Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Restarting a deletion discussion for this article, will aim to detail in a reply Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Organizations, Politics, and Iraq. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this article for deletion back in March of this year. Following a larger search for sources, I only found five worth noting:

Constitution of the party
Iraq Country Assessment by the UK, on page 66
Leftist Parties of Iraq (now dead website), mentions year of establishment, founder, and ideology
Europa World Year, mentions opposition to Kurdish region
Journal article by Vahram Petrosian, on page 25

Even within these sources, the subject is only given small mentions that are one or a few sentences in length. A commenter on the previous AfD mentioned that there would've been print media discussions of the party, though I couldn't find any such sources archived (even by searching the name of the party in Arabic, no results come up). Having not found more than these five sources with more or similar discussion, it's safe to assume that the articles fails Wikipedia:SIGCOV beyond trivial mentions and, although noting that reliable sources exist mentioning the party, that WP:ORGSIG applies as other similar parties exist that advocate for the same things. I argue for deletion based on these merits. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was the party of Saddam Hussein, who was executed in 2006. Nothing found that indicates this party still exists. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability is not temporary. Just because it is no longer exists does not itself mean it isn't notable. Curbon7 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sung Kwan Lee

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, coverage is also not directly about them grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Social science, and Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme leader

AfDs for this article:

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

The scope of the article is too vague for this to be sustainable. If "supreme leader" is the *specific* title that is "supreme leader" in English, we only have three contemporary claimants: the leaders of North Korea, Afghanistan, and Iran. They share little in common except for a specific linguistic coincidence. If "supreme leader" is a descriptive title, then we can fold this page into autocracy and not conduct WP:OR by trying to analyze what titles are "close" to being supreme leader. Bremps... 18:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was also nominated before, so I'll address that specifically. While the proposed criteria was "widely described as a supreme leader", due to differences in language, we might be grouping different types of leaders together under what happens to translate into the same thing ("supreme leader") in English. Bremps... 18:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inclusion in this list seems to be based on nothing but WP:OR regarding an English-language translation of individuals titles, if even that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Autocrat or move to List of Autocrats if the existence of that sort of list article can be justified. Agree that inclusion criteria are too vague and prone to WP:OR. -- LWG ^talk 18:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to suggest that a List of Autocrats article would be a very bad idea. Who is or isn't an autocrat largely comes down to opinion, for anything but a few historic cases (if that). We'd probably end up with a 'list of people described as 'autocratic in a single source', accompanied by endless disputes over whether a particular individual should be included. Wikipedia shouldn't present opinion as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bremps... 19:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Autocrat per LWG EricXXue (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cfls (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling on the Lee Jae-myung presidency

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

I cannot see that this is a notable enough topic for a standalone article, altho there may be some content worth merging TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lee Jae-myung entry--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2028 South Korean legislative election. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like Opinion polling on the second Donald Trump administration, Opinion polling on the Emmanuel Macron presidency, 2024–2025 opinion polling on the Joe Biden administration, etc... --Direct700 (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student Assembly Against Racism

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

Unreferenced for 20 years and no hits in google news. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of these - Two IP articles involved, both created from the University of Livepool. This one is un-sourced, created by an IP in 2004, has only one sentence. You might also Delete National Assembly Against Racism from 2005. It was also created by an IP. Appears to be the same thing. — Maile (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass (pressure group)

AfDs for this article:

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

1 unverifiable source provided in 18 years of article existence. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searching found nothing relating to a British political group to support this article. this IMDb link to a summary of the documentary (which was from 1986 not 5) shows that it did exist but I don't think it is notable. Moritoriko (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any media coverage, other than the programme listing on BBC Genome. p166 of Critical Mass: Bicycling's Defiant Celebration (search for "Ramsgate") has non-independent recollections from two people associated with the group: Ramsgate Critical Massers [...] were enthusiastic campaigners for environmental and social issues, and soon became well known in the East Kent area, even appearing on the local TV news. [... Aubi Fadra] was the secretary of the Ramsgate Flat Earth Society and Critical Mass from 1983/7. But searching for those names didn't find anything more. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland County recount

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

This article is based on misinformation that's trending on social media; it relies on a bunch of sketchy sources published in the past few days that uncritically repeat false claims of election fraud. (The "zero votes" thing is a result of Orthodox Jewish bloc voting. [1]) I could find one okay source, which is Snopes examining the claims [2], but one source is not enough to justify an article, especially since Snopes devotes a lot of coverage to ongoing viral claims that have no enduring notability. It might be possible to keep the article if more good sources emerge that properly characterize the lawsuit and/or the social media trend, but it would still need WP:TNT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, per nom. Even if the sources were reliable, the topic does not merit its own article. Maybe a small subsection under the 2024 elections page, if anything. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article seems to have been created to advocate for a conspiracy theory("As a result of this irregularity", framing of significance of discovering proceeding) and even if that conspiracy theory were true(which nothing seems to suggest) it would likely not warrant it's own page. Originalcola (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A judge has examined the evidence and concluded that the investigation should move forward. To delete this would suggest the so called conspiracy is most likely true, so do not delete article! How many suits and recounts did Trump get in 2016? Why would he be worried about this one? 2600:1700:EE56:1190:ACE1:3A77:2387:86A7 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite misleading to state that a judge has concluded that discovery should move forward as proof of the legitimacy of the claims made or to claim it as endorsing an investigation. At the time of writing it doesn't seem that there even is any publicly available evidence to suggest that discovery is occurring.^[1] I'm not sure how deleting this article would suggest the claims made are true, and articles can still delete even if they are factually accurate if the subject isn't notable(this is literally just a recount of a few hundred votes that hasn't received much coverage for reliable sources and will not change the results for that county). I'm not sure what your point is about 2016 but there is only one recount page for that presidential race. Even statewide recounts for that election don't have their own pages, let alone county. Originalcola (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not X nor Bluesky nor Threads and the sourcing is a grab-bag of every deprecated source available: Newsweek, NewsWire, Indian media, local newspapers from another state, you name it. The only reliable source is Snopes, and it's still investigating the matter. The standard for New York law to allow discovery is extremely low; it's almost meaningless. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rockland County is not conducting, or preparing to conduct, or has appeared to even publicly consider conducting, a recount. The article framing only legitimizes the validity of the plaintiff's desired outcome from the lawsuit, while promoting the lawsuit itself. Wikipedia is not an advertising or PR firm. CryptoStorm (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Bearian hit the nail on the head here, and I would suggest that the original author read WP:TRUMPRS and WP:RSP. There is minimal sourcing to even suggest a mention in a section on the 2024 election page. Lawsuits on serious issues do not automatically confer notability, only when the subject has garnered significant coverage from reliable sources—clearly not present here—and when the subject has an impact; even if Musk had, by some novel attack vector, altered votes of hundreds of Orthodox Jews in Ramapo, Kamala Harris still would have won New York. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rogat Loeb

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

Article only contains 1 source and makes lots of uncited claims. Not finding coverage to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated to the wikipedia editor who originally asked some questions on the site, it was created by a fan. I then added some updates, for instance It said I was writing regularly for Huffington Post. They published maybe 100 articles, but I'm not currently writing so I changed it to past tense. Part of the challenges is that I left writing for 12 years to run two nonprofits I founded where I wasn't able to write political pieces without making them politically vulnerable. So there are a ton of articles about me if you search "Paul Rogat Loeb" in Google or another search engine. But not all of them have the updated information because most are before 2012. So I could go through various statements in the wikisource and add links, but it would be time consuming. And there aren't public numbers on say how many copies I've sold, though there are probably articles among those for instance covering my lectures, that mention how many were sold at that time the articles were written.

So that's why I linked to the website.

Can you suggest how best to proceed without spending endless hours, like searching every publication and creating a separate link? I really value Wikipedia and would like to have that listing remain.

Thanks Paul Rogat Loeb PaulLoeb (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did some edits and added a dozen sources and can add more later. As mentioned I took a break from public writing to run two nonprofits where I couldn't write, so most of the articles on my are older. But if you do a search a ton will come up and I can add a few more PaulLoeb (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ali Karim

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

Pundit whose article is primarily sourced to pieces written by themself, and is really only known for WP:ONEEVENT – the controversial filing a report for sedition against the Chief Minister Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 13:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT and the subject is the author of several of the sources cited - that makes the sources more of primary sources than independent secondary sources. Patre23 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's 22 years old. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Self written articles can't be considered for establishing notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America Party

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

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper to report everything that happens with Musk and Trump. Wait until he actually takes steps to create anything. Anyone can say they want to create a new party. And besides, he's already expressed "regret" over his criticisms of Trump. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no SIGCOV and no actual entity that exists yet. We are not here to document every tweet of these people. --hroest 20:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ephemeral trivia. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps see if this info fits well in the article about Musk, although if there are no further developments, then it is probably trivial. Ike9898 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another pipe dream from someone with a lot of things that remain exactly that. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Tennessee's 7th congressional district special election

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

WP:CRYSTAL BALL & WP:TOO SOON: Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 New York's 21st congressional district special election, it was stated that we shouldn't be creating full articles for special elections in which the current representative's resignation is contingent on a future event taking place. We do not know when Rep. Green will retire or if the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will pass at all. We don't even know if the special election would take place in 2025. What happens if the bill doesn't pass? There's too much speculation into the creation of this article. I'm just not sure where we'd move the information about declared candidates. I also believe that we should make this type of prohibition a formal policy, if this deletion takes place. AG202 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tennessee. AG202 (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or keep

It is stated that Green will retire very soon, and there are already declared candidates. I think we should keep or draftify the article until he actually resigns, then put the article back up afterwards. GatewayPolitics (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree with the nom, but it seems useful to keep as a draft to continue improving until Green officially resigns. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per GatewayPolitics. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support draftifying FWIW. AG202 (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep draft per everyone above. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per GatewayPolitics & others. Agree with nom. that the subject fails WP:CRYSTAL BALL & WP:TOO SOON. Sal2100 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify has become the consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per above. Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 23:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom.

nf utvol (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Oregon Commissioner of Labor election

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in November 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to 2026 Oregon elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, United States of America, and Oregon. QEnigma (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon with no declared candidate. I oppose redirecting to encourage article creation when time comes Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:TOOSOON, zero WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through the resources listed here, I understand the justification for deleting this article. As the article's author, I support its removal. Thank you! Yompi20 (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAHA Commission

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

It's unclear how this commission is independently notable of the main subject, that being the Make America Healthy Again campaign. This article barely gives any information about the commission, other than its establishment and a report published by it. The establishment of the commission isn't even mentioned on the main MAHA article, so it can be argued that this article existing as a separate (short stub-length) entity is detracting information from readers who want to learn about the subject. None of the cited sources provide significant coverage of the commission itself, aside from wider coverage of the MAHA campaign.

As the notability of an organisation is not inherited from the main subject, I think this article should be deleted and its relevant contents merged into the main article on the MAHA campaign. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MAHA report in either direction. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Make America Healthy Again per nom, page is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. MAHA report should probably be merged as well. मल्ल (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the report should probably be merged into the main article too. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Make America Healthy Again, not really enough notability on its own. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unparty: The Consensus-Building Party

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

Delete per WP:ORG: minor political party that ran in one election (in 2013) and garnered less than 0.01% of the vote. No significant coverage in reliable sources; coverage in general is limited to routine electoral coverage by local news outlets where their two candidates ran in 2013. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 British Columbia general election as an ATD. Fails WP:ORG. मल्ल (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NPOL. It ran in a single election and won nothing. There is not much media coverage of this party to meet notability threshold. Patre23 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, no indication of notability and no in depth coverage. --hroest 18:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Concept

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

Delete or merge / redirect to Western alienation, per WP:ORG. Minor, fringe political party that ran in a few elections and by-elections, garnering less than 1% each time. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources available online, or in BC provincial archives that I could find. Perhaps it warrants a mention at Western alienation if reliable source(s) are found, but the topic has not had sources to demonstrate standalone notability in over two decades. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Western Canada Concept no longer has a presence of any significance in Canadian politics (thankfully), but it attracted a significant amount of media coverage in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it's been given non-trivial mention in several published works on Canadian politics. (A search for the phrase "Western Canada Concept" on the Internet Archive's "Search Text Contents" function yields 632 text sources. Even accounting for some duplication, that's a credible amount.)
Many organizations that were notable in the pre-internet age don't have much of an online presence now; this is one of them. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should mention that the Western Canada Concept actually won a seat in the Alberta provincial legislature in a 1982 by-election. (For context, see Olds-Didsbury and Gordon Kesler.) It's not correct to say they "garnered less than 1% each time." CJCurrie (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with CJCurrie, there is significant coverage. Actually a decent amount of coverage online too, from what I can see. I've added a few sources, one of which would count for notability. Alongside the sources on archive.com identified above, there are also 2069 hits for "Western Canada Concept" on NewspaperARCHIVE.com and 13 on JSTOR.//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party did elect an Alberta MLA in a byelection, so it was definitely mainstream for a year or so before becoming a fringe movement again. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They did elect a candidate and had significant coverage with over 2000 newspaper articles mentioning them, so this seems clearly notable. --hroest 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Third-place finish in the 1982 Alberta election. In addition, "Western Canada Concept" is vague enough that a reader might want more insight. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This meets WP:GNG. As previously stated, placed third in the 1982 Alberta election and was not fringe at that time. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Soviets from Albania

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

An obvious WP:CFORK of Albanian–Soviet split combined with parts of Vlora incident, which was created by the same sockpuppet account and which itself is a CFORKy take on Albanian–Soviet split. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is indeed a significant overlap. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's rationale. I don't think a redirect is necessary either given the terminology does not see common usage. Yue🌙 19:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council election

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Events-related deletion discussions, Politics, and England. QEnigma (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. The Walsall Council page clearly states that this election is due to take place in 2026. "The next local election will take place on 7 May 2026. It will be an "all-out" election, meaning every council seat can be contested." - Upcoming elections and legal notices | Walsall Council Owen J Webster (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03:This is a primary source. While primary sources may be used to verify certain content, maintaining an article requires the support of secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. At present, no such sources are available. That is why this article should either be deleted or redirected, as stated above. QEnigma (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention of the 2026 local election in the following source: https://www.expressandstar.com/news/politics/2025/06/02/walsall-councillors-bold-proposal-to-reform-local-election-system/. As referenced in the article. Owen J Webster (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03: Please refer to the criteria listed in WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT and also to WP:ROUTINE. QEnigma (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is what more evidence do you need other than the official council site stating that elections are going ahead. Owen J Webster (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@O17A03: Reliable and independent sources on declared candidates, actual coverage of the upcoming election other than for a single primary source, etc. QEnigma (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. No coverage of the actual election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage for the 2026 local election, but the '2026 United Kingdom local elections' wiki page is active. Walsall Council have already mentioned this on their 'upcoming elections' page. Upcoming elections and legal notices | Walsall Council Owen J Webster (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 14147

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

I am utterly baffled as to why this Trumpcruft needs its own article. It has barely anything to it. It doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, even from the time of its signing and publication, and it certainly does not have any enduring notability. We already have a very lengthy list of executive orders. We do not need a wee stub for every single one, no matter how insignificant (and this one is so clearly insignificant). Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump Only because it's the first one signed. Nathannah • 📮 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as an ATD. This is clearly non-notable Trumpcruft with no notable sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donald Trump's memecoin dinner

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

Another excellent example of Trumpcruft we have here. An article about a dinner.... Half of this article isn't even about the dinner, and instead provides context about Trump's memecoin or pithy reactions from the US opposition and comedians. Almost all of the sources are from around the day of the event, with little to nothing since then. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was clearly not a significant event with enduring notability. The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Politics, Business, Economics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Christ, yes: not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. I don't see why this is notable. — Czello ^(music) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an entire article and the topic can be mentioned at $Trump as suggested. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to $Trump per reasons above. Half the article is just giving general background on the memecoin and is not actually about the dinner; the event itself was not very notable. The information about the dinner should be in a section in the memecoin's article and not its own article per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 2601:402:680:1270:C174:D122:219:19D7 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to $Trump per 2601; this is more background on the coin than about what was not an official state event. Nathannah • 📮 02:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to $Trump: Per the nominator, The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Outside the lede and the 'Trump cryptocurrencies' sub-section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be moved to $Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - without context, it's just a meal; with context, It's number 35. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump per Super Goku V. KnowDeath (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump seems best. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

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

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Security Council Deputies Committee

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

Redirect to United_States_National_Security_Council#Deputies_Committee, where it's already covered. WP:REDUNDANT Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merav Ceren

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL. The United States National Security Council employs almost 400 staffers, including numerous directors at Ceren's level. Many NSC staffers, including her former boss Eric Trager, a senior director, who has far more significant policy impact, don't even have an article. Coverage of Ceren is primarily due to a short-lived media controversy, not for enduring or substantive contributions to public policy. Routine job appointments or involvement in transient news cycles do not establish lasting encyclopedic notability, especially for a director who was in the job for 2 months. If anything, a case of WP:BLP1E for the controversy around her appointment. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Good point about Trager, perhaps you could help develop that page. I think you under estimate Merav's contribution to public policy.Leutha (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trager now has an article. He's notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Still no policy-based argument for Ceren. Longhornsg (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very briefly held a mid-level position and there was a debate around that. Not right to build an article from there. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Ealing London Borough Council election

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. This election is scheduled to take place in May 2026. At present, no reliable and independent sources are available regarding the event and possible candidates. The article may be recreated once sufficient verifiable information becomes available. If not deleted, the article could be redirected to Ealing London Borough Council elections for the time being. QEnigma (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. QEnigma (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ealing London Borough Council elections for now. User:Moondragon21 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps it was a bit early, but it feels a bit of a waste of energy and work to delete it. Perhaps Redirect Kepleo123 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election is happening within the next year; article is well-written with information currently available. It wouldn't benefit Wikipedia in any way to remove the existing content only to reinstate it in a few months' time. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: No reliable, independent sources have been cited. The election may take place next year but it is still WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL if no secondary sources are available. QEnigma (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has five citations.

This sort of thing happens all the time for upcoming elections– someone writes an article on the election in question, someone else tries to get the article deleted, the attempt fails. It ~ould be a far more productive use of time to develop this article and similar articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: With regards to your comment on a well written article, it appears that most of the content including some of the references have been copied from 2022 Ealing London Borough Council election but no attribution given. Please note Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). QEnigma (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has done so already, I have now added this attribution to the talk page. Thanks for pointing it out! Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic in First Place!

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

Fails relevant guidelines including WP:ORG. Most of the article isn't even about the political party. The sources which do relate to the party, do not provide in-depth and independent coverage of it. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- There are plenty of sources, but maybe it's true that the party itself isn't the notable topic here. Possible move to Ladislav Vrabel? (Currently a redirect to this article). Jdcooper (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Jdcooper that the sources are sufficient, and they could be expanded as well. The party is currently active and plans to run in the October election as well.

At max, it would be feasible to merge this article with Czech Republic First!, but I don't think that's needed. Kroulacek (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian American Movement and Black Power

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

Term paper redundant with Asian American movement and Black power movement. Gjs238 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing revisions with assistance

Hi all, I'm the librarian supporting the students editing this page, and have consulted with them to make additional edits. Additional feedback will of course be appreciated! AnitaConchita (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that this is an article copy of Draft:AAPA and Black Power (previously draftified after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAPA and Black Power). It looks like a few students were working on it this past semester and then copy-pasted it here, so if the article is kept, that draft should be redirected here and the attribution fixed. My read of the article is that it's mostly stitching together sections that would be better covered as subtopics in the corresponding articles (in particular, the amount of detail about Yuri Kochiyama kind of turns her into a metonym for an entire social movement). My recommendation would be to delete this copy and merge relevant info from the draft into Yuri Kochiyama, Asian American Political Alliance, and maybe George Floyd protests or Killing of Akai Gurley. @AnitaConchita If you're continuing work with the students still, I'd encourage exploring how this info can be incorporated there. hinnk (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd suggested some of these possible routes, and will share this feedback with the students. Appreciate the thoughtful notes, @Hinnk! AnitaConchita (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lyakhov

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

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Town (Colchester ward)

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

I do not believe that it has ever been the intention of Wikipedia to raise to article levels minor electoral areas in local government as such. Obviously a ward may encompass an area such as a village that is relevant in and of itself, but in this case, it is simply a collation of electoral results, which is by no means significant coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with clear precedent. There are thousands of electoral constituency articles on Wikipedia of all types and AFDs have routinely return Keep results. This article is well written and sourced. MRSC (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For national election constituencies, that is true. But this is only for electing local government. Such wards do not see news articles speculating about who might win, or possible candidates. Those elected are unlikely to ever generate GNG coverage such as would lead to them getting an article. It is a very different scale than a constituency for national government.

If this is to be retained, does that mean that we ought to have a goal of creating articles for all 8,694 such wards in th UK? Not to mention equivalents worldwide. Kevin McE (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to City of Colchester. Local city ward lacks notability and fails GNG. There is no precedent or basis for any suggestion that constituencies are automatically notable, particularly at the local level with only a few thousand voters. Most of the other thousands of articles are at the national or regional level and are substantially larger entities (and many of them should also be deleted or merged). The suggestion that the article is well-sourced is simply laughable, the only sources are simple election results data for the council, nothing remotely resembling significant coverage. We are not a database for every minor election result without context. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Colchester; it's just a local ward. No inherent notability and no SIGCOV. The electoral records can be linked form the main page. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be merged? Are you proposing that the article for the city should have every result of every ward election since the area became a local authority? Or that this one ward somehow gets exceptional treatment? Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the prose (about five lines), and link the tables of results. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but why would the City of Colchester article be improved by having some trivial data about a former ward, while a couple of dozen other former and current wards do not have the same details given? Or why the results of this one (former) ward should be preserved and reported while those of the others are not? Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be crying into my beer if this article is deleted, but WP:ATD states that "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page" and WP:ATD-M that "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles". So my reply is based on the deletion policy.

Speaking of which: per below, instructions for multiple-article AfDs are at WP:BUNDLE. Hope this helps. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By no means intended as an attack on you, but I think it is a huge flaw of the deletion system that an instruction gets sent to a talk page telling editors there that material from another article is to be incorporated into it, with no consideration of whether it is appropriate or proportionate, often when there has been no awareness on the part of the editors committed to the target page that such a thing is under discussion. It comes across (again, by no means intending this as personal to you) as an extraordinary systemic arrogance that one part of Wikipedia tells another what it must do with no consultation at all.

But that is a bigger issue than the article at hand.

Thanks to the signposting to WP:Bundle, but that doesn't seem to deal with later additions to an AfD, so I'll see what happens here, then propose it if there is (what seems to me) a suitable outcome here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the method is for turning a simple AfD into a multiple article AfD, but anything that can be said about this article seems likely equally true of Castle (Colchester ward). And if both of those are deleted, I would suggest that Template:Electoral wards in the City of Colchester, being then is void, should equally be removed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Ballot Group

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

Bit of a tricky one I think, given that it gets mentioned all the time, e.g., for their failed Georgia bid and it's considered a major vendor in the industry (see Axios, Engadget), but most of the more in-depth sources are the sort of WP:TRADESy sources that we would not typically consider to meet WP:ORGCRIT, for example InformationWeek / Dark Reading and Xconomy.

There are a couple of scholarly sources mentioning the company also, for example, Bernhard et al. (2019) and his later PhD thesis, Bernhard (2020), but I don't think it quite meets the criteria for depth of coverage. The best news source I found would probably be Washington Monthly, but again I don't think it quite meets the "directly and in-detail" threshold that we would need to write an article from it.

It would be a bit of a shame to have absolutely nothing on the company, but there are a few places where it is mentioned, so I figure I'd propose it as a redirect to Election audit § Ballot scans for 100% audits (given they're best known for their auditing software), or one of the other places where Numbersinstitute has added a mention. Any alternate proposals would also be appreciated! Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Companies, Technology, and Massachusetts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with a redirect. kencf0618 (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [3][4][5][6]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I observe considerable significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of an organization as mentioned in WP:NORG. CresiaBilli (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cordelia Scaife May. Reference #1 is a tax form; References #7-9 are foundation's website promoting its philanthropy; References #3, 16 do not mention the subject; References #13, 15 are blogs; References #4, 6, 10-12, 14, 17 are city newspapers on sponsorships and greenwashing. These types of references are aforementioned above. A search for non-local articles that significantly cover the foundation turned up The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Philanthropy News Digest and Inside Philanthropy (The latter is a paragraph in a broader story about CIS and the former two are WP:SPIP.

References #2 and 5 are extensive profiles of the foundation's founder and what happened when she croaked, which is also the majority of her Wikipedia where a merge+expansion is warranted. Notability in not inherited per nominator. Astapor12 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #6 is the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a city newspaper. Reference #13 is not a blog. Reference #10 is definitely about more than just sponsorships and greenwashing. That source is a 1,400 word story about the organization covering its history and impact (and only 2 paragraphs are about Cordelia May). Finally, I don't see how the profile in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is self-promotion. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a print magazine with actual writers. I don't think a paid promotional piece would mention that May "funded a group that promotes chemical sterilization of women around the world." Nosferattus (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly good coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other media. --Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added some new material and sources to the article, mostly about Colcom's grant funding and related impact and controversies. Nosferattus (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is only one RS, that that is insufficient to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do my search in google and didn't find references which contain significant coverage about the topic and in mentioned references too. Hence, it fails to show WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies of India

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is an ongoing global Wikipedia effort that encompasses the wives of global vice presidents (and other terms). Please see Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the United States, Category:Spouses of vice presidents by country — Maile (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that Commons:Category:Spouses of the Vice President by country has images for these spouses. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The premise is flawed. You are operating under the premise that "second lady" (mostly an American-centric term) means the same as vice president spouse. My objection is that the article is largely fiction because there is not a widely documented role of "Uparashtrapati Bhavan hostess" Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The comparison between the (Category:Second ladies and gentlemen of the United States) page or category is not appropriate. According to Wikipedia's guidelines, such a page seems justified, but it requires reliable sources for support. The sources available for this page do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, so the page does not fully comply with this guideline. For example, the wife of the U.S. Vice President receives significant news coverage and publicity in India[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], whereas in India, the wife of the Vice President does not receive similar publicity or news coverage. If there is any coverage, it typically mentions them in connection with their husband. If you believe I am mistaken, please provide 4-5 sources that confirm news coverage specifically for the wife of India's Vice President.-SachinSwami (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - US-centric fictional term. Lijil (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Geez, I don't know and don't think I can !vote one way or the other until digging into the sourcing beyond what we are seeing here, but this is a tough call. On the one hand, the present sources don't seem to provide the focused, subject-oriented coverage we'd normally want to see to support GNG. On the other hand, I just have a hard time believing that we couldn't hit that threshold--not withstanding SachinSwami's observations, which I do consider valuable insight. It's just that we don't necessarily need 4-5 such sources containing detailed coverage. 2-3 and a smattering of other indirect references will probably get this past an initial AfD. It does remain to be demonstrated that this threshold can be met. But I'd be kind of shocked if it couldn't honestly, given the size of India's media market and the footprints of its national political leaders? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as what SachinSwami said the spouse of the vice president of India barely receive any coverage than say the US Second Lady Usha Vance, probably due to her heritage. I might give a nudge that this deletion nomination is for the supposed role of Second Lady of India, not the "vice president's wife". Because the US Second Lady is an actual role with its own proper documentation that is the differentiating factor here. Excluding sources which merely says "woman was Vice President's wife", this article has literal zero sources. The term "second lady" (not as a merely as a substitute term for vice president's wife) does not even get mentioned. Doesn't mean that the United States have a second lady, we got to force one on other countries. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no tradition in India of referring to "First Ladies of India" or "Second Ladies of India." No major Indian newspaper or news channel uses these terms in their reporting. At most, one or two sources might mention "First Ladies of India," but these are insufficient to support such claims, even on Wikipedia. However, if any sources explicitly use "Second Ladies of India," please provide them. Typically, sources refer to the wife of the President or Vice President as such, and only in contexts where they accompany the President or Vice President at official, political, or private events. SachinSwami (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that is the thing. First ladies and gentlemen of India have at least the Indian Express and Mint mentioning the concept of a "First Lady of India". Second lady there is none at all.

So if even if the First Lady counterpart is rarely used or noted consistently by the Indian median then the First lady article should be instead "spouses of the president of India" (not deleted since spouses of world leaders do receive significant coverage, but that's a conversation for another day). Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those things have anything to do with it being a database or not. WP:NOTDATABASE discourages indiscriminate lists with no context, that's that this article is. Orange sticker (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing the veracity of the information but whether this indiscriminate list is encyclopaedic content. To those saying it is useful information, yes, that's why [whocanivotefor.co.uk] went to the trouble of compiling, creating and hosting this list. Wikipedia is not a carbon copy archive of every useful fact on the internet. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a directory, either - it's a list. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it's useful and encylopeidc. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is very useful and if something like this is precluded there should be change in policy. I don't see how it is substantially different from 1982 United States House of Representatives election. I don't know enough about WP:DIRECTORY to have an educated vote here. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1982 United States House of Representatives election doesn't exist, so I'm unclear what point is being made here? Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole source of this table has a copyright notice saying it is owned by the Democracy Club Community Interest Company, who sell the data they compile commercially. [22] Should this be brought to WP:CPN? Orange sticker (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The website's design and prose is copyrighted. A publicly available list of names that they took from government sources is not a creative work that can be copyrighted, even if they sell compilations that include it. Reywas92^Talk 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no notability in simply standing for election. As this event has passed, we only need a list of the winners of the election. We aren't an election wiki, listing each and every person that ever ran for an election at any point in time, anywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another Wikimedia wiki like Wikidata. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valuable list of information. This page was started after a discussion which involved the splitting of the Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Amy McGrath

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN, Individual lost both of their election races, they do not currently plan to reattempt an election bid, and their military service history is not notable enough to warrant keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opama420 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are already cited in the article): CNN, New York Times, Mother Jones, as a few examples. Liu1126 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. References concerning McGath's military career that demonstrate notability include The Cincinnati Enquirer, Aviation Museum of Kentucky, New York Times, and, most impressively, the book "Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq". Thiesen (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because someone fails WP:NPOL#1 because they weren't elected does not necessarily mean they are not notable. McGrath clearly meets the Christine O'Donnell standard of a well-covered political candidate with coverage beyond simply routine political articles. Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Gradisar

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

Former mayor of a town with a population of ~111k. Looking at a List of mayors of Pueblo, Colorado, the only other one with a Wikipedia page is James Bradley Orman, who later served as Governor of Colorado. I don't think this is an inherently notable position and I don't see how Gradisar rises above any other Pueblo mayor in terms of notability. Also, not that this is relevant to Gradisar's notability as a person, but the article was pretty clearly written by a supporter of Gradisar to promote him. It barely cites any sources and reads like a glowing bio of him you'd find on his personal website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I support deletion for the reasons given by the nominator. I am concerned also that the article provides some completely wrong information. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/Requests: its literally a request on here. Edward of York (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international trips made by Humza Yousaf

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

Fancruft Polygnotus (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Humza Yousaf, there isn't enough there to have a separate article Giuliotf (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Economics, Lists, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this "fancruft" is rather preposterous and not a rationale for deletion. These sorts of lists are common for world leaders nowadays and I would consider a speedy close if you can't bother writing more than one inapplicable word. But I agree with Giuliotf that this is quite short and can be speedily merged to the main article – Premiership of Humza Yousaf#International visits is the obvious place for this. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 So you are saying this is important information that deserves its place in an encyclopedia? Can you explain why? Yousaf went on 4 short trips abroad, nothing of note happened, and he returned safe and sound. I see it as similar to overly detailed descriptions of Pokemon. It would be worth merging if there was something to merge, but there is nothing of substance here. Am I missing something? Was there a diplomatic incident I am unaware of, was he attacked by a rabbit, did he invent Cubism during one of these trips? Polygnotus (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So make that argument upfront, not some meaningless "fancruft." Not sure why you need to make up this random crap about Cubism. Category:Lists of diplomatic trips, Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of state, and Category:Lists of diplomatic visits by heads of government have dozens of these lists, and few of these folks got into diplomatic incidents. So I agree that 4 short trips don't need a standalone article, but yes, this is still certainly encyclopedic information relevant to his premiership and inclusion in that article is more than appropriate. I'm rather baffled by the suggestion that there's nothing of substance here: the Brussels trip is already covered at Premiership of Humza Yousaf#European Union, and working on climate issues and British–Irish collaboration are important actions taken by a premier. — Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 British–Irish? I guess that would be worth reporting on. Yousaf is Scottish. Would it surprise you if I told you that those cats are full of unencyclopedic fancruft?

If nothing out of the ordinary happened during those trips, and he just went there, shook a few hands and had a few conversations (which is his job) and then returned home without any incident, then what is there to report on for an encyclopedia, other than the bland fact that it happened? And we certainly don't need a separate article for what can be described in a sentence or two on the BLP.

If he invented Cubism, got attacked by a rabbit, or got caught on a hot mic calling Kim Jong Il "adorable" which caused a diplomatic incident then at least there would be something to write about and then we could have a stand-alone article about the North Korean declaration of war against Scotland. Polygnotus (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"full of unencyclopedic fancruft" Okay, feel free to nominate them all for deletion. Sorry people think it's relevant to report what our political leaders do for their jobs. Bye! — Reywas92^Talk 20:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is relevant to report what he does for his job, which is why I haven't nominated Humza Yousaf for deletion, but I don't see why we need a separate article about his 4 trips. If he had made 50 trips and there was a lot to say about each one and a lot of media coverage then WP:SPLITTING would be a good idea. I don't think that is the case here. Please see Wikipedia:Splitting#When_to_split. Polygnotus (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I already agreed that a separate article is unnecessary... — Reywas92^Talk 05:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Ji (Ming dynasty politician)

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

Unreferenced article with little verifiability. Not much to expand on and demonstrate sufficient notability against possible deletion. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Go D. Usopp (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His article in zh.wp is more fleshed out, but sourced almost entirely to History of Ming vol. 171 ([23]). Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Andelman

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. My searches on Google came up with only a French article about him receiving an award. The page is heavily edited by the subject of the article. Pxldnky77 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Journalism. Pxldnky77 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Massachusetts, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are so many reasons that autobiography is inevitably bad for a non-profit encyclopedia: it involves original research, the subject wants to censor out the uncomfortable truths about themselves, and it's a breach of our charitable status, as self-dealing, which tax status is already being attacked by the richest man in the World and his once again BFF. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Blair Jr.

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

Nomination: Notability questioned: I've searched for sources and I can't find any. I think a Wikidata page is sufficient. (A page with a list of mayors of Williamsburg might also be created, which would list Blair.) ash (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination, although a redirect to the proposed list is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many mayoral positions in Colonial America were unelected (other than maybe a local council), undesired, or both (ex: It wasn't uncommon for Philadelphia's selected Mayors of the 1700's to prefer to face criminal charges or flee the area than to take office) so there is likely little significant coverage. While I would usually oppose a list of mayors for a city that hasn't ever reached a population of 20,000 people, Williamsburg probably deserves an exception given its historical significance. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Yar Baloch

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

This article should've been deleted alongside Republic of Balochistan and Balochistan Freedom Declaration last month, and for similar reasons. This was redirected to Republic of Balochistan, then to Operation Herof 2.0, then to Insurgency in Balochistan. While it was a redirect, I nominated it at RfD with the same type of reasoning as what was successfully used against Republic of Balochistan, but I got impatient and later withdrew it and decided to restore the article so it could be speedied under criterion A7, but that one was declined because the sources used (News18, The Economic Times, The Times of India, the Hindustan Times, ANI News and Firstpost) constituted a "credible claim of significance" according to one editor. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New coverage of the subject has emerged as recently as yesterday in The Globe and Mail. This figure has recent media coverage that is ongoing, and while cited sources do contain bias, they still constitute fact-based news from credible institutions. Effort needs to be put into improving the state of the page. Ike Lek (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Auburn, Washington

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST due to a lack of coverage as a group by reputable sources. The lone book source listed is self-published, and the other sources concern individual mayors rather than the collective group. Disputed PROD. Sounder Bruce 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington. Sounder Bruce 00:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria are being applied in a perverse manner that is inconsistent with Wikipedia practice. See Lists of mayors by country. Mayors are often notable, but certainly a complete list of the holders of a notable local office can generally be established for any decent sized municipality. Per WP:CSC point 2, if for some reason this isn't kept, it should be merged into Auburn, Washington as several of the other lists of mayors are incorporated into their cities' articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Auburn, Washington. None of the names on the list is notable enough for their own page, so aggregating them into a standalone list article is pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many, many such mayor lists on Wikipedia. Please see Category:Lists of mayors and Category:Lists of mayors of places in the United States - this is just he tip of the mayoral lists on Wikipedia. We don't have the editorial resources to clean up all of these. Go with the flow of what already exists. — Maile (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely misinformed keep rationale. We do have the resources to clean up all of these and we should not just go with the flow because other things exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Auburn, Washington. A verifiable list of mayors could be a valid WP:SPINOFF from a main page about a city (alternatively, a list of mayors could be a collapsable list). There may be some desire to clarify NLIST as it applies to lists of officeholders. --Enos733 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Auburn, Washington#Government as is the usual solution for smaller places where neither the mayoralty nor its officeholders are notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmad Quraishi

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

Non-notable politician. All sources are either YouTube (not WP:RS) or passing mentions (not WP:SIGCOV). The only English source doesn't even mention Quraishi at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Self-published material on YouTube is usually not a reliable source, but a newscast from a television station that is normally considered a reliable source does not stop being reliable just because it is uploaded to YouTube. I have not viewed or analyzed the newscasts cited as references, but I think it is likely that at least some of them are reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 14147

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

I am utterly baffled as to why this Trumpcruft needs its own article. It has barely anything to it. It doesn't have any significant coverage in reliable sources, even from the time of its signing and publication, and it certainly does not have any enduring notability. We already have a very lengthy list of executive orders. We do not need a wee stub for every single one, no matter how insignificant (and this one is so clearly insignificant). Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump Only because it's the first one signed. Nathannah • 📮 02:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as an ATD. This is clearly non-notable Trumpcruft with no notable sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Donald Trump's memecoin dinner

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

Another excellent example of Trumpcruft we have here. An article about a dinner.... Half of this article isn't even about the dinner, and instead provides context about Trump's memecoin or pithy reactions from the US opposition and comedians. Almost all of the sources are from around the day of the event, with little to nothing since then. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was clearly not a significant event with enduring notability. The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Politics, Business, Economics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Christ, yes: not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. I don't see why this is notable. — Czello ^(music) 21:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of an entire article and the topic can be mentioned at $Trump as suggested. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to $Trump per reasons above. Half the article is just giving general background on the memecoin and is not actually about the dinner; the event itself was not very notable. The information about the dinner should be in a section in the memecoin's article and not its own article per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 2601:402:680:1270:C174:D122:219:19D7 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to $Trump per 2601; this is more background on the coin than about what was not an official state event. Nathannah • 📮 02:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to $Trump: Per the nominator, The content worth keeping (if there is any) could easily be merged into the main article about $Trump. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Outside the lede and the 'Trump cryptocurrencies' sub-section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be moved to $Trump. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - without context, it's just a meal; with context, It's number 35. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump per Super Goku V. KnowDeath (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to $Trump seems best. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. (non-admin closure) Thomasfan1916 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei

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

This has to be one of the best examples of Trumpcruft on Wikipedia. This is article is about a single letter, sent a few months ago. I held off nominating this article for deletion when it was first created, but it's been enough time now that I think it's clear it does not have enduring notability by itself; it has not received any extensive coverage since it was sent. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this was not a significant event. Any information worth keeping can easily be merged into the article on the 2025 United States–Iran negotiations (a subject that does have a more clearly enduring notability). Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Literature, Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. No reason this letter needs its own article. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested. No need for a separate article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep only if we have WP:RS, but a merge is more preferable to avoid WP:CFORK happening. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep According to WP:NOMERGE, articles that are merged should not be excessively lengthy. Conversely, if an article has the potential for expansion, it should not be deleted. The article 2025 United States–Iran negotiations is lengthy and has the potential for further development. Also, the article about Trump's letter to Ayatollah Khamenei is quite well-known. It is a letter between two important and well-known people. Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Many years have passed since this article was published.GolsaGolsa (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like the correspondence between Obama and Khamenei. Should this article also be deleted? Probably yes, but don't WP:OTHERSTUFF please. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This letter has no notability independent of the greater scope article. A sentence or two about the letter in 2025 United States–Iran negotiations would suffice. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 United States–Iran negotiations. It was the starting point for the negotiations. If it is merged, and a redirect is created, all original information in this article is saved (through History). If it is deleted, everything is gone. PS Just to be clear, if it is not merged, then Keep! Lova Falk (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This can be covered in 3-4 sentences on the main page. No WP:PAGELENGTH concerns due to the minimal amount of net new content. Longhornsg (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 78.81.123.235 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fail NPOL, as the mayor of a large city in Chile (Viña del Mar). He did so in full capacity following the removal of office of Rodrigo González, who preceded him. Although he was the mayor for only three months, the article could well be expanded using offline sources such as El Mercurio de Valparaíso. --Bedivere (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but 334,248 is not large enough to entitle the mayors to be inherently notable. Let's be consistent with our judgments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put that into perspective then. It's the sixth largest commune in Chile by population. It's a large city in Chile. Bedivere (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Population doesn't mean high notability. Honolulu has a population of 344,967. Viña del Mar has more population than Orlando, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Des Moines and Anchorage, notable U.S. cities. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets enough NPOL, the subject of the biography has held an official position and has received sufficient media coverage. --Carigval.97 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is not about holding "an official position". Geschichte (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archived Chilean media can write and source something more substantive than this. Mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, and have to show significant press coverage enabling 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 this basically just states that he existed, and just cites the absolute bare minimum of sourcing needed to prevent it from being speedied as completely unsourced, without adding any of the more substantive content or sourcing that we would actually need to see. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sufficiently meets the notability guidelines for politicians, as it addresses the first topic of politicians who have held province–wide offices, in this case, that of mayor of Viña del Mar.

Just as there are political figures with extensive coverage without holding an official position, in this case, it is a figure with historical notoriety without much media coverage. Carigval.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of a city is not a "province-wide" office. It's a local office that falls under NPOL #2, where the notability test depends exclusively on media coverage and cannot be passed without that. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules, media coverage is a second important point, not necessary exclusive (that's why I was talking about cases where there are political figures without positions, but with sufficient references). Similarly, that position –mayor of Viña del Mar– is a province-wide office: that important city in Chile is a town in the Province of Valparaíso. Mr. Trejo has encyclopedic relevance as a mayor of a large city in Chile.Carigval.97 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage is essential to passage of WP:GNG, not a mere option that can be bypassed. NPOL does not say that media coverage is optional; even a politician who does pass NPOL #1 (which a mayor does not) still has to have GNG-worthy sourcing too, and the only pass they get is that as long as their holding of the office is properly verifiable, we don't rush their article into the delete bin for not already being in a better state than it is — we give it time for improvement to a GNG-compliant standard, because it's an automatic given that the article will be improvable.

But mayors don't get the same indulgence: mayors only get articles if and when passage of the criterion for local politicians has already been shown off the bat, because there isn't the same guarantee that every mayor of everywhere can always be improved to a GNG-compliant standard. No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having to have GNG-worthy media coverage — there are just some levels of government at which the officeholders are given a grace period for improvement, and some levels of office at which they aren't given the same benefit of the doubt, but there is no level of government at which people are exempted from having to cite GNG-worthy sourcing at all.

I don't think you understand the definition of "province-wide", either. The fact that a city is in a province does not render the city's mayor into a province-wide officeholder, as he's mayor of the city and not mayor of the whole province. A province-wide office is one that has province-wide jurisdictional authority, like a governor or a provincial-level legislator, not a mayor of an individual town or city within the province. Mayors are local officeholders under NPOL #2, not province-wide officeholders under NPOL #1, which is precisely why a mayor cannot be exempted from having to pass GNG on media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons, Bearcat, but Trejo's management as mayor of Viña del Mar is reflected in the document that refers to his social policies regarding legal aid, as well as in press reports that mention his management of the Viña International Festival. The lack of more digital news is due to the fact that the internet was not sufficiently widespread at the time. However, this lack is complemented by sufficient historical documents that do give him prominence in his field: the history of the mayoralty of Viña del Mar.

Regarding "No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having GNG-worthy media coverage", it's regrettable that there are cases where even long-standing English officials, such as Arthur Henderson, Baron Rowley (Labour), have few references, as well as Sidney Jones, Mayor of Liverpool, who does not register digital press releases, but rather press sources. Despite this, their notability lies in the positions they have held.

Finally, a city's case may remain provincial, but autonomous. Similarly, and being a local city, Viña del Mar is an important cultural and economic location (services, tourism). Based on this, and the fact that Trejo is a politician, the subject of the biography has sufficient notoriety to have held said office, as verified by official digital archives of proven reliability (Universidad Alberto Hurtado and notes from the Judicial Corporation). Carigval.97 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bring up WP:WHATABOUT "arguments". Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not just a matter of media coverage for the tenure of a politician's biography, a mayor in this case. The most important thing here is that "Politicians who have held international, national, or subnational office (such as members of national legislatures, governors, or mayors of large cities) are presumed notable." In this case, Viña del Mar is one of the largest cities in the country and is an integral part of Greater Valparaíso, the second largest urban agglomeration in Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igallards7 (talk) 3:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep: per Igallards7. The article has also been significantly expanded since the nomination. Luis7M (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPOL does not state that mayors of large cities are presumed notable. The correct language in NPOL is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The language does not specify city size or even position a local government. The standard for all local politicians is what Bearcat describes earlier - the need to "show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact." This is true for a mayor of a population of 49, or a population of 32 million. In practice, this means that a local official should meet and possibly exceed WP:GNG to have a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Zzz plant (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United States of America, and Kentucky. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Knochelmann meets the notability guidelines for politicians due to extensive coverage of his tenure in office from local media, such as this article with biographical information. Other articles about his priorities and policies in office include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I know that this is not a criterion for notability, but as an aside I'll note that Kenton County is the third-most populous county in Kentucky after Jefferson and Fayette; there is substantial public interest in covering the county's leader. Mad Mismagius (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.

If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.

Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.

1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.

Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.

Joseph Ntung Ari

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

I initially draftified this article, but reverted myself once I realized it is more than 90 days old. Based on the sources cited, the subject is not notable: refs 1, 2, 4, 5 are just quotes from him (not independent), while the other three are not significant coverage. My web search didn't find anything better.

Additionally, the references consistently fail to support the content they are cited for, e.g. ref 1 [24] makes no mention of "Plateau", ref 2 [25] is not about his education at all, ref 3 [26] doesn't mention Plateau, the FRCN, or the NTA. If editors find sufficient sources to deem the subject notable, I ask that the article still be draftified until it is completely rewritten using only information supported by reliable sources. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per WP:NBASIC, as being a director general of Industrial Training Fund (which had significant critical reception) and also satisfies organizational notability under WP:ORG and WP:NORG. The article now contains multiple independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, which support the content they are cited for (the main reason for sending it to AFD by toadspike). If there were concerns about sourcing, a maintenance tag under WP:VERIFY would have been more appropriate than AfD. Still, it's valid to seek wider input. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and seeing as there is one single source for all this information it may fall in a grey area copyright-wise per WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database as it's properly contextualised and it's not a resource for conducting business. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those things have anything to do with it being a database or not. WP:NOTDATABASE discourages indiscriminate lists with no context, that's that this article is. Orange sticker (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are other sources available and it's a list of factual information, so there's no copyright issue. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is disputing the veracity of the information but whether this indiscriminate list is encyclopaedic content. To those saying it is useful information, yes, that's why [whocanivotefor.co.uk] went to the trouble of compiling, creating and hosting this list. Wikipedia is not a carbon copy archive of every useful fact on the internet. Orange sticker (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTDATABASE. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 23:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: WP:NOTDATABASE has been mentioned twice but none of the points there are relevant to this AfD. The more relevant link would seem to be WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Stockhausenfan (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a directory, either - it's a list. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it's useful and encylopeidc. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this is very useful and if something like this is precluded there should be change in policy. I don't see how it is substantially different from 1982 United States House of Representatives election. I don't know enough about WP:DIRECTORY to have an educated vote here. --Mpen320 (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1982 United States House of Representatives election doesn't exist, so I'm unclear what point is being made here? Bondegezou (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole source of this table has a copyright notice saying it is owned by the Democracy Club Community Interest Company, who sell the data they compile commercially. [27] Should this be brought to WP:CPN? Orange sticker (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The website's design and prose is copyrighted. A publicly available list of names that they took from government sources is not a creative work that can be copyrighted, even if they sell compilations that include it. Reywas92^Talk 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no notability in simply standing for election. As this event has passed, we only need a list of the winners of the election. We aren't an election wiki, listing each and every person that ever ran for an election at any point in time, anywhere on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to another Wikimedia wiki like Wikidata. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valuable list of information. This page was started after a discussion which involved the splitting of the Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page. Moondragon21 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donn Favis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

^ https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/12/new-york-lawsuit-2024-election/

[1] ttps://www.snopes.com/news/2025/06/12/new-york-lawsuit-2024-election/

[1]

Politics

Continuing revisions with assistance

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects