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

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and United States of America. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady of Guatemala

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

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

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

Second ladies of India

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

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

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

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

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

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

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

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

Darrell Brock Jr.

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

It seems to me that this person has only been in the news twice: Once when he was indicted, then again when he was pardoned (both in 2005). This does not seem like significant coverage to me. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage found and fails WP:GNG Pasados (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable political party official. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Cumilla City Corporation election

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

Clearly a non-notable election. Would have draftified first, but the creator created a page in the mainspace with basically the same content as the one in draftspace (Draft:2012 Cumilla City Corporation election) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable election. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has completely different results, so I have to assume this is a test page in mainspace. Nathannah • 📮 21:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump tax bill

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

Not a proper disambiguation page: descriptive titles are a big no no. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Law, Politics, Disambiguations, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This info is appropriately listed at both First presidency of Donald Trump and Second presidency of Donald Trump navboxes at the bottom of each of those. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary - both articles in this page are thoroughly discussed in articles detailing both of Trump's presidencies. Haruka Amaranth 01:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines

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

WP:NEOLOGISM and original research there is no such thing as a second lady/gentleman in the Philippine context. It is all made up trying to create an equivalent to the American one when none exists. Not every American concept has a Philippine concept. One will never find Philippine-based sources describing the concept of a supposed "second lady" even in a customary/non-official basis like the first lady/gentleman role which does exist as the Malacanang Palace host/essHariboneagle927 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of WP:OR. Borgenland (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unofficial position lacking in significant (or any) coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1Munti Partylist

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

The organization does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article as of right now. The article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and the article seems to contain machine-generated text. If the organization wins any seats in the Philippines 2025 general election, a article about the subject could be made. But as of right now, there's just coverage about the subject and their partylist - with some passing mentions and unreliable sources, and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. There is some independent, reliable coverage - but that's only about the organization's partylist. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Asia, and Philippines. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This party did not win seats in last week's election. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 German public transport strike

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

A one-day event without much lasting effect, probably fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a strike involving 400,000 workers which was described as "‘paralyzing’ Europe’s biggest economy" is unquestionably notable.--User:Namiba 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Firstly, I don't see what WP:GNG has to do with it. The sources cited clearly demonstrate sufficient coverage. All three are on the WP:RSPLIST, and by searching online I can see that more sources have covered it as well. Secondly, this was seemingly a huge strike ("the largest transport workers' action since a series of strikes in the 1990s") that did "paralyz[e] Europe's biggest economy", as Namiba points out. Spookyaki (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NEVENT says that lasting effect is a strong indicator of notability, but not having lasting effect isn't disqualifying. There's lots of good articles on Wikipedia covering events that haven't had lasting, transformative impacts on the broader world. "Lasting impacts" can be a bit relative in the context of strikes too, because they typically do have lasting impacts; it's just that they're confined to a certain part of the workforce. Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough reliable sources have significantly covered it to meet GNG, and a strike composed of hundreds of thousands of people, even for a single day, very likely meets the "lasting effect" criteria. Even if the effect is only in that part of the workforce, that is still an impactful event.

(more citations should be added to the article, though. I'll put a cleanup template) ApexParagon (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added BBC and Reuters content to an already well-sourced article that also includes The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera. We’re spoilt for choice on WP:THREE, and the event clearly meets WP:GNG. While it lasted just one day, its scale and widespread disruption received significant international coverage, meeting WP:NEVENT. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was a significant event. The article is well-sourced. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for the National Community

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

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

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

Michael D. Martinez

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

A non-notable academic. This likely AI-generated biography appears to have hallucinated some facts, for example saying that he was editor of the journal Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the sole source for which is a permanent dead link. Martinez's own CV does not list this editorship, nor does the journal's website. Since we cannot verify that he was a journal editor, he meets no other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC; his H-index of 22 is well below the normal range for a full professor in social sciences. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR since his edited books have not had multiple reviews (and there is no consensus on whether co-editing a book counts for NAUTHOR). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO#1 for his Fulbright, 800+ of which are awarded every year, so it's not a particularly distinct honor. I don't see evidence that he's quoted regularly on his expertise in the mainstream press. (The AI appears to have hallucinated a nonexistent link to the New York Times website.) The citation for the sentence These books, reviewed in *Palgrave Macmillan* for their interdisciplinary approach, have been cited in *American Political Science Review* and *Political Psychology* for advancing survey measurement of ambivalence. does not actually mention Martinez' books at all and is likely another hallucination based on keyword similarity. In addition to failing WP:N, this bio has significant WP:V problems for a BLP and should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many LLM pages created by the same editor (30 one-edit articles), too many of which have since been draftified or nominated for deletion (see User talk:Wq4m820). At least one other I checked was full of AI hallucinations, similar to this. I will leave a gentle warning, hopefully the editor will adjust how they are creating pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 I found another that was AI-generated and went with the non-gentle warning, considering they've already gotten four warnings this month and have been non-responsive to those but continue to create problematic articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, all the articles must seem suspect. I see 6 articles on May 17 in the span of only 5 hours, 7 articles on May 15 in the span of just 3 hours each with 5-7kb of content. this seems all a bit fishy. --hroest 16:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits on the name in Gscholar, but I'm not sure they're about this same person. The fact that the editor has used AI to create other low-quality articles doesn't fill me with hope either for this... I don't see much of anything in a RS Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable, nuke it and possibly start over. Geschichte (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I believe with his GS profile, with an h index of 22 and several publications with 100+ citations he is close to the bar of passing WP:NPROF but doesnt quite clear it in my book. I wouldnt quite write him off though, maybe this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. However, given the other issues with the page, and that we cannot really trust anything that is currently written, there isnt really much to salvage. --hroest 16:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I was the original author of the article and that it was generated with AI assistance. I understand the community’s concerns regarding verifiability and notability, and I take full responsibility for the shortcomings in the original draft. That said, Michael D. Martinez does have some scholarly coverage and citations that might warrant a properly sourced and significantly rewritten article. If the community feels that the current version is beyond salvage (or intent for a new one is not worthwhile), I concur the consensus to delete.

Wq4m820 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Xiaolan

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

Questionable notability. This article should be moved to draft. Amigao (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Music, Politics, Olympics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the biography is rather comprehensive, and there exists a comparable article on the Chinese Wikipedia. I have incorporated more sources and information to satisfy the inclusion criteria. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This seems like WP:MILL CCP member with a bit of propaganda press. Adding some of that detail to her father's (much more notable person) page would be DUE. I think the press she does get is more because her father was so notable. For Americans this would be like having a biography for Henry Luce III. Czarking0 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Account 2: I'll stop messaging you if it is too much but I thought you might like to look at this one. Czarking0 (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha don't worry, it's ok. Hmm, well I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria but the question seems to be what makes her independently notable? Is there enough coverage by reliable sources? The Account 2 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage of her to meet WP:GNG. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a political organization whose notability is unclear. I accepted the draft yesterday but was questioned by a contributor of the article who told me that the draft had questionable sources that fall short of existing guidelines. The sources have been removed, and the only source that might contribute to notability is this. I could not find additional valid sources on the search engine, and so the organization might not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I am not opposed to another incubation in draftspace as an WP:ATD, but I do not think that the subject will be notable enough for inclusion in the near future. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that there was a previous AfD on the subject (which I somehow missed) that was kept and reverted to the old version of Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992). That said, I would not be opposed to a merger to that article as per WP:ATD. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing your feedback to my article. I believe that the range of sources from independent and reputable websites like Prospect, Dazed, and the Telegraph demonstrate the notability of this organisation. Unfortunately, @Rambling Rambler seems to be systematically removing other citations which I believe should remain in the article.

For example, this user has removed a press release by a government minister Michael Gove on the gov.uk website, which explicitly mentions the RCP and was delivered on live television. The grounds for removing this citation was Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF which does not apply to this situation, as the RCP is NOT the same as the British Government or Tory politician Michael Gove (needless to say).

Moreover, this user has removed another source from the Cambridge Independent, a well-established local newspaper, on the grounds that a "long quote" "adds nothing to the article". This is the quote:

In an interview with the ''Cambridge Independent'', an RCP spokesperson said "We do not want to tax the rich, which is impossible. We want these criminals expropriated and the economy unleashed by a working class government."

Firstly, the quote is two sentences so it's not exactly long. Secondly, it definitely adds something, given that it explains a key political and economic strategy that the party stands for, which isn't explained elsewhere in the article.

The consistency with which @Rambling Rambler seems to be preventing this article from being published (stretching back for a year) suggests to me that this person is politically in disagreement with the RCP, which may be the motivating factor at play here rather than objectivity and a desire to have Wikipedia serve internet users with good-quality information on a variety of topics.

As an aside, I know that "importance" alone is not criteria for notability on Wikipedia, but it is worth mentioning that this party is one of the biggest far-left parties in Britain by any means of measurement. It is roughly the same size as similar far-left parties like Socialist Workers Party (UK) and Communist Party of Britain and is certainly bigger and more notable than groups like Workers Revolutionary Party (UK), Revolutionary Communist Group (UK), Counterfire (group), Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), and Alliance for Workers' Liberty – all of which have Wikipedia pages despite being a fraction of the size/relevance (and also a similar array of citations.

I hope this helps explain why I think this article should remain, and that a number of @Rambling Rambler's revisions (although not all of them, some of them are fair – just the ones highlighted above) should be undone. John Timothy Watson (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To get through this rather quickly:

- We do not need three sources to cite someone stood for election (not even for the party anyway) nor an addition of two lengthy quotes simply to source it's anti-capitalist when it's already been cited. This is an example of WP:OVERCITE and suggests a lack of notability as you're chucking in repeated sources for basic information.

- WP:ABOUTSELF does apply here with regards to a government press release (see also WP:PRSOURCE). ABOUTSELF applies to each source individually, so a PR statement by the government attacking a third party is a breach.

- Proclamations that this group is "important" is not a criteria for notability, period (see WP:GNG). We require high quality, independent sources to establish notability of a group.

- Pointing that other groups have pages is not a criteria for inclusion.

- Attacking other editors for having false intentions with no evidence is a bad idea. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to draft - I don't believe there's any harm once again putting it back to draft before a series of recent non-policy edits saw to push this to mainspace. Part of the reason we drafted it is because the predecessor organisation was notable so there is still potential for this one to become notable. It was also done as a firewall to prevent the numerous attempts by new accounts that only seem interested in this one group to hijack the previous group's page and instead force notability by the back door so to speak. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources to build an article for. It’s also not really notable as it has received very little coverage and holds no elected representation at any level and does not have a very high membership or hold much influence for a Britian-wide organisation. I’ve removed a good amount of original research from the page and I suspect there is more in there as well as possibly some WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete: subject seems to not be notable enough and probably won't be until the next election in 2029 Laura240406 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's notability is unclear? I didn't see any notability of the subject as per WP:NORG. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7 talk 06:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992) into it since it is basically the same organization with a new name. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be inconsistent with the consensus established last year on that page, which was that it should not be used for the RCP. Not sure it's within guidelines for an AfD on an article to override established consensus somewhere else. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. Should there be a new consensus to merge the two articles under the RCP name, that would supersede last year's consensus. I think it's now obvious that the RCP is a continuation of the SA so a change in consensus in favour of a merge is justified. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started the above discussion I am completely in favor of merging the two pages. Even if this isn't the same organization and you don't think it's notable on its own, information about it should at the very least warrant a section in Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992). That said, I favor a merger under Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) per above. Charles Essie (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but the point is I don't think an AfD for say Article A saying "merge to Article B" if such a request has already been explicitly ruled out over at Article B. It'd need a new consensus to be established at Article B unless I'm mistaken. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why not, especially when the consensus is old and hasn't been recently tested. A new consensus can be established in an AFD (and as I recall the old consensus to delete rather than merge was established in an AFD, but even if it wasn't there's no reason a new AfD can't reach a different consensus). AfDs are also not restricted by the request that begins it - there are numerous AFDs where the mover requests delete and the outcome ends up being merge or something else. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was established in an AfD but it was at the other article, and was to undo the conversion of it to an RCP article. Basically we have had two discussions at Socialist Appeal (an AfD and a Request Move), which both decided that article should be kept as just Socialist Appeal. I don't think having an AfD on a different article to overrule that is within guidelines. Essentially it would probably require this one being deleted/drafted, and then opening a new formal discussion on Socialist Appeal. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're having a new discussion. That's how Wikipedia works. I note your procedural objection to merging the articles based on your belief that past consensus binds us now and that an AFD cannot be used to estbalish consensus or overturn an old talk page consensus. I don't think that's true. But aside from your procedural argument do you have any substantive argument that Socialist Appeal and the RCP are either not the same organization under a new name or are not closely enough related to justify a merge under the RCP name? Wellington Bay (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not that we can’t have a new discussion, it’s that I don’t think this is the best place to have it because this isn’t the article where that was established.

If we wish to change the purpose of the Socialist Appeal article it would probably require a formal Request to Move be reopened there. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Agenda Report

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

I think this talk page post convinced me Talk:Black_Agenda_Report#Far-left_and_radical. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 05:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, and United States of America. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 05:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the talk page doesn't seem to be about notability? How much do the sources here cover it? They're all reliable and if they are significant it should be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The initiator of the talk page discussion begins in part by saying: "I haven't found any evidence that BAR meets GNG," but there are reliable sources cited throughout the article. Neither the initiator of that discussion nor the nominator of this deletion discussion have challenged those sources, which makes it difficult for other editors to vote. Obviously any editor can check for themselves, but the initial responsibility falls on the nominator. Yue🌙 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election

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

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

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

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing is automatically notable. Why place such a reaction? gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dummycrats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great British Energy Act 2025

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

Not notable to have a separate page to Great British Energy. Landpin (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They two articles are about two different things. One's an organization, and the other's an Act of Parliament which is clearly notable in its own right as part of the law of the land. Having been passed, the Act, unless amended, is now a static entity. GBE itself is not; it has a past political history, a pre-history in terms of the startup organization created last year, and will do things in the future - starting with the appointment of senior managememt - that make it separately notable from the Act.

I can see some material in the article on the Act that should have gone into the GBE article instead; I've removed it, and added hatnotes to both articles to stop it from happening again. I've also put the modern slavery amendment stuff in. — The Anome (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background to the legislation is the background to the organisation. The functions of the organization are provisions of the legislation. The responsibility of the organization are provisions of the legislation.

What is the sort of thing that should be on the legislation page, but not the organisation page? Landpin (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments, just for starters. Parliamentary discussion, if expanded further. Voting. Potentially in future: notable court cases involving it, amendments, related statutory instruments... — The Anome (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW keep - let's be real here, there is no point in having an AfD on this as the article will not be deleted. Stockhausenfan (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Like the National Health Service Act 1946, this article documents the legislative history of the organization it establishes. But unique to an article such as the NHS Act 1946, this article, the GBE Act 2025, appropriately includes context about Great British Energy, not just the legislative history. A fellow editor has made constructive edits to improve the article by refining its content and focus. Ihaveabadname (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Maybe merge per the others (acts versus organisations, both notable in their own right). If the articles should be merged in the future, please consider using the process described in WP:MERGEINIT instead of a request for deletion. Your initial reasoning would suggest that you don't want the content removed. There is precedent for Wikipedia having its content about an act as a subsection for another article (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_UK_legislation). If a merger is suggested, I would not be against it, but at the moment the article has some of the political history/reactions to the bill & act which I am not sure would be left standing in the article about the organisation. --Komonzia (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Great British Energy. Sure, legislation can be notable, but no, being "part of the law of the land" does not mean it's automatically notable or that a separate article is needed. Content is largely duplicative and better covered in the main article. Amendments, legislative history, and court cases can also be covered in the main aricle, which should naturally describe the history and origins of the agency – if there's a lawsuit about the agency that cites the law, it's still relevant to the agency. Reywas92^Talk 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as an Energy law of a large country, it is, or will almost immediately become, notable. The entity that it creates is separate. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. English and UK Acts of Parliament usually satisfy GNG with significant coverage in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes. James500 (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Adedeji Tukur

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

Fails WP:BIO. Likely UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not satisfying WP:SIGCOV, and it fails WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. Deb (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melissa Cohen Biden

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

Doesn't appear to be independently notable from her husband or father-in-law. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, South Africa, and United States of America. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notable only from Husband and inlaws fails WP:BASIC Destinyokhiria (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Joe Biden, or any other appropriate target. Not in the least notable. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Joe Biden and possibly merge its content. Keivan.f^Talk 16:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Hill

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

Does not appear to meet the Wikipedia notability requirements for places. Noleander (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Finland. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parliament House, Helsinki. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parliament House, Helsinki Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a translation from the Finnish article. A counterpart in Swedish also exists. Kaihsu (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parliament House, Helsinki, since coverage seems to be generally limited to the Parliament building and not the hill itself. MarioGom (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parliament House, Helsinki. Shankargb (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials, but rather elected officials like those who sit on the North Carolina Council of State. While there are politicians who serve in those positions, I don't consider most of the people in this chapter of the Illinois Blue Book to be politicians and would consider it applies to the rest of the US including Arkansas. An example of a statewide official in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer. It certainly does not apply to state party chairs who are often elected by a handful of people and are not guaranteed to generate enough independent, secondary coverage to warrant a presumption of notability. This would not preclude a creation based on meeting the criteria set out by other policies on Wikipedia. A county judge in a larger county and cabinet member (albeit one with a very short time in office) might be able to meet that threshold.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would note solicitor generals in the United States like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer are almost always under an attorney general and not cabinet members so not a great example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) is exactly on point, and resulted in a keep. Statewide cabinet members (and state supreme court justices) both meet WP:NPOL without elections, in my opinion and per precedent. Schimmer and Johnson are both listed on WP:NSUBPOL, and they illustrate the line. Wood is just barely past the notable line, in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transportation secretary is a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, so by the letter of the law it would theoretically pass NPOL. However, there has been pushback prior regarding minor state cabinet positions that are more bureaucratic rather than political/ministerial (I do not know if this is one of those, just laying it out). Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Transportation Secretary of Arkansas, not merely as a party chair. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umama Fatema

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Sixth) (RJM group)

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

Single source. Neither reliable nor significant. No online coverage about this union. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 source and that is also archived. Agletarang (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ there is some in depth coverage here and independent coverage here and here, there is news coverage of them [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] some of which contain in-depth coverage of the electoral mechanics and factions in the organization. Clearly notable. --hroest 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are mistaken. There are other such unions with similar names. Plz make sure you search with exactly same name ( Sixth) RJM group. If you find anything with that particular name , plz let me know. There are many unions with initial name All Nepal National Independent Student Union but here sixth and RJM group is also included which lacks notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, the sources I found indeed seem to be for a similarly named but different organization. ---hroest 11:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rastriya Janamorcha as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable movement. An organization with 59 district branches is not insignificant. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based solely on reliable secondary coverage (or lack thereof, i.e. WP:ORG), this article should at best be turned into a redirect to a section of their parent organisation's article. Size is irrelevant; there are Final Fantasy XIV clans with more than 59 regional branches. Yue🌙 17:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no significant discussion or consensus here yet. The arguments are of keep, delete and merge at 1 each vote after another keep was striked out. No significant mention of policies and their relevance. Discussion sought for a consensus would be whether WP:TOOSOON if there is minor or no notability or should be kept per WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union

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

Article doesn’t cite any article neither it has online coverage. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union, a.k.a. Nekravisangh, is a major organization. It has declined in the past, but it was the dominant student movement in Bhaktapur for many years. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party. There is some WP:ROUTINE coverage, especially if you search with the native name. मल्ल (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Christian Democratic Politics

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KDU-ČSL as WP:ATD. I'm aware there are no reliable sources here yet, but a redirect is appropriate, and the parent article doesn't need any more than a cursory mention which can easily be sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, found a source mentioning the institute. Not sufficient to support a standalone article, but confirms that it exists and what it is, I can merge to parent article when this AfD is closed. Jdcooper (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

West Windsor Residents Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Hunt (editor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democratic Students' Federation

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

Lacks notability. The given sources are primary and press release. No available other online independent in depth coverage. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, India, and Delhi. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are encouraged to check the given references for more information and clarification.

JNUSU Election 2025 Result also Comrade (talk) 16:20, 15 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 09:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Jonesboro mayoral election

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

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

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

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

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

List of Rajya Sabha members from the Aam Aadmi Party

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable enough, relatively new party which doesn't have a long established electoral history unlike the two established national parties, the BJP and INC, virtually no presence besides Delhi and Punjab. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Aam Aadmi Party's history is not really relevant to the notability of this list, but as far as I understand it is a very significant political party, regularly making the news even outside of India. This list should be judged on WP:NLIST, which says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Importantly, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been". A brief web search turns up sources like [6], [7], [8], and [9], which discuss important parts of this topic (e.g. mentioning several of the people on the list as a group or telling us how many such people there are in total). I think this is clear evidence that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2026 Hamilton, Ontario municipal election

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a future municipal election, not yet showing sufficient reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it would already need an article now.
As always, while we permit articles about future elections at the federal level to exist practically as soon as the public finish voting in the previous one, that's because there's actually substantive stuff to say about them: public polling on the popularity of the incumbent government, tracking changes in party leadership and seat standings, content about political issues, and on and so forth. But we don't generally maintain articles about city council elections this far in advance, because at the city council level all there is to actually say is idle speculation about who might or might not run, and that's all that's present here.
The article, further, is not adequately referenced to show that this is already the subject of any significant coverage as of May 2025 – three of the six footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and two more are from a hyperlocal community blog that doesn't count as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all (but were misrepresented in the citations as coming from a different publication than they really did, until I corrected them). Just one article comes from a real GNG-worthy newspaper at all, which is not enough all by itself.
It also warrants note that even Toronto doesn't have an article already in place about its 2026 municipal election yet, and Hamilton's hardly qualifies as more notable than Toronto's.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the spring or summer of 2026, when there actually starts to be meaningful stuff to say and real candidates filing their nomination papers, but we don't need this to already have a Wikipedia article in 2025. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are fair points. A counter would be to note that the 2022 Hamilton, Ontario, municipal election page was created in September of 2020 – a full 25 months prior to the vote. Each election page is also used to include information on mid-term elections in the term prior to the vote and a by-election is very likely to occur in the coming months. The preliminary information on the page can be updated (it was originally copied from the 2022 page) as the City of Hamilton website already includes information on the 2026 vote. The Hamilton Spectator's coverage of the election has already begun and CBC Hamilton has similarly been publishing articles about possible changes to the city's voting system. As interest in the election begins to pick up, it seems more logical to keep a running record of candidate announcements, possible voting system changes, and issues rather than delete the page and start over again in May of 2026 when there may be a significant amount of information to include. All said, I am content to follow the will of the community on this. All the best. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. The only content here is pure speculation about who could be potential candidates. Once that is removed (as it should as their potential candidacy is based on speculation) there is not much left of the article. --hroest 20:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only 17 Months Away, and the article will be needed even earlier. Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think TOOSOON applies in this situation.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not TOOSOON in my view. There's also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to consider. Schwede 66 22:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrematistics

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

An extremely obscure word appearing occasionally in Aristotle's work

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

The term and category of chresmatistics is totally inessential to understanding Aristotle's views concerning which ways of acquiring wealth are legitimate and which illegitimate, or any other philosopher's views. And though the article may point out some real parallels between the criticism Marx and others made of capitalism, I don't think this very obscure Greek word has any real significance, and that any valuable content on this page should be merged to more frequently read general articles concerning philosophical critiques of capitalism, ancient ideas about economics, or into the articles of specific philosophers who developed Aristotle's ideas. Even then, I think that that material would be appropriate only if the later philosopher made this distinction between money-making and house-management a central element of their position. ForeverBetter (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2022 Albanian protests

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:36, 5 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 16:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing WP:LASTING. It is an event (series of?) that did not have much impact, based on current sources. Protests happen often and are repoted, but not enough for a stand alone article. Could not find a redirect as alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Moondragon21 Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Regional Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a region within a state and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hemant Dabral, would you be okay with a merge to Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee? It seems to me that these are two independent organizations, in which case a merge makes no sense. Based on the lead, though, I would be very surprised if this regional committee were not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A brief web search makes this a clear keep. Coverage like this [10][11] alongside mentions like [12][13] demonstrate that as one might expect, the world's third largest political party's founding branch in the world's seventh largest city is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 700+ districts in India, each having their own District Congress Committee, Mumbai is just one of them. Reason why there's no page for city or union territory wings of BJP, CPI, CPM etc. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 06:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merger with Pradesh Congress Committee. In fact, every district in every state has a regional congress committee. Mumbai congress and other territorial congress committees fight only the municipal elections, they are not notable enough. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Hemant Dabral, India has numerous districts, each possessing its own district-level committee. This does not imply that each should possess its own wiki page. This page should be redirected at Pradesh Congress Committee. AndySailz (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing that all regional committees of this party are notable, which would be fallacious. You seem to be arguing the opposite, which would be equally misguided. Do you have an argument based on the sources available or the notability of the subject? Toadspike [Talk] 06:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. I am also nominating the following related pages because [of same reason as above]:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation here yet which is even more important in a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Indian National Congress. --Altenmann >talk 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
merge into Indian National Congress.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm coming from the Mumbai AfD, where I found the subject to be clearly notable. I ask that some time be given to discuss the others because I suspect that this bundled nom was based on a general assumption that these non-state parties are not notable, without considering the vast differences in importance between them. Toadspike [Talk] 11:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this actually a proper bundled nomination? The other articles supposedly included actually had separate concurrent nominations, albeit all by the same nominator as this one. Of those, Andaman and Nicobar Territorial Congress Committee and Ladakh Territorial Congress Committee have led to deletion (hence they are redlinked above), Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee is slated for merge, and Mumbai Regional Congress Committee was (like this nomination) relisted again. No opinion, other than that anything implying this is still a bundled nomination should be disregarded and the nomination should solely be for Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbai Regional Congress Committee, this page should be redirected to Pradesh Congress Committee. AndySailz (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 Majayjay local elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2025 Mapandan local elections

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

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

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

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

Hello all,

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

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

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

The Sol Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [14] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [15], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [16], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [17]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

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

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

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [18] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [19] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [20] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [21].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[22]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [23], etc.) and on X (e.g. [24], [25], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

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

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

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

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

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

Source	WP:INDEPENDENT	WP:RS	WP:SIGCOV	Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic	Yes	Maybe	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal	Yes	Yes	No	Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website	No	Maybe	Maybe	Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek	Yes	No	No	Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal	Yes	Yes	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com	Yes	No	Yes	WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine	Yes	Yes	Yes	Report on the club's conference
Niconico	Unknown	No	Unknown	WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
arXiv	Unknown	No	Unknown	Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief	Yes	No	Yes	The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [26], Atlantis / Lemuria [27], Thunderbirds [28], "The Deep State" [29], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [30].
Sunday World	Yes	No	No	The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.

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

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

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [31] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [32]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I'll be adding them later:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [33] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegedly being a "matter of considerable public interest" or the fact that WP also hosts articles on Eurovision Song Contest songs are not valid Keep reasons, nor is your claim [34] that "there is a clique within Wikipedia seeking to control information". The claim that the CIA is suspect of editing Wikipedia is also not a valid Keep reason. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with most of the source evaluation table (including Chetsford's follow-up comments). I find it rebuts a lot of the keep arguments made before it, and after it I'm not really seeing much of a (policy-based) argument to keep. I think the one point where I differ is that I don't think PopMatters would fall under WP:USERGENERATED. That and Focus seem like the stronger sources. LWG's and Feoffer's argument that The Debrief's reporting could be used to establish notability is...not realistic. The additional sources provided later by Very Polite Person plainly don't meet WP:SIRS, and bringing up a source already covered in the nomination is a pretty obvious example of bludgeoning this discussion. I don't envy the admin who ends up having to ~~control information and awareness using Wikipedia policies~~ wade through all this to figure out consensus. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with Chetsford's source evaluation table and most of the sources appear to focus on Nolan. The stand-alone page of Nolan already includes references to the Sol Foundation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I flagged the article with {{more citations needed}}. If the foundation is less than two years old and all it needs is one to three better refs, perhaps give it until the end of the year, then renominate if no change? Seems like the article is destined to be republished per WP:RADP if deleted. 5Q5|^✉ 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to draftify the article now and republish when/if more sources become available. -- LWG ^talk 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. There are plenty of passing mentions to show that it exists, but aside from copypastes of press releases and sensationalism e.g. The DeBrief, it's a WP:NOTJUSTYET situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Dogan Kımıllı

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Architecture, and Turkey. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. In theory, a mayor of a city of 250,000 people could be notable, but the SPA who created this mess is not helpful. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Germain

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasiruddin Patwary

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

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

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

Speedy keep - Easy meet WP:GNG. As a politician, he has received significant national independent news coverage. Dv24mail (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage is about the National Nagorik Committee or the National Citizen Party and press briefing speeches, but there is no in-depth coverage about him and about his biography. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 06:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Which point of WP:GNG does the subject meet?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency

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

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

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

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

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

Isaiah Martin

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the very comprehensive nomination. I would not oppose a redirect to next year's congressional election, such as 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive nomination. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are not inherently notable for Wikipedia - I would have !voted delete on the other candidate as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Darrell Brock Jr.

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

It seems to me that this person has only been in the news twice: Once when he was indicted, then again when he was pardoned (both in 2005). This does not seem like significant coverage to me. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage found and fails WP:GNG Pasados (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable political party official. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second ladies and gentlemen of the Philippines

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

WP:NEOLOGISM and original research there is no such thing as a second lady/gentleman in the Philippine context. It is all made up trying to create an equivalent to the American one when none exists. Not every American concept has a Philippine concept. One will never find Philippine-based sources describing the concept of a supposed "second lady" even in a customary/non-official basis like the first lady/gentleman role which does exist as the Malacanang Palace host/essHariboneagle927 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reeks of WP:OR. Borgenland (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unofficial position lacking in significant (or any) coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Elliott

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

Procedural nomination. The page creator of this sourced 2023 autobiography is User:Relliot1960, who seems unhappy to find other editors might add sourced negative information on the page. Since a recent edit war, Relliot1960 has chosen to WP:G7 tag this page on multiple occasions, but since other wikipedians have edited it, the page isn't eligible for deletion under that criterion. Note that Relliot1960 has another account User:Relliott1960 and recently acquired a supporting new account, User:Sixofakind34 who seems to be acting in accord with Relliot1960's choices. Previous ANI discussion is here. I have blocked Relliott1960 for a week from editing the page (their second block for such edits). On the merits, I have no opinion. BusterD (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. BusterD (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:NPOL, but some work will need to be done to cleanup the page and a few editors should watchlist it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:NPOL and let this be a lesson to you punks, an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --Mpen320 (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold F. Pryor

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

Subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. From GNG perspective, the sources either fail one or two of the three criteria. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This fails WP:SIGCOV. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This is probably substantial but fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:IRS. Others happen to be WP:ROUTINE. Hence, GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Kpg jhp jm 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a local politician, there's no presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and WP:ROUTINE local coverage of election activity does not count as WP:SIGCOV toward WP:GNG. I concur with VWF's source analysis here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician/attorney - needs more sources from outside his local political area to show notability per NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Harold F. Pryor’s role in vacating thousands of crack cocaine convictions has received notable coverage The Guardian, the overall coverage remains limited and tied mostly to this single issue. Given his relatively low public profile outside this matter as the elected State Attorney of Broward County, I understand and accept the rationale for deletion due to insufficient sustained independent notability.

Wq4m820 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Kavindu Musili

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for sources about her you can check the government website + plus the sources in the article that should be enough for notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - the link is published by the Embassy of the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm; that's the organization she represents ( bio is under 'about us'), so it is not an independent source. Zzz plant (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Unless you think the Republic of Kenya in Stockholm is not reputable.

The other thing, primary source can be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. Which this website does. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with this discussion. You can't use primary sources to show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she is notable, it is not because of the sources in the article - she was one of many award recipients and a BEFORE search brings up little beyond the fact she's an ambassador. It's possible I'm missing something but it doesn't look like there's SIGCOV of her specifically here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rubal Thakur

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

Fails all notability criteria. Mekomo (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do not meet any notability criteria and the article is written to promote the subject rather than for encyclopedic purposes.Thilsebatti (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP - at least three important sections are completely unreferenced. Not against userfication. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. If somehow saved, needs significantly better sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even not a single reliable source available about him. Completely non notable.

Afstromen (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— clearly does not meet WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José María Alvarado

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

No significant coverage of individual, only cited source is a link to a defunct local history blog that links to a book written by a local newspaper reporter that provides no sources itself. Scuba 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Mexico, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was not able to find significant coverage in Google Books see here. It seems like most of his mentions in records of San Diego County are limited to simple land grants or ownership, and not an in depth view of his life. It could be that these documents do exist offline, but until they are produced, the article is unsourced and does not meet our requirements. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 14:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pauma massacre: Not notable enough. Barely mentioned in history books. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable for a stand alone page. While not opposed to a Redirect", as an ATD, Pauma massacre does not have supporting sourcing for the names on the embedded list. This is more of a genealogy or memorial page, part of What Wikipedia is not. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Mahdi

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

Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. The subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The young politician has never stood in an election. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The subject easily passed WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I want to mention some significant coverage by national and international media: Deutsche Welle, Manab Zamin, Bangla Tribune, The Daily Star.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources of in the article (such as Manab Zamin, Amnesty International, DW, The Daily Star BD) are all event based reports (such as arrest, disappearance, or participation in political rallies). The reports by DW and The Daily Star BD highlight his disappearance or political activitiest and do not establish him as a nationally or internationally notable figure. The incident of disappearance and the statement from Amnesty International do not establish Mahdi as a human rights activist or a notable person, rather he is mentioned as an example of the then government's human rights violations. The article describes his political activities, such as involvement with the National Citizens' Committee or the National Citizen Party and might have been presented in an exaggerated manner. Although his activities may be related to Hefazat-e-Islam or Islami Oikya Jote, he is not a notable leader of these organizations, and his contributions are not significant enough to be mentioned in articles about these organizations. This does not fulfill Wikipedia's two criteria (depth of information and neutrality). Policies like WP:ONEEVENT says that a single event (such as disappearance) or local political participation is not enough to establish notability.

So what I want to say is that the article should be deleted, and some parts (if not already) should be merged into other articles (such as Hefazat-e-Islam or the human rights situation in Bangladesh) if suitable for merging. Somajyoti ✉ 16:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT, as the event was part of his broader activism. There are sufficient reliable sources available to support a balanced and independent article, both before and after the event.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable + WP:TOOEARLY Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - it seems he did get some decent coverage for the arrest but overall fails WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 06:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Peck

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

Fails GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources - and NPOL - "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability" Paul W (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF or WP:NPOL; insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He has a few decently cited publications towards WP:NPROF#C1 but I do not see enough, albeit complicated by "F Peck" being a common name. The prize is relevant, but I do not see it as reaching #C2. I don't find enough general coverage for other notability criteria. I think it is WP:TOOSOON, and he will perhaps pass the bar for notability in a few years. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician, fails WP:NPOL - sources are all of a local political nature. SportingFlyer T·C 06:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have given the reasons for which I believe it should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we just bundle all of the Common Councillor pages that were created in a short time of each other? It'd save a lot of time.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch National Movement

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

Fails WP:GNG, mostly primary/affiliated sources, no significant coverage in WP:RS. Doesn't meet notability per WP:ORG or WP:NPOV. - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Organizations, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghulam Mohammed Baloch.❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 03:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghulam Mohammed Baloch. Yue🌙 05:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Aregbe

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

Subject fails NPOL and all ramifications of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are mostly WP:DOGBITESMAN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. King ChristLike (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

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

Subject fails NPOL and sources are insufficient to satisfy the requirements for GNG (independent, reliable, and substantial coverage). Some are interviews (not even with the subject), while others are election results from unsuccessful candidacy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angus Taylor (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Only two people with an article with a primary topic. The other two listed are a non notable musician and a non notable character. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Music, Mathematics, Disambiguations, Australia, and United States of America. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all DAB entries need to be articles themselves. It is plausible that someone searching for "Angus Taylor" might mean either the Magic Gang musician or the Halloween character, so merely hatnoting between Angus Taylor and Angus Ellis Taylor would be insufficient. That said, the Halloween character link should be through a redirect to section per MOS:DABREDIR. I'll do that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 10:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Preimage (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dab with four valid entries (one without his own bluelink but nevertheless passing WP:DABMENTION). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this valid and useful page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Marlowe

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

Subject does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:POLITICIAN and would likely not be considered notable under WP:POLOUTCOMES. He is the (uncontested) mayor of a town with <10000 residents and my searches returned purely local coverage. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 03:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator seems to have it right. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Close to zero notability. Switching parties is a WP:BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable local politician. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials, but rather elected officials like those who sit on the North Carolina Council of State. While there are politicians who serve in those positions, I don't consider most of the people in this chapter of the Illinois Blue Book to be politicians and would consider it applies to the rest of the US including Arkansas. An example of a statewide official in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer. It certainly does not apply to state party chairs who are often elected by a handful of people and are not guaranteed to generate enough independent, secondary coverage to warrant a presumption of notability. This would not preclude a creation based on meeting the criteria set out by other policies on Wikipedia. A county judge in a larger county and cabinet member (albeit one with a very short time in office) might be able to meet that threshold.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would note solicitor generals in the United States like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer are almost always under an attorney general and not cabinet members so not a great example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) is exactly on point, and resulted in a keep. Statewide cabinet members (and state supreme court justices) both meet WP:NPOL without elections, in my opinion and per precedent. Schimmer and Johnson are both listed on WP:NSUBPOL, and they illustrate the line. Wood is just barely past the notable line, in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transportation secretary is a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, so by the letter of the law it would theoretically pass NPOL. However, there has been pushback prior regarding minor state cabinet positions that are more bureaucratic rather than political/ministerial (I do not know if this is one of those, just laying it out). Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Transportation Secretary of Arkansas, not merely as a party chair. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fazackarley

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

Article about a ceremonial mayor, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, British mayors of the "everybody on council gets to be mayor for a year instead of being generally elected to the position" type are not inherently notable enough for Wikipedia just for being mayors per se -- they can qualify for articles if they can be shown as the subject of enough WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable media sources to pass WP:NPOL #2, but are not automatically entitled to have articles just for existing. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- nine of the ten footnotes were self-published by the city council itself, and the other one is a directory entry -- with not a single reliable or GNG-building piece of media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's been a councilor for a long time and as a result, there's a lot of local news coverage in the newspaper. There's been occasional national coverage, but it's all pretty in passing. I find this kind of article frustrating, because I would tend to include them. We could redirect to List of mayors of Portsmouth Jahaza (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - while it's common for political biographies to have a lot of primary sources, this is too much. Lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. I'm not opposed to a redirect, as suggested, in this and similar cases. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Harding

AfDs for this article:

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

Just a year ago, this page was redirected following an AfD discussion due to lack of WP:GNG-qualifying coverage and a failure to pass WP:NPOL. The page has been recreated at much greater length but I am not seeing the kind of WP:SIGCOV we need to see. To the extent there is any secondary coverage here, it is either local coverage that is limited to her role as mayor or a mayoral candidate ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:ROUTINE election coverage ([41], [42]). I am concerned that this article also fails WP:NOT by constituting WP:OR, considering the extensive use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, including official bios or statements ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]), primary source election results ([51], [52], [53]), and the subject's own Facebook posts ([54], [55], [56]). There is also a high likelihood of WP:SYNTH given the page creator's use of several sources that do not even mention Harding ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]). I see no warrant for a standalone page here and seek a fresh consensus for a redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough information to establish notability Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the previous AfD, she did get a fair bit of national media coverage earlier this year for a brief period after the council tried to pass a rule to gag her: e.g. [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]. There's also this piece in The Australian, which is probably slightly better than anything the article currently cites. I'm not convinced yet that it's quite enough to satisfy GNG, but all of the recent corruption in the Ipswich council does mean there's a little bit more non-routine and non-local coverage than I'd otherwise expect. MCE89 (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite new to writing articles on Wikipedia, but this feels premature as I am currently in the process of completing this and clearly haven't finished it. As the first Mayor of Ipswich following the unprecedented dismissal of the entire council, Teresa Harding is undoubtedly a significant political figure, not only within her city but in Queensland local government more broadly. She assumed leadership at a time of crisis and undertook systemic reforms aimed at restoring public trust in local government – reforms that have received both national media attention and industry recognition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO/ and WP:No original research. @Remarka6le Promotional tone falls under a specific WP:NOT guideline (the page that details what we DO NOT INCLUDE). Promotional tone is a clearly deletable offense under policy. Additionally, the sourcing is borderline; leaning in my opinion on the fail side on whether this meets WP:SIGCOV. To rescue this article it would require a complete rewrite to comply with wikipedia's policies against promoting the subject with an eye/ear towards maintaining an encyclopedic tone that is neutral and written in an impartial manner. Better sourcing is also needed to comply with WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:SYNTH policies per the concerns raised by DClemens . Leaving an article in this state in mainspace is not an option. A possible WP:ATD would be to draftify and require it to pass an WP:AFC review prior to moving back to main space. That would give interested editors time to fix the tone, original synthesis, and sourcing issues, and provide a necessary review process to ensure basic standards are met before the page goes live again.4meter4 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d absolutely be open to the article being draftified and going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process, rather than it being deleted outright. That seems like a far more constructive outcome, especially given that there are editors (myself included) willing to work on improving the tone, structure, and sourcing to bring it up to standard. Remarka6le (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Draftify – Teresa Harding's tenure as Mayor of Ipswich is marked by significant reforms, notably the launch of Australia's first local government Transparency and Integrity Hub. This initiative has received national accolades, including the Smart Cities Australia-New Zealand award, and has been instrumental in restoring public trust post the 2018 council dismissal. Given her role in pioneering open governance and the sustained, non-trivial coverage of her efforts, Harding meets the WP:POLITICIANS notability criteria. I support draftification and review through the WP:AFC process to enhance the article's quality and compliance with Wikipedia standards. Remarka6le (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep preferably but Draftify if necessary. The mayor of a municipality of 200,000 is obviously notable and there is plenty of coverage just from the public broadcaster and the national press alone. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-31/qld-paul-tully-ipswich-city-council-mayor-gag-allegation/104877954 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-28/ipswich-council-teresa-harding-paul-tully-media-gag/104866348 https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnation%2Fpolitics%2Fnew-ipswich-mayor-teresa-harding-cleans-closet-after-corruption-investigation%2Fnews-story%2F8cf83650b8a985c2ca1a236443871058&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=GROUPA-Segment-1-NOSCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append
Draftify: Again, this subject fails all ramifications of NPOL. That being said, the criteria for GNG is also not satisfied (multiple independent, reliable, and substantial coverages). Dclemens gave a proper analysis above as to why. This would need to go through AfC if for nothing else, for surety that GNG is met before acceptance, of course, unless she occupies a NPOL-notable office in the future. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Draftify – The article on Teresa Harding appears to meet the criteria set out in WP:SIGCOV, based on the sources currently cited. Deletion does not seem warranted. That said, if there are concerns about notability depth or article quality, draftification could be a suitable interim step. — DroneStar87 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am OK with draftify as an option for the page creator to demonstrate notability, along with a recommendation to submit through AfC so we're not right back here if this gets moved unilaterally to mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all politicians receive some sort of significant coverage, so we look at the depth of coverage especially for local positions per WP:NPOL. Given this vote is (possibly) your first edit, that may not be obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. The sourcing does not meet our expectations, per WP:GNG. Size of municipality does not matter - what matters for local officials is whether there is enough reliable sources to say more than "the mayor exists." We want to see independent sources that discuss the impact of the mayor/local official had on their municipality or their region. If sent to draft, this would need to come back through AFC --Enos733 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as this article has a number of issues including lots of references with passing mentions leading to WP:CITEKILL. It reads more like a profile piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Note I haven't seen an article with significant coverage here yet, with sources put forward appearing to be routine coverage - there are lots of these references. The only reason I'm not !voting Delete is that there may be enough to meet WP:BASIC but I just haven't been able to find these. Nnev66 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Adrian Schrinner – Brisbane (1st)

Tom Tate – Gold Coast (2nd)

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

Darren Power – former Mayor of Logan (4th)

Rosanna Natoli – Sunshine Coast (5th)

Teresa Harding – Ipswich (6th, under discussion)

Troy Thompson (politician) – Townsville (7th)

Geoff McDonald (mayor) – Toowoomba (8th)

Bob Manning (mayor) – Cairns (9th)

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

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

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

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

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

Wiesław Lewicki (Normal Country)

AfDs for this article:

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

Very minor Polish politician, never elected to any serious post. Declared intend to run for president twice, which got very little coverage, either. No pl interwiki. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. PS. Article recreated recently following deletion - may qualify for speedy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Amberg

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. City Clerk of Chicago is not an office which confers inherent notability (nor is penitentiary commissioner, another office he appears to have held). Search turns up some mentions of his name but no significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place: Amberg was an elected official whose office (City Clerk of Chicago) has a Wikipedia page with numerous officeholders' biographies included on Wikipedia. City Clerk of Chicago was and remains notable, hence many holders of this office have Wikipedia biographies and the office has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyVoice (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While WP:POLOUTCOMES notes that major local can often meet GNG, the sourcing on this and his tenure do not lead me to believe that such content exists.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

AfDs for this article:

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

Binkley hasn't recieved notable coverage outside of his campaign, as far as I can tell. Even the campaign coverage was mostly routine and the votes he recieved make clear that his campaign wasn't notable Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I can't grasp how this discussion was started despite the overwhelming evidence raised at the last AfD that indicates notability extending over multiple aspects of this individual. Even if you want to discount that the prolonged and significant coverage of Binkley's campaign does not extend notability to him as an individual, you have to accept that it does indicate notability of his campaign. Beyond this, multiple discussions established that there were substantial indications of notability beyond campaign coverage. Binkley's work as a pastor, M&A consultant, and restaurant franchise owner have all received coverage independent from his campaign. I would encourage Esolo5002 to withdraw this nomination expeditiously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly with this reading of the last AFD, especially because two different discussions ended in deletions relatively recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those two deletion discussions closed with different outcomes because 1.) less coverage had actually occurred up to that point and 2.) there was a lack of awareness regarding the other sources of this subject's notability. The latter discussion clearly indicates that what had previously been a consensus towards deletion had overwhelming shifted to a consensus to keep. For many subjects, this is the natural progression of things. Your rationale for deletion is objectively false, looking solely at the sources in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a corollary to all this, see Talk:Ryan Binkley#Requested move 25 February 2024, which directly addresses the question of notability beyond the campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources currently in the article

1-Probably is good enough

2-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

3-Routine campaign announcement

4-Not a news article

5-Routine campaign announcement

6-Routine campaign announcement

7-More in-depth campaign coverage

8-Press release

9-More in-depth campaign coverage

10-Couldn't access but doesn't appear to be about Binkley enough to help his notability

11-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

12-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

13-Interview

14-Routine campaign announcement

15-Routine campaign announcement

16-More in-depth campaign coverage

17-Press release

18-Routine campaign coverage

19-Routine campaign coverage

20-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

21-Routine campaign coverage

22-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

23-Tweet

24-Routine campaign coverage

25-Doesn't even mention him

26-Routine campaign coverage

27-In-depth campaign coverage

28-Not a news article

29-Doesn't even mention him

30-Live blog

31-In-depth campaign coverage

32-In-depth campaign coverage

33-Live blog (and even if it wasn't, not enough for notability)

34-Not a news article

35-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

36-Literally has nothing to do with Binkley (I will remove this source after I'm done with this reply)

37-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

38-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

39-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot, also Newsweek is not reliable)

40-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

41-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

42-In-depth campaign coverage

43-Not a news article

44-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

45-Routine campaign coverage

46-Couldn't access, probably routine campaign coverage

47-Does not appear to be a reliable source, looks like a tabloid

48-Press release

One source is good enough for notability. Even in the in-depth campaign sources go on about nobody has ever heard of this guy. Lots of people run for President, some people have enough to get on the ballot, that doesn't mean they are notable. The Nevada coverage is so funny in hindsight because he was the only other person on the ballot, and got less than 1% of the vote. There is just not enough here for him to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is that six articles providing in-depth coverage of his campaign, another source you admit is adequate to source him as a subject, and still other sources describing him in other contexts is insufficient to retain an article? I think that you provide the real rationale for your edit in the comment above: that he got less than 1% of the vote. That being the case does nothing to determine notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of his campaign is not good enough for his own notability. It's good enough for his campaign's notabiity, not his own. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought that was the case, why aren't you proposing a move to Ryan Binkley presidential campaign? Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more sources available now then the last time this article was kept, and notability is not temporary. Jahaza (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No explanation has been offered for why the previous discussion result of "keep" was invalid. Notability once gained is not lost. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Redirect to a campaign oriented page such as a correctly spelled version of Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin.~~ This subject is now in its fourth AfD. Thus far, two deletes and a keep. The first two times we got it right. There are three claims here: candidate, pastor, and businessman. There is a lot of "Who is Ryan?" coverage which is campaign coverage caters to nerds. It literally goes "hey, look at this after thought!" It's like the coverage is a concession he is not notable. I am unconvinced that such coverage will be historically significant. The citations are also very announcement heavy which seems redundant. There are a number of efforts to mask a lack of notability. Identifying how much he spent on radio ads, the totals of other candidates, mentioning he spoke at a dinner literally all candidates get to speak at, and elaborate descriptions of his election results are hallmarks of efforts to mask a lack of notability. In many of the citations, Binkley is not the main subject. While one need not be the main subject, I feel he is too tertiary to add up a bunch of mentions (as another user points out are routine) and pretend it is the same as a smaller number of in-depth, sustained coverage sources (the HITC listicle seems particularly egregious). There is no lasting coverage. There is no in-depth coverage of the candidacy or the subject. His candidacy does not confer notability.

This leaves us with religious leader and businessman. I do not think he meets the religious leader criteria. The Church has 650 parishioners. While this is more people than I could ever hope to get to join me in anything, a Texas pastor who set out to church plant and several years later has 650 parishioners is not on its own notable. Finally, I don't think his business career meets notability. The business sources in the article are only once independent of the subject and the mention of him as part of a small franchisee team. Notability gained is not lost as someone said, BUT notability can be wrongly conferred by an AfD during election season as happens pretty regularly (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby v.s. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby (2nd nomination)). Deletions were correct in the first and second nomination. It was on the third nomination, done during peak election season when WP:NOTNEWS gets thrown out the window, that an erroneous consensus was reached.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is confusing. A !vote for deletion necessarily means the deletion of the content. A redirect means deleting the content (and possibly merging some content) to an existing article. What appears to be suggested is a page move, which is fundamentally different as the content is retained (albeit perhaps with an alteration to the scope). Discounting fulfillment of the GNG (which this article and subject absolutely does) because it's about a guy who failed in an election is bad precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware they are different. I mention I would be OK with a redirect as an alternative. I do not believe the subject should have a standalone page because of a failure to have the kind of independent, in-depth, sustained coverage expected under GNG as I say in my nomination and as Esolo5002 lays out in depth. There is no greater proof of this than the very little (if any) coverage of him since the 2024 Republican primary election. Would you prefer I make this exclusively a !deletevote?--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed solution was a redirect to an article that doesn't exist. Further, a straight !vote for deletion makes no sense by GNG: Esolo5002's analysis indicates that we have a RS source from 2020 that provides SIGCOV of the subject plus multiple RSs providing SIGCOV during the election. That alone meets GNG. !voting delete would seem to be a peculiar reaction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my !vote and I am just going to leave an essay about how an article about you or someone you like is not always a good thing here. I have no new policy arguments to make and just reiterating at each other is not the best use of either of our time.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: I think Binkley is a bit of a loon, so your unsubtle aspersion should be retracted. If anything, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can either claim my vote is nonsensical or you can be mad when I simplify it. This was not done out of spite, it was to ensure my vote is accurately weighted by the closer. I can see how my inclusion of the essay was unfair. I clearly made some assumptions based on past AfDs with candidate advocates fighting for articles. I should not have let that cloud my judgment as to your !vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: Your explanation is much appreciated. I agree that we should not run in circles here, and accept that you are convinced to !vote delete based on policy, even if I disagree. Let me know if you need help accessing at anything related to this subject if you participate anywhere else in this AfD. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete: Provide a single noteworthy news source talking about this guy after the election, or before the election. He was a flash in the pan candidate and people with Wikipedia articles should have enough coverage of the person beyond just one event, if not, mention them in the page for the event.

Ryan Binkley's inclusion in Wikipedia should be limited to a redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Candidates.

Scuba 21:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot, but you were very clearly informed that there was indeed an adequate source prior to the election, see this discussion. If you believe that coverage persisting past an arbitrary point is a necessary prerequisite, this is not premised in the WP:GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not changing my vote from last time as I'm not sure what has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not clear even from the sources in the article. He was minor candidiate that did not make it. It seems the artcle was created for his candidacy purposes. I don't see notable coverage after the Primaries in 2024. Not enough for a stand alone article. Cannot think of a useful redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To any closer, please consider moving this to a draft briefly, as I would like to access the history for about 48 hours. I want to consider this for a possibly discussion on the relevant policy talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment here, but it comes down to the following: I worry the application of NPOL might be superseding the standards of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This article has SIGCOV of the subject from national- or international-level reliable sources from the following months:
  - May 2020 (pre-election): 1
  - April 2023: 1, 2
  - July 2023: 1
  - January 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4
  - February 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
- Maybe US presidential elections are a special case where the remarkable amount of news coverage outweighs the conventional BASIC and GNG standards. Consider responding at the above-linked discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started to write this at WT:Notability (people) where Pbritti has opened a separate discussion, but my comment became more about this specific AfD so I'm leaving it here. Breaking news like "Binkley announces he is running for president" is primary sourcing and therefore doesn't count toward notability under GNG or BASIC. Stringing together separate breaking news sources to create an article is bad practice and produces low-quality content. General coverage like a biographical piece on Binkley's life is secondary and does count toward notability. Most sourcing about him looks to be the former, and even the ones that lean toward the latter seem to be prompted and heavily influenced by ongoing events rather than analysis that indicates he has more generally been taken note of as a significant figure. So my question is whether any general biographical sources have been written about him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for replying here. There's a source from 2020 that's been discussed before, unrelated to the election. Please feel welcome to comment further in the other discussion, too; I'd like to hear more about what you said regarding BASIC in the discussion above the one I started. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mr. Binkley ran a noteworthy campaign for President of the United States. He was the first candidate to visit all 99 counties in Iowa. He also reached the threshold of unique donations required to make the Presidential debate. There were many other notable campaign accomplishments, including significant media appearances (example: an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News), getting on the ballot in 40+ states, and outperforming former Governor Asa Hutchinson in the Iowa Caucus. Outside of the campaign, Ryan is the Co-Founder and CEO of Generational Group, a successful mergers & acquisitions firm, Co-Founder and Pastor of a church, and owner of a restaurant chain. His Wikipedia page should remain in place. 24.107.146.24 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Prenkaj

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

Minor diplomat now working as a functionary at the UN. Almost all hits are articles written by the subject, or where he is briefly quoted giving his opinion. I did find one profile of him in local media, but that doesn't amount to passing WP:SIGCOV in general.

His previous job titles are not automatically notable, and it isn't reasonable to suggest (as the opening section does) that he was a member of the Kosovo cabinet by virtue of being a political adviser. Overall, comes across as an inadequate promo page. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment members of a national cabinet meet WP:NPOL.They appear to have served in the cabinet of Atifete Jahjaga. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. The sources are few and him having jobs in governemnt are not enough for a stand alone article. Reads like a resume too. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Automatically notable as a member of Kosovo's cabinet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is ZERO Automatically notable people on Wikipedia. The subject fails the criteria for a BLP page. I don't see the source "Kosovo info" (current number 4) supporting the article content. "Public policy consultant", "former Kosovo diplomat", or "former Adviser" are not notable positions. The subject lacks the elements to qualify as a full and balanced biography. Wikipedia is not intended to be a resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "Presumed notability" is dependent on sourcing requirements being satisfied per GNG, NBASIC, ANYBIO. Someone who is barely notable is a red flag. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Chapman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A city councilman (unless of a city significantly larger than Alexandria, Virginia) isn't notable. Could be redirected to Alexandria, Virginia#Government, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a politician, he's not notable because all the coverage is local. It's possible that his tour guide company could become notable. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Javadi

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_27#Ali_Javadi * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A cursory search of his name in English and Farsi returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 19:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful state congressional candidate. Other claim to fame is being Vice-Chairman of a libertarian group within the Republican Party, which doesn't seem enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only two sources that deal at length with him are articles in the Providence Phoenix, an alternative weekly newspaper. There is also a bio, but that's from the North American Foundation for the University of Durham, of which he is an alumnus. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "'Notability' is not synonymous with 'fame'. Subject has contributed to discourse on the US presidential election process, advocacy for the 'national popular vote' relative to the electoral college: covered on CSPAN and PBS - both US national news sources. Not a "congressional candidate" but a candidate for state house, regardless: elected to the Greenwich, Connecticut legislature, which seems a notable body, based on article. Online search shows: continues to work nationally with at least three organizations: american security fund, hispanic leadership fund, and american unity political action commmittee. There is a bio on the hispanic leadership site. The 'delete' would be premature, article needs new citations to show career progression.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He is active in various political organizations, but I don't believe that matters, otherwise every political junkie and party activist in the United States would meet the threshold. You note he was elected to the legislature of Greenwich, Connecticut: I do not agree this establishes notability. Per WP:NPOL, he has not held a state-wide office and he is not a major local figure who has received significant press coverage. That leaves WP:GNG, and there is not enough discussion of him in reliable, secondary sources to qualify on this metric either. Leonstojka (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Subject doesn't fit the description of 'political junkie': works on notable national issues, visibly participates in these, covered by national media. On the municipal legislature: he was an elected official; subject's overall participation in public service is hued by these roles. Career progression seems important per WP:NPOL: he meets a general notability in the political space, verifiable bio on one of the three national organizations he works with since last article update, that I could find, and was an active participant in the presidential election discourse in 2016 with relevance (the libertarian party played a substantive role in 2016 and subject led a national republican effort across parties). This article would likely be recreated: the ebb and flow of politics and missing updates to article are not a robust basis to delete if subject continues to develop a substantive career. Grant18650602 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lopez Reyes continues to write and publish on music subjects, podcasting; an online search shows he’s active politically but also in writing and podcasting on the music, entertainment side. Agreed small updates could improve article.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The music writing and podcasting are very unlikely to make him notable though, unless you could demonstrate the writing is impactful enough to meet WP:JOURNALIST, or his podcasting work has generated significant commentary in secondary sources. If the evidence exists, a major edit should be conducted immediately. Leonstojka (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reyes is still active nationally, Libertarians for National Popular Vote features him on their board with Gary Johnson and Lincoln Chafee and it seems the campaign to shift the election process to a popular vote is ongoing. His bio is available in more than one place. Searching his name as "Ed Lopez" vs "Ed Lopez-Reyes" will make a difference and the name variation is discussed in the article. Some of the information discussed in the comments above is in the article under the Notes section, but that would all fit fine in the main body. This article just needs some revision and updates, I also think it will be recreated anyway if deleted.--1975tampabayray (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level politico and failed candidate. The amount of name-dropping in the article, particularly on the Young Conservatives for Freedom to Marry (a sub-group of Freedom to Marry), is a clear effort to mask a lack of notability. There are also a lot of weasel words like "participated," meant to further mask this. This individual and their blogging do not meet the criteria to have a stand alone article.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The editors and contributors to the article seem to be acting in good faith, not in "name dropping" or leveraging "weasel" vocabulary.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability for an encylopedic entry. Following comments by Mpen320. His article reads like a promotion for a candidate. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But an online search doesn't show he is a candidate for an office at the moment; it shows after losing one campaign he continued to serve in a municipal elective office but also continued to take on national political roles. I'm not seeing the promotion of a candidacy.--Grant18650602 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - party leaders and political candidates are not automatically notable, and we have deleted articles about failed candidates of every political ideology. Also, this lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see anything unusual or unique about him. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be acknowledged that a couple of the user accounts supporting retention of the article appear to be single-purpose accounts that have recently come back from long periods of inactivity just to take part in this discussion and may have a conflict of interest. Leonstojka (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should comment, on the comment regarding editors 'in support'. Speaking for myself only: ater taking a deeper interest in SCOTUS Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 and then the 2016 election I found some(?) of the editing contentious, politically biased, and more focused on deletions than improving articles. So I don't edit as much, but it's not for lack (or conflict) of interest. It seems the editorial culture in Wikipedia has been debated a lot in recent years. I'm not here to discuss myself or that, but thought I would address this feedback since I've had an active voice in this particular article and discussion and have done that in good faith. Cheers! Grant18650602 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh Kadam

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

Fails NPOL, not inherently notable, sources are not significant and are only annoucing his appointment and coverage related to a small controversy, but no significant coverage of the subject found in multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 05:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Barrow

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

1. Chief Executives of County Councils don't seem to be inherently notable, as opposed to say, an elected politician serving as council leader.

2. The article resembles a pseudo-biography, as much of the content is dominated by an event/controversy that could be restricted to either the article on Lincolnshire County Council or Jim Speechley.

3. I was unable to locate significant secondary source coverage of the subject (all the hits revolved around the story at the heart of the article), and the career details in the article rely on a Who's Who entry. Leonstojka (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks that she was a minor character in the controversy, and none of the articles in the page or that I can find are ABOUT her, just mentions at best. I do find a brief, local source when she is appointed as the first woman CEO to the council, but it's pretty shallow. I find more sources about her successor after she left that post. I just don't get any hint of notability beyond her patch. Lamona (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added additional sourcing and content to the article. Barrow's notability is established by discussion of her tenure in an academic book, plus significant coverage in multiple news articles relating to her tenure in Lincolnshire and Surrey, examples of which I have included in the article. These mean that the article is now more balanced away from the focus on the Speechley controversy and has a far wider sourcebase. Taken together with the Who's Who entry and the existing sourcing, this makes a strong case for meeting GNG through SIGCOV in reliable sources. Barrow's position as the first woman to be in a CEO role of a top-tier local authority in the UK adds to this notability claim, though I do not argue that it is fundamental to it. —Noswall59 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I looked at most of the sources and I still do not see any that would rise to notability. I am not able to see more than a snippet of the Leach book, but according to the index her name appears on only one page. The articles about her becoming school head are brief (one is only 3 sentences) and these are routine short news blurbs for local positions - not notable. The three BBC links are about someone else and do not mention her. I think that whole paragraph needs to be removed. The one full-length piece about her is from the Lincolnshire Echo - possibly a good source, but that's only one, and it has the disadvantage of being only of local scope. As I can't see all of the sources, could you indicate which ones you determine to support notability? Thanks, Lamona (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. To be clear, the Leach book discusses her tenure as CEO over at least 2 full pages -- it is not just a passing mention, but an analysis of her role in the context of managing the coalition and supporting the delivery of the new leadership's agenda.

A source being a local newspaper has nothing to do with notability. GNG simply requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The following demonstrate this, alongside the Leach book:

The Staines & Egham News source is reliable and independent. It is 8 paragraphs long and entirely about her and her career.
The Lincolnshire Echo article is an entire page of content about her; again, independent, reliable and SIGCOV.
There is another article which is 9 paragraphs long entitled "'Why Can't We Ask Why County Boss Left?'", Lincolnshire Standard and Boston Guardian, 22 January 1998, p. 7. This is entirely concerned with her sudden departure. Another reliable, independent source. I have just added this to the article.
She is also the subject of a near-whole-page feature: "Council Boss 'Secret Deal'", Lincolnshire Echo, 3 January 1998, p. 2. Again, reliable, independent and significant coverage. I have also added this to the article.

Finally, whilst I know that Who's Who books are typically vanity publications, the one I'm using in this article is not -- it is highly selective and produced by Oxford University Press. It does rely on information being submitted by the subject, so is not a secondary source and cannot support controversial points, but it's still usable under WP:SELFSOURCE for the basic facts of Barrow's birth and education and I've restored it as a source there. As a selective source about the subject, it is also very pertinent to these discussions around notability.

There's probably much more that could be found in newspapers -- the challenge is that her name is mentioned so often that trawling through indexed results takes a lot of time (many of these papers were not digitised when I created this article). Nevertheless, in my view, the coverage outlined above, alongside the discussion of her role in the Speechley controversy, provides ample evidence of meeting GNG. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The RS:Perennial sources does list the UK who's who as unreliable. WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Who's Who (UK). The WP article - Who's Who (UK) - appears to include the OUP version although it gets a bit confusing with the listing of multiple publishers - I'm assuming we are talking about the same publication. A selfsource still needs to be a reliable source, and I don't think that we would include someone here solely on their appearance in who's who. I still contend that she is of local interest only, no different to any other admirable civil servant, and has done nothing that would arise to notability. This is confirmed, IMO, by the fact that her info is only carried in news sources that serve local communities of small populations. Even the Lincolnshire Echo only has a circulation of under 3K. The KPMG report was commissioned by the Lincolnshire County Council, so that again does not demonstrate interest to a larger community. Admittedly my idea of "small" is cultural, but a national news source would do much to bolster notability here. Lamona (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought to look at this: WW(UK) has >30K entries. Lamona (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Who's Who, the perennial sources list you've quoted states that "it should be regarded as a self-published source", and as per our guidance on self-published sources (specifically at WP:ABOUTSELF): "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". Hence, whilst it might not be considered reliable, it is acceptable to verify the basic facts of Barrow's birth, parentage and education. But my point is less about the quality of the sourcing, and more about the fact that inclusion in Who's Who is a useful indicator of notability. As they say, it "Contains autobiographical listings of people from around the globe who have an impact on British life" and the inclusion process is discussed here (scroll down). It is indeed published by OUP. I'm not sure I see your comment that it includes 32,000 people as a weakness -- these include living and dead people from Britain, its former colonies and the wider world going back to the late 19th century. Wikipedia has 1,704,254 biographies by comparison -- I'd wager we have plenty more UK biographies too. Apparently, we're a lot less discerning here than Who's Who.

That matter aside, notability is assessed based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. I've provided multiple instances of these above and in the article. There's nothing in any policy that I've encountered which says sources need to be national in scope or that the subjects of articles need to be relevant to anything more than a "local" setting -- as long as they are attested by sigcov in independent and reliable sources, they meet GNG. Otherwise we'd never have articles about species which are endemic to small locations, local elections, lower league football teams, or even places or other notable local buildings. —Noswall59 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the first sentence in the perennial sources list: Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. That's the part that worries me. Also the legend for its coding states: Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those two guidelines (the perennial list and ABOUTSELF) seem to be directly contradicting each other then. I'm not sure of the way forward on that and personally disagree with that given ABOUTSELF. But even excluding Who's Who (and I still think it's a good indicator of notability), I maintain that the article meets GNG based on the other sourcing. –Noswall59 (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Lincolnshire County Council. Not seeing her being notable. It reads like a resume more than about notable activity. I say merge to salvage stuff from the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lincolnshire County Council per comments of Ramos1990. Although I do think it is possible that she could be somewhat notable considering she was the first woman chief executive of any county in England, but probably not notable enough for stand alone article. Also add a note that she was first woman chief executive of any county in England or add something like that. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Robitaille

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

Businessman and onetime political candidate. I don't see an argument for him being notable. I couldn't find any news coverage of him from the last 15 years. There were some articles from November 2024 about a candy store owned by a John Robitaille, but that store was in California, so I doubt it's the same person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember this candidate. He was up and coming. 2010 was the year the Republicans snatched defeat from victory. I'm not sure if it should be merged or redirected to the election article, in lieu of deleting, which I think would be a bad outcome. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I forgot to say in the nomination but I would support a redirect to 2010 Rhode Island gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Magcalas

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

All of the sources are WP:PASSINGMENTION, Data bases or unreliable. Before search yield nothing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - the subject was mayor of a state capital of over 100,000 residents, and so is likely to be notable. This is comparable with a mayor of Albany, New York. By comparison, we recently deleted the article of the mayor of Schenectady, New York, a smaller city that is not the state capital, but is still the 9th largest city in my state. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bearian's argument, as mayor of a region with population over 100,000. Though I will note that the sources used that describe him in any detail, here and on Tagalog Wikipedia, are of poor quality, mostly being Facebook posts and Wordpress. -- Recon rabbit 15:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see sources establishing notability. Not every politician that becomes mayor of a 100,000 region has a stand alone page like this. Plus facebook is not a good place for establishing notability. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also do not see sources establishing notability. Size of municipality does not matter whether a local official passes WP:NPOL, what matters for any local official is the quality of the coverage. What we want to see is enough verifiable information from reliable sources to show more that the mayor exists. We generally want to see something about their policies in office and their legacy. --Enos733 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects