public interest.

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: we are not looking for simple verification that she had acting roles. The notability test for an actress is not passed by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing evidence that people without a vested interest in her career (namely journalists and film critics) have assessed her performances as being significant enough to analyze in prose. Such as reviews of the films or television shows which singled her performances out for attention, or journalist-written news articles profiling her. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "had independent third-party attention and analysis bestowed upon the stuff that she did by people who weren't just being paid to publicize her". So establishing notability as an actress doesn't hinge on her own résumé, or IMDB: it hinges on showing that her work as an actress has made her a subject that journalists cover as newsworthy in sources independent of herself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there isn't any secondary sources which are good enough to make her notable. OhHaiMark (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bearcat, how about deleting the title of actress and the acting credits table. Would this suit you? ScorpioKLM

No, that wouldn't "suit" me, because you haven't properly established her notability as a writer or audiobook narrator either. Those work the same way: her notability for either of those things is not established by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and still requires literary critics to establish her books as significant by reviewing them in newspapers, magazines or literary journals.
No matter what occupation a person works in, they always still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources independent of their own public relations materials, and you simply haven't used any GNG-worthy sourcing to support this article at all. So the problem isn't resolved just by taking acting roles out of the article, because you haven't properly sourced her writing or narration work either. The whole article is badly sourced, not just the acting section alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff/Meritt North has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff/North's work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.

However, in order for IMDb to credit officially, it has to be reviewed and approved by IMDb, casting directors, directors, and other actors. It is up for scrutiny by all and goes through a lengthy period of scrutinization before being attributed a final credit. There are 3 titles to which Meritt aka Krystle Minkoff and credited by such, has this blue official IMDb credit. Just a consideration.

Here is the strict incliusion of credits criteria that must be met on IMDb. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10# 
What do you mean by "eligible"? 
A. As stated above, the first and most important thing is to have received a credit on the title. There are a few additional requirements -- we normally only list people who were credited in the original version of a title. For films, this means we'll only list people credited in the initial original theatrical release; for TV titles, it means people credited when the show first aired.

B. When a title is announced or in production and is added to the database, our editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

C. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff’s work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.

In addition: When a title on IMDb is announced or in production and is added to the database, thier editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

D. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.

Review policy at this URL: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10#

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Here is a full list of all of platforms her audiobooks are verified published at and credited to her as both Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. You cannot dispute her notability as an audiobook narrator.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

What part of you do not establish a person's notability by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and have to establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously disregarding all of the media formats, platforms, publications, audiobook production companies, websites, and audiobook resellers citations that prove her notability as an established voice actress. Here are the cites again. I emplore you to review each one.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

____________________________________________________ I truly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia, and I believe the existing citations do indeed establish her notability.

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations provided come from various independent and reputable sources, not just self-references or promotional materials. These include industry publications, reputable databases, and media outlets known for their strict verification standards. These sources collectively affirm her contributions and impact in the fields of writing and audiobook narration.

Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received significant recognition within her industry. Her work has been acknowledged through awards, nominations, and notable projects. These achievements are documented in the citations provided, demonstrating her industry impact.

Audiobook Narration: The field of audiobook narration is a respected and integral part of the literary and entertainment industries. Minkoff's collaborations with well-known authors and publishers further establish her credibility. The citations detail these collaborations and highlight her extensive body of work, which is an essential aspect of her notability.

Compliance with WP

We have adhered to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (WP

).

The sources supporting her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage of her work. These sources go beyond mere mentions, offering in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and achievements. Proof in Citations: The citations include a wide range of reviews and articles from established media and literary platforms.

These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.

Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The detailed and independent citations provided substantiate her notability in these fields.

In addition, IMDb’s rigorous process for verifying credits further supports her legitimacy in these roles. For example, her verified acting credits include roles in "Murder Made Me Famous," "John Gotti," "David Koresh," and "Queen of the South." These credits reflect her significant involvement in the industry.

The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her extensive and notable career as a Voice Actress. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to on-screen acting, and her notable roles have been influential within the industry. Her work is documented by credible sources, including IMDb, which adheres to strict verification guidelines.

I believe a thorough evaluation of the sources will reveal that Krystle Minkoff's and Meritt North's career merits recognition across her various roles. Her contributions to the fields of writing and audiobook narration are clearly well documented here and significant.

I invite you to review the comprehensive list of platforms where her audiobooks are verified and credited to her, both as Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. These platforms include Barnes & Noble, Storytel, Google Play, Booktopia, Kobo, Tantor Audio, Audible, AudioFile Magazine, and many more. Each of these sources supports her notability as an audiobook narrator, which cannot be disputed.

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to your thoughts on how we can further ensure the accuracy and completeness of this article. Best regards, ScorpioKLM

In response to this "establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT". I have cited to third-party media coverage and analysis about it. Please re-review the citations sent above.

Kindest Wishes, ScorpioKLM

No, you have not cited third-party media coverage and analysis about it, you're citing her own work's presence as titles for sale in online bookstores. Again: you do not establish a writer's notability by citing her work to its own presence on Amazon or Audible or Kobo or Booktopia or Overdrive; you establish a writer's notability by citing it to journalists and/or literary critics independently reviewing her work in a newspaper, magazine or literary journal. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Law, Politics, Medicine, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can't use literally everything proffered above by ScorpioKLM (online storefront/connexion to subject), and the same rationale applies to almost every source in the article itself, with those that aren't merchants/her publishers being content-free profiles or stuff she wrote under the "Krystle Minkoff" moniker. None of the lot is usable in any way, shape, or form. ScorpioKLM, we don't cite IMDb because multiple discussions over the years in re their verification and fact-checking (i.e. their editorial oversight) have concluded it's a joke. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is sourced to primary sources. I can find no coverage at all to substantiate inclusion of this biography on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the wall of words, notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, there's statements like "Meritt North had a successful 20-year career in sleep medicine prior to her career in the entertainment industry" - her entertainment career began in 2016 when she would have been 33. One link in her bibliography (Journal of Sleep Disorders & Therapy) is flagged as an unreliable source. Orange sticker (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment I've p-blocked Mooresklm2016 from here & the article to allow discussion to continue uninterrupted. They have made a sufficient case for closer to take it on board when assessing the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments - obviously promotional and inadequate third-party coverage. Haruka Amaranth 01:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy the GNG; no SIGCOV RS available. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Along with everyone else I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. WP:GNG isn't met. TarnishedPath^talk 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections[edit]

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

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and West Virginia. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curbon7: There are some other alternatives. We could move this to 1978 West Virginia elections and create empty headers tagged as needing expansion for other elected offices (there is also a 1978 United States Senate election in West Virginia); or, we could merge all three articles in this nomination into a 1970s–80s West Virginia judicial elections article, or just a West Virginia judicial elections article, with links out to articles covering years not in this article. BD2412 T 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't oppose creation of West Virginia judicial elections and a merge to that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merging Supreme Court elections may be appropriate, but not the trial court elections. Even for current elections like 2020 West Virginia elections, we only have the statewide elections, not the non-notable local-level ones. There are so many of those that are simply not covered. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is absolutely not for challenging the "legitimacy" of politicians and their rule. See WP:SOAP.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WP:SOAP has five different subcategories. Could you be more specific, please? The article is not about challenging anything, it covers the debate, cites legislative acts. I'd be glad to hear your concerns to make the article better. Steffuld (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right from the start, the article relies on a bunch of op-eds, which are insufficient establish notability. The legal section is just inserted without context. The "private observers" bit is one article weasel-worded into a larger issue. At most, this could be merged into the Zelenskyy article. Cortador (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for pointing out questionable sources. I've added the Background section to provide the context and rewrote the Other concerns section to cover more sources. Steffuld (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A merge is unnecessary as the incident is already listed at List of political self-immolations and I can't see what specifically needs to be merged. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking through the sources, this article fails WP:NORG. Needs more articles directly on the org itself - the article linked here is not at all significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please note the extensive write ups on the organization by both Fox News and state outlets:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html

Additionally, please note the utilization of the ILA by the Nikki Haley campaign and the fact the organization's CEO was named by the Washingtonian as one of the Top 500 most influential in nation on policy due to the impact of their reports. I believe all of those factors coupled with the significant number of mentions by Members of Congress confirm the ILA meets WP:NORG. I closely follow right-of-center political non-profits and can confirm the ILA's media coverage and influence far exceeds many of the other organizations with pages on Wikipedia. Finally, I will note that the ILA is only a little over a year old and clearly an up and coming organization if you do research into what it has done so far. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Gillette News-Record article might be borderline (though, being mostly quotes means that it wouldn't be secondary even though it's independent, and all four criteria have to be met by the same source). Being an up and coming organization is a clear indication that it is likely simply too soon to have an article on it, the criteria would normally only after they are already successful or prominent, not likely to do so in the future (i.e. § Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time). The Fox article does not clearly meet ORGIND, and even if we were to make an exception on the general consensus on think tanks in this case, the Daily Signal article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and therefore not considered reliable for statements of fact.

I would strongly advise if you do wish to continue working on an article about this organisation, that you do so as a draft, and not move it to mainspace without review by the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. While closely following such organisations would probably help you develop an article, I don't believe your evaluation of the sources accurately reflect the standards they are assessed on. As for the other organisations for which coverage on this one far exceeds, I would say they most likely would be deleted if they cannot be brought to standard, but most such articles are not reviewed regularly (after all, we have 6 million of them, that would take some time). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability bar for companies and organisations is deliberately set high. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article about Wyoming legislators criticising a report from the organisation is not sufficient and not "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." as required. Per WP:SIRS, part of WP:NCORP, "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo[edit]

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

this article can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can keep it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toadspike — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Englart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Websites, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion. WmLawson (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG standards and sources are minor, partisan or questionable. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (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/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic vulnerability[edit]

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

Likely not notable, the listed reference is the only one I can find that has the same use of systemic vulnerability, others refer to "systemic vulnerability" usually in information technology. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this [7]. Maybe it helps? Conyo14 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins[edit]

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

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural ~~oddity~~ curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[8] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of my thinking as well. Most articles include links back to his social media account, making it a question as to whether he's been truly independently noticed in my book. It's clear he's getting noticed, but this may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michaud Affair[edit]

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

This has been problematically tagged for over a decade. Seems almost entirely based on self-published primary sources. Has POV issues, and no clear evidence that this is a notable event beyond a news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place to post personal interpretations. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, Politics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yves Michaud (politician) (where this is already addressed in a more succinct way). This is notable enough to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but it isn't of enough enduring significance to have its own standalone article as a separate topic from the MNA who was implicated in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested seems fine, this "affair" isn't really notable outside of the individual's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [9] [10] [11] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -

If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.

This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [12] [13] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.

I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".

I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [14] [15] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, or maybe move I'm not up on the mechanics of Indian state elections, but shouldn't this be 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election, since it seems to have a set date? And if I'm mistaken, then yeah, it's extremely WP:NOTCRYSTAL stuff, especially since at the moment it's almost substance-free. This is just a placeholder, and we don't need placeholder articles. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Adams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Can’t see them passing any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations[edit]

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

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, Economics, India, and Latin America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge the article is well formatted and cited with many references which covers this topic in depth. It does spun around the topic, passes general notability. However if merging is an option then I'd not oppose it merging in Foreign relations of India. Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page is well written and has many reliable sources with significant coverage on the India-Latin economic and trade ties and history. Passes WP:GNG. I am also not opposed to Merge to Foreign relations of India. RangersRus (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Duplicative of other articles. No point. Yilloslime (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America

48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Canadian identity[edit]

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

Follow-up to the deletion of:

All written by the same user that have also been deleted for the same reasons, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Arab Canadian" or "Arab-Canadian (identity)" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than enough study of this cultural identity [16], [17] and multiple papers such as [18], [19]. This is also a book review on the subject [20]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab Canadians, which doesn't have a lot of prose; this content could improve the parent article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Arab Canadians per above. Aldij (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election[edit]

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

Seems way TOO SOON for this article to exist, considering that there are still four years left for the election to occur. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?

Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPath^talk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tasmaina only had an election 2 months ago. Significant coverage of the next election is years away. Similar AfDs of premature election coverage has appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is ridiculously WP:TOOSOON. The last election has only just happened and this is almost four years off. TarnishedPath^talk 08:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The next election is not set in stone at 4 years away as the Tas Parliament states Term: the length of time House of Assembly elections - since 1976 this has been a maximum of four years. and that's why I do agree with previous comments that it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election instead. It should be noted that both previous elections went early at about 3 years each 2018 Tasmanian state election and 2021 Tasmanian state election. And with a hung parliament as described in the article that potential is high again. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Next Tasmanian state election. The next election in a democratic state is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I also agree with the rational of the other comments supporting a keep position. --Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be coverage in English-language scholarly sources ([21] [22], both paywalled but which had substantial text matches in Google Scholar results snippets), and likely more in Romanian, Gagauz, Turkish or other languages. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

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

Slightly more extensive than 2012 Scottsdale mayoral election. Still probably falls under WP:MILL. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable.

-Samoht27 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a particularly notable election (no non-local coverage, so WP:MILL), and only sourced to election results - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It stands alone as the only Scottsdale mayoral election listed in Wikipedia. You should also delete the categories only associated with it and not other elections - Category:Mayoral elections in Scottsdale, Arizona and Category:Government of Scottsdale, Arizona — Maile (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Natalie Labbée[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

City councillors are not presumptively notable based on WP:NPOL, they have to be notable for other things or pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO. This subject fails all. Sources presented and from WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE coverages/WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources and cannot be used to establish GNG because there's no WP:SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not notable, sourcing is mostly to Twitter and the same local stories used last time. Endorsing the Liberal leader isn't notable, the harassment isn't terribly notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have added categories to the article as it entirely had none categories and its sources were only X posts. I tried to look for more sources online but all I could find are very few. Thesudburystar here: https://www.thesudburystar.com/opinion/columnists/if-i-had-strong-mayor-powers-i-would-make-greater-sudburys-bureaucrats-accountable-labbe is just a piece of opinion that is just more of a campaign like and fails GNG, including this: https://www.thesudburystar.com/news/local-news/plenty-of-candidates-in-ward-7-8-and-9 . The Villagereport here: https://www.villagereport.ca/village-picks/sudbury-councillor-has-faced-online-threats-since-she-was-elected-8817219 is just about her reacting to harassment at her home. I failed to find sources that explain deep about the subject. However, if someone manages to find other extra sources, I may change my vote.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sudbury still is not a city whose city councillors get an "inherent" notability freebie just for existing as city councillors — the bar that a Sudbury city councillor would have to clear to get a Wikipedia article is not "she exists", but "she has received such an unusually high depth and range and volume of more than purely local coverage that she could credibly claim to be one of the most uniquely significant city councillors in the entire country". But this article isn't showing that at all.
I would also note that there's some reason to suspect conflict of interest here, given that this is the second attempt to create an article about Natalie Labbée within the past year, while there have been no attempts that I know of to create an article about any other current or recent Sudbury city councillor but her (not even the one I had under active "watchlist the redlink in case somebody tries it" surveillance for a few weeks this past winter, whom I bet at least Oaktree can guess but I won't name lest I inspire somebody to try it.) And it also now warrants mention that I submitted an SPI request on the creators of the first and second versions of this article, which has already resulted in both of them (and another username who's also been playing FAFO games on our articles about other Sudbury politicians, such as mayors and MPPs) being sockblocked. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Zanuriman Nuar Paras Khan[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:NPOL. He doesn't appear to actually have national/state-wide office, and is rather just a member of his party's youth division. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:BASIC. C F A 💬 00:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[23][24][25][26][27] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [28], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Foster III[edit]

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

Members of the San Diego City Council or of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors are not presumptively notable based on WP:NPOL. They have to pass WP:GNG or at least WP:ANYBIO. This subject lacks in all, the sources presented in the article and from WP:BEFORE can not be used to the establish notability of this subject based on GNG. Sources are either lacking in independence or mostly in significant coverage of the subject. Most are WP:ROUTINE coverages which provide nothing but an announcement of Foster winning the seat or what have we, while some are result sheets, etc. Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Cherneha[edit]

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

This article says nothing other than the subject being a mayor, which fails WP:NPOL because mayors are not presumptively notable if they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG which is where this subject is lacking. Did not occupy any office that would help them pass any of WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage in reliable sources that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But neither the content nor the sourcing here are up to the level of what's required. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor O'Callaghan (businessman)[edit]

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. He received some attention from national outlets right when he announced his campaign in August of last year, but that's to be expected of any candidate in a competitive House race. From what I can see, he's received zero national news coverage since September 2023. All of the articles cited on the page are campaign-related, and I can't find any non-campaign-related coverage of him on Google from any time, so I don't think he meets GNG. Very much reminiscent of Kellen Curry, another 2024 congressional candidate who got national news attention right when he launched and promptly faded from view. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Ireland, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support either redirect or outright deleteing, as even with the bit of coverage he has received more recently (he appears to be running a generally more negative campaign rel. to the other 5 in the race) I don't believe he meets notability standards. Buggie111 (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting criminal notability; simply being a political candidate isn't notable. Can be re-created if he wins the political seat, otherwise, not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Weak keep: I support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. That being said, while he doesn't meet WP:NPOL for being a candidate, it's possible he meets WP:BASIC. What makes this different from other cases, in my opinion, is that the candidature coverage is not WP:MILL. He's received a significant amount of coverage that specifically goes into detail about his career before running for office. For example, this Bloomberg article and this MSNBC article. C F A 💬 01:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the national coverage of him isn't run of the mill, but the problem is that the only non-ROTM coverage he ever received came right when he announced his campaign. As I said in the nomination, he's received no national attention since September 2023. It seems like he made a splash right when he announced because he's running in a competitive congressional race, but I don't think that translates to lasting notability. If he loses this race, will anyone be searching his name in 5-10 years? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar[edit]

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

I believe this is similar to Sanjog Waghere. A WP:BEFORE search on Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar has a lot of reliable sources, but they all focus on his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election, making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG/NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I searched for coverage about the subject other then the candidacy, but I can’t found any. These sources are because of his candidacy. WP:BLP1E simply apply here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. But I found someone who is saying “I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability.” Here. GrabUp - Talk 09:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidacy in general election is not notable. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as doctor and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Guntur Lok Sabha constituency#General Election 2024, mostly on WP:NOTPROMO grounds. Otherwise keep. I do not think the grounds for deletion raised above are policy-based. (1) NPOL avoids extending a presumption of notability to candidates, but recognizes that they are still notable if they meet the GNG. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that GNG-compliant sourcing is available. (2) The question is therefore whether BLP1E applies. But BLP1E does not apply, because a candidate in a general election for a national legislature is not someone who otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. As WP:LOWPROFILE reminds us, [p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. (3) The remaining question, although not raised above, would be whether BIO1E applies. IMO it would be questionable to interpret "one event" in BIO1E/BLP1E so broadly as to encompass an entire election campaign; that would go well beyond any ordinary or on-wiki understanding of "one event". In any event, if BIO1E does apply, it counsels us to redirect to our coverage of the event, not to delete the page outright. -- Visviva (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sparks[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. I can't find any in-depth, indepdenent sources aside from this image.ie article. Clear friend a ^💬 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ruiz II[edit]

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

Chiefs of staff do not count as a political office for purposes of NPOL, and it doesn't seem like there is sufficient coverage to meet the standards of WP:BASIC unfortunately. Deprod by Clearfrienda, not sure which sources they were referring to, perhaps the AP? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Arizona. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In cases where there is some substantial coverage I usually object with PRODs in case there's a chance they can be kept. In this case, there's this local 12news.com article and this ktar.com article which both go WP:INDEPTH. There are some less-significant mentions in this NYT article, this kold.com article, and this azcentral.com article. I'd lean towards delete but it's a close call. Clear friend a ^💬 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, council members are not inherently notable. There’s not enough sources that are independent, reliable and significantly covers the subject to warrant a standalone entry. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical or PRs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources cited are routine coverage. Doesn't seem like he's done anything that would warrant a page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lewis (politician)[edit]

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

Obviously fails WP:NPOL as being the leader of Sutton Council does not make one inherently notable. Even Ruth Dombey who occupied the seat before Lewis was and isn't inherently notable under NPOL. There's no WP:GNG pass either as there are no sources that are independent or provide significant coverage of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable subject as the nominator describes. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a credible reason to consider them a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office — but this is basically "he is a councillor who exists", referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This politician isn't really relevant outside of local politics in Sutton. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apart from fact that this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, I am particularly seeking being a leader of London Borough of Sutton. But while u was checking whether there can be a possible redirect, I saw leader is usually a "Mayor", thus, this individual doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editors here are correct and in agreement. This is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Kumar Singla[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Literally nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources but couldn’t find a single one! The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he was never elected as an MLA or MP. GrabUp - Talk 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly failed WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Carter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This article says nothing other than the subject is a mayor which fails NPOL. The sources are obvious WP:ROUTINE coverages and do not count towards GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Merrill[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as he was defeated in the run for a seat in South Dakota State Senate. WP:GNG is not passable as the sources are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:ROUTINE and do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dyer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. None of the offices the subject occupies/occupied can make them inherently notable under NPOL. GNG is not passable as there are insufficient sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Minimal coverage for the city position, simply standing as a candidate isn't notable enough for here. Not meeting notability, I can't find anything beyond confirmation of the city position. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't meet WP:NPOL. Unverifiable contents. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice J. Buah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Council of State members are not inherently notable and there’s not enough source to establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Ghana. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hernández-Mats[edit]

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

Prod declined. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. She is a teacher and a leader in a local union who was chosen as a major party's nominee for governor's runningmate in 2022. It appears that the Miami Herald wrote up one in-depth piece on her during the campaign and there are other WP:ROUTINE articles relating to the election and the Crist ticket that do not cover her in significant depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage about her as a union leader. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. I reviewed the available coverage and it's either of the Crist campaign or it's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the United Teachers of Dade, quoting her incidentally to her role as president in the process of coverage focusing on other issues (such as the decertification vote or COVID-19). Redirecting connects this page with what most people may be searching for related to her, and it makes it easier to resurrect the page in the future should she be the subject of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article, as of this comment, contains reliable sources for more than just her selection as lieutenant governor candidate in 2022. GNG is satisfied. Zsinj^Talk 23:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for Deletion, to Keep and to Redirect so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's some non-campaign-related coverage of her cited here, but I don't think it's enough to argue she meets GNG. It really just comes down to whether or not you think being interviewed by local news outlets a few times proves that someone is notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate that loses a statewide election in the United States. I agree with Dclemens1971 and Muboshgu about the state of the existing coverage as not meeting our expectations under GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Hirschel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject currently doesn’t pass NPOL as city councilor, and is only contesting for a seat in the EU Parliament. Sources were insufficient to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could potentially redirect to Pirate Party Germany and add a mention there, but I can't see any coverage meeting BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tagesspiegel and SWP sources are sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nevada and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all for giggles, but here are two articles I found with considerable info about him: Vice, Business Insider. Lamona (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Baş[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article appears to be a direct translation of tr:Hüseyin Baş. I tried to move some of the sources from there to here after it was translated without the references intact. There is one additional source used on that language wiki here but I don't know if it's of any use. (After review I can see that a user script marks that link as unreliable - this one has low hopes but I don't think I will be weighing in as someone with no context otherwise.)Recon rabbit 23:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Except for offices within the party proper, the person in question does not seem to have been elected to or held any public regional or national offices in Turkey. Fails NPOL, ANYBIO, and GNG as Vanderwaalforces points out. The article may be relevant for Turkish WP, but it is not (yet) relevant for English WP. --Konanen (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chambers[edit]

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

This article has a lot of citations, but it's not as impressive as it first seems. Of the 36 pages cited: 3 are routine campaign coverage from local outlets, 1 is a Decision Desk HQ election results page, 9 are press releases or other pages on the Indiana Economic Development Corporation's website, 2 don't even mention Chambers, 2 are paywalled, 6 are campaign website citations, 5 take the format of "Brad Chambers announces ____ plan" and seem to be based off the aforementioned campaign website pages, and 2 are duplicates of other sources. The remaining few are more in-depth articles about his gubernatorial campaign or his appointment as state commerce secretary from Indiana-based publications (not anything he did in office, just his appointment). Nothing stands out about his candidacy that would warrant a standalone Wikipedia article; he was never a frontrunner and didn't really do anything noteworthy. And he certainly doesn't have any other argument for passing GNG, either via his (appointed) position as state commerce secretary or otherwise. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Kpg jhp jm 07:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State secretary of commerce is a notable position; we have enough for at least a basic article, maybe needs a rewrite, but the individual would meet political notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [29] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [30] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)

Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Struck TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not appear to be presumptively notable under WP:NPOL; cabinet level positions are the widely agreed threshold (see detailed discussion here for state-level executive branch NPOL thresholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer), however, Commerce does not appear to be part of the current Governor's Cabinet in Indiana. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: and @TulsaPoliticsFan: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [31]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! I'll strike my keep vote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The terms "secretary of commerce" and "president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp." are interchangeable, as the secretary of commerce leads the Indiana Economic Development Corporation as its president. [32]. You can find different media outlets using both terms, but both refer to the cabinet-level position. AHoosierPolitico (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ferrada[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Never held any office that makes them inherently pass NPOL and not enough sources to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps not notable per WP POL. I'm the author of the page. Feel free to delete or keep it. I have no objections. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - arguably the post of Presidential Regional Delegate is enough to pass NPOL. The post has its own article in Spanish wikipedia, Delegado presidencial regional de Ñuble [es], Delegado presidencial regional de Chile [es]. --Soman (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was first deleted in 2019 and despite being a WP:REFBOMB this new incarnation shows no additional evidence of notability under GNG or NBIO. Coverage is in school publications; WP:TRADES publications like local business journals and magazines (and without feature-length coverage that would permit the use of trade pubs to establish notability); self-published sources; or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in longer lists of people. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Military, Louisiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is highly promotional. I began checking the citations and only got through the first section, but a number fail validation or are not reliable sources (e.g. something he himself wrote). As it is, I cannot (yet?) find anything that would make him noteworthy. It will take work to cut the article down to the actual reliable sources, and then to ones that are significantly about him. My gut feeling is that there will not be significant sources, but it will take some time to figure that out. Lamona (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment is incorrect. The 3 places you marked the page with [verification failed] were not accurate. 2 of the sources used this article, which you need to find his photo and click on it, and then a long bio will appear which verifies the info. Next you had an issue with source 11 freemannews.tulane.edu/, it partially verified the content, but the source 12, right after verifies everything. As far as being promotional, please feel free to revise it. Most of the article was written by me, but at least one other person has added to it. I am pretty certain that I didn't write anything promotional myself. Lionsonny (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage exists. Here are the good sources:

Forthworth Inc - This article has significant coverage on him.

Travel Talk - Long article on him and his family

Hawkins Crawford - Article about his wedding and has a bio about him and his wife.

Forthworth Business - A good long paragraph of bio on him

tulane.edu - Article about his Tedx Talk. It is short, but the fact that he did a Ted talk should help with notability.

Book: In the Warlords' Shadow - This book contains a few paragraphs of info on him.

Voyage Dallas: This is an interview, but there is 3 paragraphs of intro about him that is not an interview, hence it should count towards notability.

texas.gov - A long paragraph of bio on him

Peace Corps Connect - Click on his image and you will see a long bio on him.

Based on all the above, significant coverage exists and he meets notability guidelines. Lionsonny (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionsonny None of these sources is valid for establishing notability:

Fort Worth Inc is a WP:TRADES magazine, and only lengthy, in-depth features (not short news items like this one) from trade publications can be used to establish notability.
The "Travel Talk" article appears to be from a magazine called "University Park Life," which appears to be a real estate promotional product. (See example: https://issuu.com/daveperry-millerrealestate/docs/hea_carla_uplife_for_issuu). Furthermore, the PDF is hosted on the subject's own website! There is no way this can meet the standard of reliable and independent.
The wedding announcement can be used to verify facts but not to establish notability, since wedding announcements are generally supplied or based on data supplied by the couple and thus not independent.
Fort Worth Business - same trade publication issue noted above.
Tulane - source is not independent as it is his alma mater, plus it is a brief mention, not WP:SIGCOV
The book I cannot view, but if it's only a few paragraphs in a full book, that's unlikely to be considered significant coverage.
Voyage Dallas is an WP:INTERVIEW and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and ineligible to count toward notability.
Texas.gov is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus a primary source.
The Peace Corps site is a short official bio, not a long one, but either way not an independent or secondary source.

As I said when nominating, this is a WP:REFBOMB trying to create an illusion of notability through sheer volume of sources, but as I show here, none of them passes the bar of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with Delete - due to lack of independent sources. The book has two nice paragraphs about him, but that is not enough to establish notability. The remainder are mainly local fluff pieces. The TedX talk does not establish notability - there have been hundreds/thousands of them and "TedX" is now a franchise. I find short bios that cannot be determined to be independent and a bunch of name checks. Although there are sources that state facts that are in the article, either they are not independent or are not sufficiently reliable. This person has done some interesting things so if a few reliable sources write significant and independent works about him, he could have a presence here. Lamona (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations above by Lionsonny, this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In particular, Forthworth Inc, Forthworth Business, Book: In the Warlords' Shadow, Peace Corps Connect and Voyage Dallas have good amount of coverage on him. Hkkingg (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The references presented by Lionsonny for GNG purposes have been disputed by two editors, and endorsed by another. Relisting for further analysis of these sources by other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Shandermani[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NPROF, and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t read Farsi but he may be a GNG pass. A Google books search brings up his name in multiple publications though I can’t judge which are in-depth or independent. Mccapra (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra Yes, these are things I did as WP:BEFORE, they're mostly not about him directly but about events he's involved in or something of that nature. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Korniychuk[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE fail WP:SIRS. BEFORE found name mentions and government statements they released, nothing meet WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent reliable sources.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	1. "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	2. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the position of the head of the Pervomayska district state administration of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	3. ^ "About the appointment of A. Korniychuk as the Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Government annoucement, fails WP:SIRS, does not provide indepth coverage needed for SIGCOV	4. ^ "On the dismissal of A. Korniychuk from the post of Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea" . Official website of the Parliament of Ukraine (in Ukrainian) . Retrieved 2024-05-07 .
Appears to be the blog of a Russian nationalist and fiction writer. Fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	6. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
Same as above	7. ^ "Anatoliy Korniychuk". web.archive.org. 2017-08-10. Retrieved 2024-05-07.

// Timothy :: talk 04:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject would pass WP:NPOL as a member of the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, but this needs a source. Curbon7 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the archived source here. Ivan Milenin (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close as Draft: Based on the response from the author here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ivan Milenin and poorly sourced BLPs, I request an uninvolved editor close this as Draft to give the author time to work on sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't BLP concerns apply to the drafts too? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Yes BLP still applies to drafts, no it is not anywhere near as rigorous as what mainspace requires. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as I found the source here as he should pass W:NPOL through an archived source. Ivan Milenin (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the above source does name Korniychuk (with the Russian spelling, Корнейчук Анатолий Васильевич, not currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article) and thus meets WP:NPOL, although coverage in sources is nevertheless lacking. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni[edit]

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

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.

And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?

I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.

Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite, Jr.[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NBASIC, and tagged since February 2024 for notability, missing multiple independent sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician, and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline. This article should be deleted. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has held national office, as Native American tribes are sovereign per U.S. law. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any citations that go in depth and demonstrate significant press coverage, beyond a mere mention of his name? In order to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. ~~Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe.~~ TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian

Law Library of the Native American Rights Fund have copies of these docs. Here is an example showing Horace was Vice Chairman in 1974. https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/constitution/tunica-biloxie/index.html AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite Jr held multiple offices within the Tunica Biloxi Tribal Government. He is also one of the four signers of their original legal documents filed with the State of Louisiana. The Tunica Tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law and treaty. I have no idea why PigeonChickenFish is trying to deny or diminish this Native American's contribution to his tribe and his nation. I have noticed a pattern with PigeonChickenFish regarding multiple Native Americans and their tribes in Louisiana. You can review PigeonChickenFish changes to those articles. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AvoyellesCajun please no personal attacks, see WP:CIV. Also an AfD is not a denial of an entire Native American tribe, the issue here was notability. Lots of claims are made in the article with no sources or poor sources. When I tried to find the missing sources, I found none. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you extensively edited the article today, I am not seeing reliable sources still. Is anyone able to find more? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to state 13 citations to include those from newspapers, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US government to include the Bureau of Indian Affairs are reliable?

Please explain how these are not valid sources per Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia accepts all of these as valid sources.

If you continue to violate wikipedia policies, I will file a complaint. You have not presented a single source or valid argument in accordance with the policies for removing this article. 47.189.34.40 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It has 13 citations to include newspapers, news stations, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is the overseeing federal agency for Native American Tribes. All of the citations are reliable, verifiable, and meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The editor responsible for recommending this article be deleted, PigeonChickenFish has failed to provide any argument, source, citation, etc to delete the page.

Arguments without a valid reason with a verifiable source is not allowed.

Since there has not been a single counter citation or reason to delete the article of this Native American leader and politician, the discussion should be ended and the article remain. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. PigeonChickenFish, why are you stating that newspapers, state records, and the records from the US Bureau of Indian Affair are not independent. What is independent to you? Wikipedia views those sources are independent. Geez. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn’t meet WP:NBASIC, which is still required. A passing mention does not amount to notability. Stop attacking me, this is not personal. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He can and should be mentioned on the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana's article but every member of every tribal council doesn't merit an article unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG. Most citations only mention his name in passing, including in his wife's obituary. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.

Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.

Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:

AFP (February 19, 2021)
Arab News (April 4, 2021)
NYT (February 26, 2021)
Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
Business Today (March 2, 2021)
The Print (February 13, 2021)
CBC (April 4, 2021)
Forbes (May 7, 2021)
New Yorker (June 14, 2021)

Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, largely per SportingFlyer's additional comment at 06:56 8 May in response to Mottezen (immediately above). SF's comment addresses the prior AfD result in context of when it was resolved, and is correct in their assessment of our current standards regarding unsuccessful candidates for political office as I have seen at DRV over the years. Agree not notable and this falls in the 1E category. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politician proposed deletions[edit]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

Open discussions[edit]

Recently-closed discussions[edit]

Templates[edit]

Redirects[edit]

LGBT rights in Zealand → LGBT rights in Denmark (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Zealand not mentioned in article. Rusalkii (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sort of redirect where one would assume there's some grand complex history that explains how the redirect for "LGBT Rights in Zealand" got redirected to a page about a different nation on the other side of the planet. Nnnnnope. It was just... created that way, and the target page at the time had zero mention of--

wait

this isn't New Zealand

Keep Oh OH OKAY THAT MAKES SENSE NOW. Zealand is the name of the large island that makes up about half of the country of Denmark. While it's not directly mentioned in the article itself, it does repeatedly reference Copenhagen, which... is on the island of Zealand.

While it does possibly generate WP:SURPRISE for anyone who decides to abbreviate New Zealand to simply Zealand (which is wrong but hey, until a few minutes ago I didn't know where 'old' Zealand was), a hatnote at the beginning of the current target article would suffice, such as:

This is about LGBT rights in Denmark, the country that incorporates the island of Zealand. For LGBT rights in New Zealand, see LGBT rights in New Zealand.

~~...which... huh. That's a red link. ...Could drive someone to make the article in question I suppose?~~ Fixed link at 04:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirects are cheap. Denmark is not a federal country, so there's no reason to assume that LGBT rights in Zealand differ from the rest of Denmark. I like Lunamann's suggestion for a hatnote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and if we go for a hatnote, should we also consider Zeeland in the Netherlands (historically also spelled Zealand, and the namesake of New Zealand) as a possibility? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given it's only one letter off from "Zealand", and we're already adding a hatnote mention for something that's an entire word off ("New Zealand"), I would say that adding a For LGBT rights in Zeeland, see LGBT rights in the Netherlands. to the end of the hatnote, after "For {blank} see {blank}" for New Zealand, would be warranted. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Denmark. Nickps (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]