Points of interest related to Politics on Wikipedia: Outline –  Portal –  Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
( talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics.

Further information

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

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

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus ( talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

“	I appreciate the fact, and am proud of it, that the attentions I am receiving are intended more for our country than for me personally.	”
— Ulysses S. Grant

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Military, Politics, United States of America, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/ WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA ( talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep   First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
  The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
  It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ami Dror

Ami Dror (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep ^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. -- Omer Toledano ( talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep-- היידן ( talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Sofiblum ( talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep ^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep ^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne ( talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w ( talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep ^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep ^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep ^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg ( talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep ^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg ( talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep ^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

• Ref 1 [1] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
• Ref 2 [2] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
• Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
• Ref 4 [3] This is another interview. Not independent.
• Ref 5 [4] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
• Ref 6 [5] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
• Ref 7 [6] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
• Ref 8 [7] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
• Ref 9 [8] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
• Ref 10 [9] Another press-release Non-RS.
• Ref 11 [10] An interview. Not independent.
• Ref 12 [11] Business interview. It is not independent.
• Ref 13 [12] Another interview. Not independent.
• Ref 14 404
• Ref 15 [13] A radio interview. Not independent.
• Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep ^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

• Ref 32 [14] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
• Ref 33 [15] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
• Ref 30 [16] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. -- Omer Toledano ( talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for posting these @ Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

• Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
• Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
• Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep ^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. -- Omer Toledano ( talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

• Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep ^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Thanks for posting these @ Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

• Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
• Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
• Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep ^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

• Ref 17 [17] Another interview. Its not independent.
• Ref 18 [18] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
• Ref 19 Non-rs
• Ref 20 Non-rs
• Ref 21 Unable to view it
• Ref 22 [19] Its a passing mention.
• Ref 23 Non-rs
• Ref 24 [20] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
• Ref 25 [21] Essentially a passing mention.
• Ref 27 [22] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
• Ref 28 [23] Doesn't mention him.
• Ref 29 [24] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
• Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
• Ref 31 [25] A small profile. Not significant.
• Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
• Ref 34 Non-rs
• Ref 35 [26] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 36 [27] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep ^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg ( talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep ^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Indian general election in South India

2024 Indian general election in South India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Practically a duplicate of the main election article. A general regional election article isn't needed as each state in South India has an article about the general election taking place in the respective state. Regional articles for India would only create more for the sake of more and would be more stats articles and wouldn't provide meaningful context. Articles about the election in each state and territory for the country is enough outside the main election article.

And the creator who contest the speedy deletion tag, states article like UK elections in England is a precenident type article. However, England is not a region in the UK. It is one of the countries part of the UK thus an article for each UK member country makes sense. Regions in England like Midlands, London, etc don't need articles for each general election result as that would be overkill. Articles like these would be overkill as well. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I don't see why this article is needed independently from the main article. Cortador ( talk) 15:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are already articles for each state in Category:2024 Indian general election by state or union territory, not sure why this is needed. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unnecessary fork of main article given we have 'by state' articles. Number 5 7 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Woke Mind Virus

Woke Mind Virus (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn ( talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. ( t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As a neologism, there are numerous treatments in secondary sources (see Isaacson, Ali, Krugman, McKeown and Wright, etc.). Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term " Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) ( talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. ( t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Chris Ashby

Chris Ashby (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else. Let'srun ( talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun ( talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC ( talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ikkjutt Jammu

Ikkjutt Jammu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has many wrong and disputed information like IkkJutt Jammu is different organisation in Jammu And ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal is different from it. Both organisation have officially different different social accounts and websites.pls delete it. Nishalover — Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Speedy procedural close, sockpuppetry and no valid rationale for deletion, same as last AFD by another sock of this master: see SPI for details. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete it Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover ( talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- The sources already in the article suffice to meet the GNG. If nom's claims about the article's inaccuracies are correct then fixing them is a matter of ordinary editing. Take it to the talk page, not to AfD. Central and Adams ( talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Problem is, this article is with wrong redirection like Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal, Ankur Sharma (politician). Nishalover ( talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  WP:FIXIT. Central and Adams ( talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are many organizations in the local language of Jammu that have the same name. The problem with this article is that this article is about political Party whose name is IkkJutt Jammu.Apart from this is an Ekjut Jammu Party whose name has been changed to Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal. These two are different .But this article has redirected Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong.The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu.Delete the article if not So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Association for Competitive Technology

Association for Competitive Technology (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails general notability guideline. every source in the article is primary. ltb d l ( talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltb d l ( talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete

  Per @ Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see. Fugabus ( talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Heights and weights of US presidents

Heights and weights of US presidents (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failure to meet WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) ( talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 ( talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article ( Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov ( talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 ( talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR ( talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura ( talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Evan Roden

Evan Roden (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Autobiography of an individual who does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, as there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of him. See source assessment below. Jfire ( talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"NYS Assembly Bill Search"	Primary source			✘ No
"Opt-Out Organ Donation"	Primary source			✘ No
"The Ins and Outs of Organ Donation"		~ Blog from medical institution	Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"College Students Push for More Organ Donations"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"New York State Legislature Passes Living Donor Support Act"		Press release		✘ No
"Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives"			Only a quote from Roden	✘ No
"Youth Coalition For Organ Donation Strives to Save Lives"		Press release		✘ No
"TEDxTulane"	TEDx Talk by Roden			✘ No
"WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award"			Nomination for non-notable award	✘ No
"Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney"			Roden is not mentioned	✘ No
"Loyola team wins honorable mention in the global “Students Reinventing Cities” competition"	University press release			✘ No
"ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden"	Podcast with Roden			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Politics, and New York. Jfire ( talk) 23:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'll leave supporting sources out of this, so skip things like the bill text and citations for references to NY's lower relative rate of donor designation, only focusing on significant coverage of Roden (me; COI already declared, but I'll use third person here). If there's an issue with a small number of sources, tags may be more appropriate, including the autobiog tag. I've only been at this for a few years, so feel free to share any guidance as I work through objecting to this change.

  The first piece, "WNY College Activists Hope to Change New York State Organ Donation to Opt-Out'" is a video about the group Roden formed, a bill Roden authored, and interviews Roden starting at 0:52, and is the largest of the interviewees.

  The second, "College Students Push for More Organ Donations," includes an extensive interview with Roden, along with an attached article with quotes from him and descriptions of his background.

  The third, a press release from Waitlist Zero, supports the claim that Roden was directly involved with the bill.

  The fourth, "Students push to change organ donor registry in hopes of saving more lives," which also includes a correlate article with a quote from Roden, spends the bulk of the included news reel on an interview with him, starting at 0:31.

  The fifth, a Tedx Talk by the subject, is significant, notable coverage.

  The sixth, "WNY Teens Nominated for American Red Cross Award," covers a notable award given to Roden by an arm of an international non-profit.

  The seventh, "Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra receives new kidney," includes a discussion of the former politician's involvement with Roden's non-profit during the included video interview.

  The Eighth, "ODAC: Voices Amplified Fireside Chat with Evan Roden," is a long-form interview of Roden, again, meeting the Significant Coverage bar. Evanroden1 ( talk) 01:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Fails WP:SIRS per the source assessment table. Interviews generally fail SIRS as they are not independent; we don't care what the subject says about themself, we care what others have written about the subject. UtherSRG (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Source table is very clear-cut about the reliability of the sources and their contribution towards notability. It may also be stating the obvious, but I think User:Evanroden1 might have a COI in advocating for this article to be kept. GraziePrego ( talk) 03:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per the ref table. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your endeavors. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pakistan audio leaks controversy

Pakistan audio leaks controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador ( talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality.  samee   converse  02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 ( talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli ( talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador ( talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 ( talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D ( talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. -- Enos733 ( talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 ( talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Barlaston Parish Council

Barlaston Parish Council (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder ( talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder ( talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Freedom and Justice (Poland)

Freedom and Justice (Poland) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [35], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 ( talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. As the polish version of the article was also deleted, its evident that the organization is not notable. Nagol0929 ( talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Added a couple of citations, so at least the article isn't completely unreferenced now. The problem with secret underground organizations is that information about them is difficult to find (by design), but there seems to be more discussion of Freedom and Justice recent years. In fact, this journal article was published in 2021, probably after the Polish AfD discussion. There is also this 2022 article. These are brief mentions at best, but I don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now. (The key seems to be to search for both "Wolnosc i Sprawiedliwosc" and "WiN" together.) A possible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to Cursed soldiers where this group is mentioned. Cielquiparle ( talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Martyr (politics)

Martyr (politics) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Low quality article. Parent article Martyr already clarifies in the first sentence that the word may have a non-religious meaning. I propose a merge of this article to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr and/or Martyr#Revolutionary martyr. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Religion. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [36]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [37] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [38]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [39] [40]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

That is what is known as a bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire ( talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. "Low quality article" is not a valid reason for deletion. Had you done a BEFORE, you might have seen titles such as Martyrs in the Making: Political Martyrdom in Late Medieval England, Politics of Death: The Cult of Nazi Martyrs, 1920-1939, Imre Nagy, Martyr of the Nation, or Heroes, Martyrs, and Political Messiahs in Revolutionary Cuba, 1946-1958. The article clearly fulfils GNG. -- Scolaire ( talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Merge I see no need to have separate articles for people martyred for religious reasons and people martyred for political reasons since the term still has the same meaning of persecution. The main martyr article still includes a number of political and other non-religious related examples, so if there's actually a distinction to be made, the split should be done more clearly. The book titles above can still be used in the main article. The main page has 30 times the viewers as this page, so why make readers go through another link for the full concept when length is not an issue? Reywas92 ^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I would agree with you that there should be a clearer split. Any mention of political martyrdom, including the Revolutionary martyr section, should be moved out of the Martyr article to this one, and just have a hatnote on the Martyr article pointing to this one. Scolaire ( talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Institute for Political and Legal Education

Institute for Political and Legal Education (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad ( talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
• Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN  978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
• Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
• United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [41], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 ( talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Malik Siraj Akbar

Malik Siraj Akbar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP, created by a SPA Jarisful ( talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. -- Twinkle1990 ( talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG — Saqib ( talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile ( talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile ( talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile ( talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile ( talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa ( talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I did just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile ( talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ephraim Israel National Convention

Ephraim Israel National Convention (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet ( talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet ( talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [42]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [43], [44], [45]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. -- Soman ( talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 ( talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay ( talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 ( talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay ( talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder ( talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview ( talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco ( talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 ( talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 ( talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. -- WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel ( talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 ( talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus, similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot. ~ Politicdude ( About me, talk, contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE. Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 ( talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska: The standalone is not necessary and is not notable. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile ( talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it. Geotubemedia ( talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 ( talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 ( talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

AmericaSpeaks

AmericaSpeaks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies ( talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 ( talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls ( talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty ( talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle ( talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCORP. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle ( talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle ( talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 ( talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X ( talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Radical pro-Beijing camp

Radical pro-Beijing camp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 ( talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT ( talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele ( talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT ( talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 ( talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao ( talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun ( talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea ( talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering ( talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT ( talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Stowmarket Town Council

Stowmarket Town Council (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder ( talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder ( talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B- t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples ( talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2007 Montgomery mayoral election

2007 Montgomery mayoral election (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 ( talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian ( talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T· C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 ( talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob ( Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kanwali

Kanwali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N. Either delete or redirect it to Dehradun Municipal Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 31. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Wards may qualify as legally recognized places per GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep GEOLAND. TheTankman ( talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get policy-based opinions with more elaboration?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 10:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Daniel M. Thomas

Daniel M. Thomas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he served on a county board of supervisors, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's a local office that has to satisfy NPOL #2, where the notability test is contingent on the amount of substance that can be written about his political impact, and the amount of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is literally just "he is a person who existed, the end", and is completely unsourced. Bearcat ( talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat ( talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I would suspect that the second Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is more historically significant as a body than many later iterations of the same, and wonder if perhaps sources can be found for this subject. I immediately wonder if he is the same person as the Daniel M. Thomas who was elected as the first County Judge of San Bernardino County. BD2412 T 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment It is the same person. He was a Mormon political activist who advocated for San Bernardino County to be split off from Los Angeles County. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed. See also the county record. I would lean to keep on the strength of these points. BD2412 T 22:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wretha Hanson

Wretha Hanson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she was an alternate vice-presidential candidate in one state for a minor fringe party's presidential campaign, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- it could get her an article if she were shown to actually pass WP:GNG for it, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from GNG. But there are just three improperly-formatted footnotes here, all of which are to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, so she hasn't been shown to satisfy GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat ( talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nomination for deletion under WP:BIODELETE per request on my talk. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Arab Emirates. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Neutral (recuse/abstain), neither advocate nor oppose deletion, please do not consider my nomination a !vote. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ben Obese-Jecty

Ben Obese-Jecty (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac ( talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper ( talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 ( talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat ^{( talk, contributions)} 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Gilles Beaudoin

Gilles Beaudoin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a former mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to pass conditional notability standards based on the depth of substance that can be written about their careers and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it -- but this, as written, is basically "mayor who existed" apart from a section that advertorially bulletpoints a generic list of "achievements" without really saying or sourcing anything whatsoever about what he personally had to do with any of them, and minimally cites the whole thing to one primary source self-published by the city government that isn't support for notability at all, one unreliable source that isn't support for notability at all, and just one hit of run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [46] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [47]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Shreya Verma

Shreya Verma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Case of BLP1E. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG as BLP is contesting in the 2024 Indian general election and has not been elected to any office positions yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: I don't know how these people create an article about a politician without reading Guidelines. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman ( talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL, same like previous AFDs Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. No in-depth coverage of the Subject and not yet elected as MP or MLA to pass WP:NPOL, If she wins the election and elected as a MP then he will automatically pass WP:NPOL. Grabup ( talk) 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat ( talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Olanrewaju Smart

Olanrewaju Smart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL ( WP:NSUBPOL), sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In short, the offices being occupied by the subject do not guarantee notability under WP:NPOL and fail WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics. His successor Jake Dan-Azumi also has a Wikipedia article. Batmanthe8th ( talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Batmanthe8th Oh, thank you for bringing my attention there. Under what criteria do you think COSs are notable? They do not fall under any and have to pass WP:GNG which this one and the one you have pointed me to utterly fails. Even the COS page is AfD-worthy. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I recall accepting the COS page a while back on the generous side due to its notable role in Nigerian politics. I didn't nessesarily imagine the individual people getting their own articles unless they were notable for something else, though. TheBritinator ( talk) 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: being the Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives and Senior Special Assistant to the President are notable positions. I know all of the Senior Advisor to the President of the United States are considered notable, so why not Nigeria especially that this article have good sources to confirm WP:42 FuzzyMagma ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pujan Malvankar

Pujan Malvankar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape") WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's the leader of the youth chapter of a state-level political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it could get him into Wikipedia if he were shown to pass WP:GNG, but does not automatically entitle him to a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because he exists.
But the referencing here is not getting him over GNG: it's referenced to one primary source, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article that doesn't even mention his name at all, and appears to be here just to tangentially verify that the political party he works for exists, none of which is support for his standalone notability as an individual at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat ( talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat ( talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This individual doesn't meet the general notability guidelines; there's no news coverage about him, only passing mentions. Additionally, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL since he hasn't been elected as an MLA or MP yet. Grabup ( talk) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: PROMO with the typical flowery wording we see, boils down to "nice guy runs for functionary position in the youth wing of a political party". Very not notable. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You mentioned that the leader is of a 'state level poltical party'.This is just to inform you,its not a state party Aam Aadmi party is a national paty (AAP). a Link for your reference https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/story/aap-national-party-status-how-to-get-the-tag-2358592-2023-04-11

If needed i shall add more references. Unknowncrypto ( talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/aap-requests-cm-to-postpone-exams/articleshow/88819441.cms Unknowncrypto ( talk) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't really think it matters, he's a functionary regardless. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

He's the leader of the youth division (not the entire party) of a state-level chapter of a national party, not of the youth division of the entire national party. So I said nothing incorrect at all. Bearcat ( talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well thank you for clarifying, the leader of the youth division of a state-level chapter is not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b ( talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

K.S. Hamza

K.S. Hamza (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no reference to winning an election or being in a position of power in another party to qualify as a political activist WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 ( talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Spworld2 ( talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 25. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat ( talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch ( talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete: [48] Did not win his election so no WP:NPOL pass, and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 ( talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat ( talk) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Anshul Avijit

Anshul Avijit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete Simply being nominated for the general election in 2024 doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:NPOL. However, if the individual wins and is elected as a Member of Parliament, they would then meet the notability criteria. Currently, there's a lack of in-depth coverage on the subject, with the cited sources being primarily press releases. Grabup ( talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep: he is national spokesperson of Indian National Congress and we have article like Nupur Sharma. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject starting from his grandmother Sumitra Devi (politician) to his mother Meira Kumar.- Admantine123 ( talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat ( talk) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tim Rabbitt

Tim Rabbitt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. In terms of NPOL, the role of chair (mayor) of Galway County Council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article are either primary or the very definition of trivial passing mentions. In my own WP:BEFORE a Google search (which which returns barely 50 results) and a news search (which returns only opinion pieces and passing mentions) does not amount to SIGCOV. Certainly any more than we would expect for any other candidate for a local office. As we (quite correctly) do not have articles for Mayor of Galway County Council or Cathaoirleach of Galway County Council, I do not see how a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Or draftification or other forms of ATD. Hence the only action I can support is deletion... Guliolopez ( talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom and per WP:NPOL. Spleodrach ( talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the provision of significant substance about their work in the role and significant reliable sourcing to support it — but this is just "mayor who existed", supported by a minimal smattering of primary and unreliable sourcing with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy referencing shown at all, which is not what it takes. Bearcat ( talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Heights and weights of US presidents

Heights and weights of US presidents (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failure to meet WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) ( talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 ( talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article ( Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov ( talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 ( talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR ( talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura ( talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Cheryl Epple

Cheryl Epple (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and California. Classicwiki ( talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat ( talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate)

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. Geotubemedia ( talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots as a viable ATD. Per nom. and others, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 ( talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat ( talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 ( talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. GobsPint ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

William Clouston

William Clouston (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel ( talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election. Rupples ( talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ramgopal Suthar

Ramgopal Suthar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel ( talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Wikishovel ( talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra ( talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie ( talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie ( talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel ( talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^Edit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ossanda Liber

Ossanda Liber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder ( talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder ( talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 ( talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. Pam D 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T· C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. Pam D 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Anton Ojala

Anton Ojala (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails WP:BLP Villian Factman ( talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Villian Factman ( talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, New Zealand, and Barbados. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep; sources exists; I've added 4 of them from local or regional newspapers where his work is the primary focus or prominent; reaches WP:BIO. 12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Klbrain ( talk)
• Delete I don't think any of the sources in the article, including the recently added ones, show WP:GNG, as they do not really specifically cover him directly apart from the fact he had a job. SportingFlyer T· C 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime ( talk) 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Patrick Braxton

Patrick Braxton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:

  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

  On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.
  So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

  As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [49] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [50] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T· C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions