Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

IForIndia

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:10YT and WP:NORG. Didn't get off the ground insofar as the website is dead and the Facebook page was last updated in 2019. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket balance

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

This has been sitting here as a largely unsourced original research essay for over 15 years. Since there's been almost zero attempt to rectify this, I think it should just be removed from the enecylopedia. (Perhaps it could be thrown into a draft for someone to work on over the next 15 years) ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a list of sources at the bottom, might be OR, but it's not unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, and why I said "largely unsourced" - the bulk of the content appears to be unsourced OR. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a list of sources at the bottom, but none of them uses the term "ticket balance" and all are talking about different (but related) things, with this article apparently trying to tie them all together into a coherent concept...textbook WP:OR. This source uses the term "balanced ticket": [1], but I don't know about its reliability. I can find passing uses of the phrase in different non-RS articles (blogs and so forth) but it's not clear that they're talking about the same thing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darius J. Pearce

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Business, and Jersey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that this is not the first time deletion of this article has been debated, I would ask you to explain what has changed since the last debate took place which would mean that the decision to retain the article, should now be re-considered?

He definitely falls within the general notability guideline in terms of Jersey. Darius J. Pearce is one of the most influential political figures in the island. As you may be able to tell he evokes strong feelings both for and against. However, even from within prison walls (he is not due for release until December 2025 at the earliest) he has still managed to hit the headlines every year since incarcerated (most of which have not been included within the article). Let's face it two people have been arguing for weeks over what should go in the article or not; that in itself dictates that he has some level of notability.

Whilst it is not unreasonable to argue that no Jersey politician meets the criteria required for WP:BASIC. That would seem to be very unfair to small jurisdictions; likewise no politician of the Pitcairn Islands or of the Faroe islands should be represented as they are not particularly newsworthy outside their jurisdiction. Admittedly a number of the stories which the original article refers to have since disappeared from the web, however, I have reviewed the article and there are a substantial number of stories from other Jersey news sources which have not been referred to.

There is a danger in people from large jurisdictions not allowing small jurisdictions to be properly represented, I would say if you delete this article then at least 90% of Jersey articles should also be deleted. RichardColgate (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RichardColgate, if he is one of the most influential political figures in the island, it should be no trouble finding sources stating as such. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern was/is to prevent defamation from taking place... deletion achieves that - so I am ambivalent on the deletion generally, but wished to raise the issue of ensuring that small jurisdictions. Trust me - no one from Jersey is of any particular importance outside Jersey other than Henry Cavill of course. So I am sure Curb Safe Charmer and I will agree that it is better if local people decide who is locally notable.

The article was very old and a lot of the links upon which it was based no longer function, that does not mean that they never did. Wikipedia does not require that the facts are verifiable ONLY from internet links.

You have decided you want to edit this article so you could do the research I suggest that you look up the human rights case in the Court of Appeal of Jersey, which he won as a litigant in person. The first person ever. Extremely notable within our community. Just go through all the judgements that you removed from the article and you will see why he is notable... he is not a lawyer, he represents himself and he wins. A non-lawyer mentioned in the Letter to the Editor in the Jersey Law Review by Stephanie Nicolle QC (not being from Jersey you will not understand the importance of Stephanie Nicolle but she is THE authority on law in Jersey, she never gets anything wrong).

I am not here to prove anything to you, BUT... should you wish to delete the article then so be it, there is nothing stopping me from re-posting once I have had the time and inclination to do the research and write the article. RichardColgate (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. Also delete per WP:NOTPROMO as the article is clearly full of puffery and lack encyclopedic WP:TONE. As far as I can tell no serious discussion of notability has taken place anywhere. This is the first AFD, and Talk:Darius J. Pearce has a very nominal wave at a notability discussion without actually engaging with WP:N policy in a meaningful way. The article is currently mainly cited to WP:PRIMARY sources, and those that are not independent or only mention the subject in passing. None of the sources meet the requirements at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - meets WP:GNG - see Google News, but needs to be TNTed due to COI, neutrality and undue weight. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Curb Safe Charmer, WP:BASIC requires significant coverage from sources that are intellectually independent of each other. The Google News link only shows coverage in one local newspaper. Are there any other sources which provide significant coverage? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A quick search found [2], [3], [4], [5]. Note Bailiwick Express was independent of the Jersey Evening Post at the time, but the companies have since merged. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So it appears that if he is notable, it is because of his criminal activities, in which case WP:CRIMINAL comes into play. I do not believe either of the criteria apply. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. And WP:SIGCOV is still not met.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's convinced me. Struck my keep !vote and changed to delete. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I chopped out all the material that not verifiable per WP:BURDEN/ WP:Verifiability; removed criminal content cited only to primary sources which is a no-no under WP:BLPCRIMINAL and WP:Attack page; and removed all original synthesis and analysis on primary sources per WP:No original research. There's hardly anything left now in the article, because there is no secondary coverage of this man except for his criminal activities above. But adding that in now would be against multiple policies; including WP:CRIMINAL, WP:BLPCRIMINAL, and WP:Attack page. There's no way we can have an article on this man.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete* I have been persuaded to change from being ambivfalent to being in favour of deleting this article as it stands. I have neither the time nor the inclination to re-write the article now. I will simply re-add if and when I get the urge to write the article to the appropriate standard. Thanks to all for their assistance in bringing the defamation to an end of one of the most renowned and notable anti-establishment Jersey politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardColgate (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the original author of the article, although it has changed significantly since I wrote the stub back in 2006. I concur that nearly all the articles which have been the source of much of the development of this page have now gone dead for one reason or another but the article is nearly 20 years old.

No doubt he falls within the general notability guideline. I have found 62 separate news stories on Bailiwick Express related to Darius Pearce since 2014 (when that paper started). Here is one story from JEP which makes him recently very notable locally - ^[1], there are multiple articles in the Jersey Evening Post archive. There are many pages worth of his Court cases on the Jersey Law website (see the 10:41, 13 November 2024 version of the page). How much coverage is significant coverage? He is most notable to me personally as the only other Darius who lives in Jersey, however that is beside the point. The trouble is that most articles about him are 'tabloid' articles. If you read this article you would know that this goes back to the time he embarrassed the JEP by pointing out they were aggrandising the Chief Minister by cropping photos in a misleading way. He has been newsworthy even whilst languishing in a prison cell (under Jersey's laws he can be released no earlier than after five years, so that will be December 2025). I would concur with Richard Colgate's comments about small jurisdictions, it is important that we are represented equally with larger jurisdictions. If you were to ask anyone in Jersey who are the 100 most notable political figures then Darius would definitely make it in and for the 50 most notable, when it came to the top 20 I think that would be pushing it. How notable is notable within a small jurisdiction? You seem to want to exclude him simply for not being ruthless enough a self-promoter.^[2]

KEEPI would look at it from the perspective of whether or not Jersey as a whole would be better represented with this page included or without, on that basis it is a

That said how we would reach a stage where the article was acceptable is another question. Much of the background information you have removed is available on Darius' blog and/or 'the Friends of Darius Pearce' (the group raising funds for his ongoing appeals) blog, sources do not need to be neutral per wiki requirements, I suspect that is the source of Richard Colgate's version of the article. see ^[3] ^[4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusJersey (talk • contribs)

^ Jersey Evening Post. Jersey Evening Post https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2022/12/05/no-doubt-money-launderer-handcuffed-at-fathers-funeral-had-rights-breached/. Retrieved 18th November 2024. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "How to donate". Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "About Darius". Through Deserts Blog. Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
^ "Darius Pearce Jersey electoral history". Flow.je. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

Note. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#DariusJersey and RichardColgate.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He doesn't meet the criteria for notability as a crime perpetrator. The only significant coverage of him is routine local coverage that focuses on his legal issues and refers to him as a jeweller. There's nothing to indicate he's notable as a politician either. Ynsfial (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete the articles of failed parliamentary candidates. We also don’t owe an article to anyone or any place. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China-Myanmar community with a shared future

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

Does not appear to have WP:SUSTAINED notability warranting an artcle. Amigao (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, China, and Myanmar. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to China–Myanmar relations as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social radicalism

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

Unless I see sources distinguishing the two—the article presently cites none (!) whatsoever—this seems to overlap entirely with Radical politics. Remsense ‥ 论 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- these are clearly different. The first is "the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system," formerly used to describe Radicalism (historical) and now fully general, across the political spectrum. The second is "is a political philosophy and variety of radicalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical radicalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance." So, the first is just "being radical" and the second is "a specific radical and usually centre to centre-left political philosophy".

While I'm not sure these refer to the same thing, here are a few sources that mention the term "social radicalism", one of which is an entire book about it (found by googling "social radicalism" in quotes):

See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22social+radicalism%22 for some more. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap entirely was a misnomer on my part. I am immensely skeptical given the lack of reification of this term that it should be given its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Italy by time in office

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

Unsourced, and has no information that isn't present in List of presidents of Italy, apart from 'cause of end of term' (which could easily be added). Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really to merge, and per same rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash-Shatat

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

Based nearly entirely on unreliable sources, with no lasting significance or impact. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently based on poor sources but there seem to be better ones out there.

[6][7][8][9][10][11] BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this far out news reports are primary sources. One of those seems fine though. nableezy - 13:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, media reviews/commentary are secondary regardless of temporal distance (which is mentioned at WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Sources above are good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren’t media reviews, they are news stories. nableezy - 14:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are commentary on the program and its existence, they're not merely "this program aired" they discuss it and its context. So I think it counts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There also seem to be a decent amount of mentions of this program in academic books, but most aren't very long admittedly, not passing but not extensive. However there are quite a few. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the sources Bob mentioned, which are indeed secondary, there's significant coverage in books, articles, and government reports, mostly under "al-Shatat" rather than "ash-Shatat". A lot of it I don't have access to, but some public ones are [12] [13] [14] [15]. So I think it meets WP:GNG, the article certainly needs work though. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xDanielx Andre🚐 01:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thank you. The sources presented seem to allow to improve the page (which badly needs it) and show it's notable enough. Some contain only a brief amount of coverage on the fiction and a lot of context but all in all, I find there's enough, so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 03:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Politics, Judaism, and Middle East. -Mushy Yank. 03:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood quota

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

Several claims in the article are inadequately supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Assertions about the centrality of the "Blood Quota" to the Shining Path’s ideology are not backed by academic or historical works explicitly addressing this term as a concept. This undermines the credibility of the article.

The tone of the article is biased and excessively negative. For instance, phrases such as "communist militants willfully promoted hatred and violence to attract adherents" reflect an unbalanced perspective. The article fails to present counterpoints or explore broader historical contexts, such as the societal conditions or political dynamics of Peru during the Shining Path’s rise. Much of the article appears to rely on synthesis or interpretation not directly supported by the cited sources. For example, connecting the "Blood Quota" to Gonzalo Thought as a strategic doctrine is speculative and lacks corroborating evidence from established analyses of the Shining Path’s ideology. Volantor (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Volantor (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:WRONGFORUM and procedural close. It sounds like these are WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:POV issues but not WP:Notability issues. This could easily be solved by editing the article to fix content issues through WP:BOLD and/or by dialoguing on the article's talk page using the WP:CONSENSUS process. Failing that, take this to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Either way, no notability or WP:Deletion policy based rationale for deletion has been made by the nominator and this should be closed immediately for procedural reasons. AFD is not the place to work out content disputes.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A very cursory search shows there is ample academic writing on the topic. To quote Jima-González and Paradela-López (Latin American Perspectives 48:6, 194-209, 2021) "The [ 1983 Lucanamarca massacre ] was “justified” by Pensamiento Gonzalo’s idea that “the blood quota” was necessary for the triumph of the revolution" Finding the concept unpalatable is another issue but one should not try to hide or sanewash the darker parts of history just because they make no rational sense. Superboilles (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There are ample sources that demonstrate the notability of the concept from scholarly papers not just routine news coverage. The nomination statement itself did not present strong case against the notability of the concept but focused more on the tone of the content and its perceived biased nature. This is better resolved by presenting a neutral view of events described in the article not through constructive editing. Deletion is not an option. Mekomo (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added WP:Notability issues to the original post with AI, but personally I support a NEUTRALization of the article to meet NPOV.

JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a notability opinion here. But you may not modify the text of a signed comment by another editor or the nominator's text. Your contribution was reverted because this is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. I understand you meant it out of a good motivation, but we rely on people not editing other users signed comments or it makes dialoguing reliably no longer possible on any page.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office

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

Unreferenced, and there is no information here that isn't already present in List of prime ministers of Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The other list is better and has all the same content. We don't need duplicate lists.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prime ministers of Italy (specifically, adapting the table on the new target to be sortable and thus to provide all the navigational value here). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A similar list of prime ministers which appears comprehensive already exists for about a decade before this was created. This List of prime ministers of Italy is detailed enough and this nominated article does not need to be merged with the earlier list. Mekomo (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't think a merge is appropriate as there isn't any new information to merge. Procyon117 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The thing to be merged (unusually) is the sortable table formatting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Meh, there's no need for a "merge" outcome to have the table in the target reformatted. Withdrawing !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

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

I fail to see how this election is notable enough to warrant its own page. Like anything, elections aren't automatically or inherently notable merely because they happened (WP:NRV). I can't find any coverage on the election besides that D-R candidate Ashley became Lt. Governor, and that's it. There isn't any information on how many votes he received or why the election was unopposed. Basically everything here can be found on Ashley's page and the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri page. Also, the only source used in the article is OurCampaigns (marked as unreliable on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial_sources), which in my experience frequently provides incorrect information, including fabricating details and candidates. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem. For example on how OurCampaings is a bad source see this version of the 1845 governor election in Virginia and this version of the 1848 governor election in Virginia where the article, using OurCampaigns, says the candidate won unopposed with a single person casting a ballot. When you look at those pages now, with reliable sources, you can see that's not the case.

Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [16] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All as repetitious electioncruft. I tried to fight against these kinds of articles in the past to little success, so I am a little bit biased against these types. WP:NPOL is not about elections, but politicians. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the respective gubernatorial elections (where another source other than Ourcampaigns can be found). I agree with 1ctinus's view that it is unnecessary to have separate articles on the election to every individual position when they took place at the same time. If we can combine (e.g.) presidential and vice presidential elections at the national level in almost all cases (like 1891 Brazilian presidential election or 1910 Mexican general election), it seems somewhat odd not to do so at sub-national level. Number 5 7 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per WP:NOPAGE, which can be applied to all nominated articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump effect

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

Collection of quotes showing no evidence that "Trump effect" exists as a well-defined, studied concept. There's also a big issue of WP:RECENTISM about defining it as the specific effect of Trump's 2024 reelection, given that previous iterations of the same idea were repeatedly deleted in 2016, in 2017 and in 2023.

Also, not a policy but I'm tempted to link to this essay: Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and other claims. Hoax? Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created (or recreated, I suppose) this article, I will go with whatever the consensus is. Perhaps the content could be merged into some other article? The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:52, 14 November 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 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. This is the third time this has been brought to AFD, and every time its brought here the term "Trump effect" has a different definition. That's because its a WP:NEOLOGISM without clear definition.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree that the attempts to create an article under this name have all be nonsense but I do think a redirect to Trumpism could be useful here. It seems clear that this is a term the media uses. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a potentially legitimate subject, and there are publications about it (e.g. [17]), but the page is merely a set of random quotations. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reuteurs wrote this is non-notable. This is basically a list of quotes, I'm not sure how this is an "effect" whe there is little to no critical discussion of this concept. Seems like an attack page of sorts. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that the article in Reuters and a few others I saw are insufficient. Even the exact subject here is not clear. One would think this is a page about the influence of Trump on US society and politics (and it is enormous!), but this is not how the subject was framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For all the reasons above. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy or snow delete. The article doesn't even say what the alleged subject is. "certain incidents" is not a defined subject at all. Most of the article is an indiscriminate list of News articles, only two of which even have "Trump effect" in their headlines, and none of which have any obvious relation to each other other than proximity to Trump and November 2024. This is worse than some of the previous unsuccessful attempts at an article under this name which did at least attempt to find a topic to write about. I think it might be speedily deleted under WP:A1 if we treat the list content as irrelevant padding. Failing that it's a snow delete. Maybe there will be something called the "Trump effect" one day. I could see it being used to describe a coarsening of political discourse for example, but it is not for us to coin such neologisms. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, and WP:SALT, as per most of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom

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

Uncited article on an unnotable office. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Royalty and nobility, and Netherlands. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bergen op Zoom#History (provided it is properly sourced). That article mentions the margravate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge indeed. Title abolished in 1795 is a fascinating footnote and barely more. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article is too large to merge into the Bergen op Zoom history section, the result would be too unbalanced. I have provided three references. Bergen op Zoom is very proud of its history as margraviate. The palace of the margraves is a wonderful museum. The article on the list of Lords and Margraves is very interesting and useful.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither article is even remotely large. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Size is a relative concept. The history section in the Bergen op Zoom article is four paragraphs, 320 words. Very short. The Lords and margraves article is 200 words. Large, relative to the short history section. Merge the two and the result is unbalanced, in my opinion. That´s all. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given there is a museum dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom, it is a historically notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I presume there was no effort made to establish the nature of the 'musuem dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom'. It is the Markiezenhof, the oldest city palace in the Netherlands and it is not 'dedicated to the margraves'. And its existence and purpose doesn't make the list of lords and margraves of that place any more notable, properly referenced, germane or necessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Markiezenhof is not exactly a museum about the margraves, it is a museum named after the margraves. Still, the three Stijlkamers, three rooms of the permanent exhibit, are dedicated to Margrave Maria Henriette de la Tour d´Auvergne. So, a part of the museum is dedicated to the margraves, in particular to one of them. Anyway, I have added one more reference, a 170 page book specifically about the Lords and margraves, to further strengthen my case that the topic deserves a standalone article. Best, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, People and Women. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as done previously and lock it to prevent repeated disruption. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Internet, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG with multiple references focusing on her:

These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.

None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g 🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom., Iggy pop goes the weasel, Traumnovelle, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets GNG. See my comment above. C F A 💬 00:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do feel that those opting for redirect are really failing to see the huge differences between this AFD and the previous one in July.

1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).

2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.

3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).

In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a poorly-written article about a person whose accomplishments I find unimpressive. Sources obviously pass GNG. Is there a BLP issue, or some other urgent concern that makes GNG unsuitable here? Or is it just a politics thing? jp×g 🗯️ 02:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Not seeing any sources that are notable outside of Donald Trump, until she becomes notable by herself I can't vote keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)

In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [18] [19] [20] [21], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.

The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.

But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.

Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.

1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.

2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[22]] and [[23]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the family of Donald Trump. It doesn't need an independent article. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Notability is not inherited. This is, at best WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Bludger

AfDs for this article:

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

As the publisher of the site covered by this page, I would like to reactivate an earlier discussion concerning its potential deletion. I support this idea and the suggestion of absorbing its subject matter into a more general page about Australian political blogging. William Bowe (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi William. Have you declared your potential WP:COI on the article Talk page? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have now (I think). William Bowe (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIODELETE. Steelkamp (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments of original nom. J2m5 (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hannan Masud

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

Sources do not show in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs a review by Bengali-speaking editors. Several sources do not appear to mention the subject, but are used to support statements about him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is in development, and the person is worth notable. Need some time to add citations. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per @Ahammed Saad Bruno 🌹 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've read the entire article. In the second paragraph of the beginning, a statement by Abdul Hannan Masud (the subject of the article) from a Facebook video has been slightly modified and cited with a Facebook link. Again, what is written about the person in the third paragraph is not supported by the referenced news link. The news link discusses his speech. In the Early Life and Education section, several links are cited, which are inconsistent. In the Activism section, although some references align, a lot of personal opinions have been used. C⚛smLearner ^💬🔬 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical of cite bombs. I will withdraw my nomination if the creator can present three in-depth coverage from reliable sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family of JD Vance

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This article is two sentences and contains nothing not already in JD Vance's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every single piece of information can be found in his article. Bluepotato81 (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. Not sufficient significance to keep this page. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BIOFAMILY "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability". — Maile (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Two sentences with no information is not an article. Do not do this. Reywas92^Talk 17:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kentucky and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify WorldMappings (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leave the article pitching (which this reads as) to magazines, please. Nate • (chatter) 01:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK.TH1980 (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, maybe this could be worthy of it's own article years down the line, haha. Grahaml35 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ondo State Youth Network

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

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

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

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

The article lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The sources mainly report routine activities or brief mentions, without showing the organization's substantial impact. Without stronger reliable and secondary sources, it does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really? This is a recognized organization in Ondo state that pass WP:NCORP with their focus on youth development clearly cited on Punch, Dailytrust, Vanguard and TheNation. I will leave this up to other voters Tesleemah (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources available in the article and in more searches for sources are not significant enough to meet the criteria for organisations. I’ll appreciate a ping if more sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject pass WP:GNG as they are the Recognised Ondo Youth body in Ondo State according to Vanguard and other verifiable sources found in the article Kamoranesi90 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kamoranesi90 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
The sources you cited is a press release and I don’t really know what you mean by “recognised”. Here’s a paragraph from the source: “A statement issued by their Public Relation Officer, Olusa Christopher, in Akure, said that the youths in the state, are “deeply concerned about the lack of youth representation in governance, particularly in the forthcoming gubernatorial election slated for November 2024.”—emphasis are mine. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia "A press release (also known as a media release) is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release. A press release is traditionally composed of nine structural elements, including a headline, dateline, introduction, body, and other components."

In the above you referred to, I can't find an headline nor an endorsement from the PRO. That was just an opinion gathered from youths in Ondo State if you cross-examine the source I cited critically. By recognized, I meant the umbrella registered body for youth in Ondo State is OSYN and they serve as a bridge between youth and Ondo State Government as seen here and here. Kamoranesi90 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t want this discussion to be more than it should be but when I said, press release, I am referring to this guide: WP:PRSOURCE. As you have shown above, the sources that validates the existence of this organisation are all press releases or are passing mention (see WP:CORPDEPTH). Serving as a bridge between the youths and the government is not and has never been a criteria for inclusion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the subject played significant impact representing youth in Ondo State to meet WP:GNG Albakry028 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Albakry028 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Comment: It is very imperative I mention that two of these !voters who opined keep are clearly canvassed users. The author of the article has a very good conflict of interest they aren’t disclosing, and they are likely in charge of recruiting users to come !vote a keep. The first keep !voter made their last edit to English Wikipedia on 9 October 2024 and suddenly came to vote a keep at AfD on 8 November. The second keep !voter has never !voted in an AfD since they joined in 2021 until now, and have never done so again. I have gone ahead to tag the !votes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular youth organization fails WP:GNG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. The Vanguard and The Nation sources are not independent of the organization. The third and fourth source cited in the article are not about the organization. Simply urging the governor of their state to address rising insecurity and appoint a younger running mate are not enough reasons to make this particular organization notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Vanguard (Nigeria) and The Nation (Nigeria) are major newspapers in Nigeria. That's like calling The Washington Post not independent of the organizations it writes on. They are clearly both independent of the subject, and providing independent secondary news coverage of the organization.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those particular sources are not independent of the subject. The entire text of those articles contain quotes from members of the organization. How are they independent? Its obvious that Vanguard and The Nation interviewed members of the organization and quoted them. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The COI oozing around this article (at least from my investigation at Wikimedia Commons), coupled with the fact that this "network" fails WP:ORGCRIT. I'm not seeing the substantial coverage required for a subject to have a standalone entry in the cited sources. A cursory search did not help either. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to ignore some comment you made here seeing how you and about three other editors had constantly insulted my person on the Wikimedia Nigeria User Group which I had endured, overlooked and dymystified for peace(I might take it up to the safety team later actually) but it seems you also have ulterior motive here and I have to speak up before other editors or administrators think this is true.

If you checked previous articles I had created in the past, while my major contributions are focused on Nigerian Projects, I don't have a particular niche I focused on. I am currently refurbishing Azaiki Public library while for the past two days, I have been cleaning up different articles. So what do you mean by COI?

I also put up a disclaimer on my userpage already to attest that I don't create article for anyone or any organisation which you copied recently and added to your own page. so what else do you expect from me?

I am honestly lost at what you meant by recent happenings on Wikicommon as I only have one account and I can't remember the last time I uploaded on Wikicommon. The last time I did was when I led the Project, Wiki and Health articles in Nigeria so what do you mean by happenings on Wikicommon?

If other editors are making disruptive edits on articles I created, how is this my fault or related to me when Infact Wikipedia and its sister projects are open to all? Please hold these individual responsible if these actions are not signed by me.

And if this article is too soon, then it's ok for it to be deleted, my overall goal is to document as many notable articles here as I see a lot of articles around Nigeria are still absent on Wikipedia. Tesleemah (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesleemah I will drop you a message (of advice? for your own good?) when I have the time, especially as this AfD is going to probably close soon. Selah! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this discussion was not closed even though the consensus (to me) was clear. Pray tell, who are those four editors from Nigeria insulting your person that you are planning on writing to T&S about? I know that this is an inappropriate venue to discuss this further but please, focus on the discussion and stop ad hominem arguments. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sourcing here isn't as bad as some of the voters waging a war on coi editing are claiming. There clearly is some mainstream Nigerian media coverage on this organization such as in Vanguard and The Nation. However, in my opinion the sourcing just falls short of WP:ORGCRIT; partly because the majority of the sources are not sufficiently in-depth, and partly because they are chronologically too close together to prove long-term significance. Ultimately, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the organization may become notable if there is one or two more pieces of WP:SIGCOV over the next year or two.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the bone of contention here is the lack of WP:CORPDEPTH which makes the article to fail the notability guideline for Wikipedia. Therefore, I did a source assessment table for all the sources.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/05/2024-ondo-youth-group-wants-dep-gov-slot-in-apc-pdp/amp/5d	It is a press release and full of the comments of the subject's PRO	Though, Vanguard is known for the publication of puff pieces but this is not one of them.	Lacked the information that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/ondo-youths-urge-gov-aiyedatiwa-to-address-rising-insecurity/	It is a press release telling government what to do over a periodic event	It is a reliable news media in Nigeria	The subject is not the main focus of the article and the information provided is nothing than it's name	✘ No
https://independent.ng/breaking-futa-postgraduate-student-breaks-new-record-for-longest-speech-marathon/	The article is not about the subject. It is about its PRO reading marathon	It is a reliable news media in Nigeria	There was not even a pass mention of the subject	✘ No
https://punchng.com/futa-student-sets-new-record-for-longest-speech-marathon/	The article is not about the subject. It is about its PRO reading marathon	It is a reliable national daily in Nigeria	No element of a pass mention	✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/ondo-guber-ondo-youths-ask-aiyedatiwa-ajayi-to-pick-young-running-mates/	It is a press release asking the government to pick a running mate. The statement was issued by their coordinator	It is a reliable news media	It doesn't provide deep or significant coverage on the overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization	✘ No
https://gazettengr.com/stakeholders-in-ondo-harp-on-sex-education-for-children/	The source is a good source but has nothing to do with the subject of this article	It is from a reliable news media in Nigeria	No element of even a pass mention	✘ 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}}.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the above assessment.Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Liberty Forum

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. BootsED (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating page for deletion for the following issues per WP:DP.

1. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content

The article contains large amounts of puffery and reads like an advertisement. Majority of the article is a list of speakers at conventions, mentions of their books, and external bare urls to their blogs or other websites.

2. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes

The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.

The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.

Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.

Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.

3. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

I cannot find reliable, non-primary sources for the large majority of the claimed speakers at these conventions.

4. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

Majority of the individuals listed fail notability requirements. BootsED (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more than the nominator's opinion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relato K

AfDs for this article:

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

POV forking and WP:UNDUE; the article is based on the opinions of far-right politicians such as Axel Kaiser. Also WP:OR?? JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Argentina. JPerez90 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please define what do you mean when you say "far-right". Do you mean that he's right-wing, but more enthusiastic than others? How would that make him an unreliable source? Or do you mean that he's racist, white-supremacist, or something similar? That would be something else, right, but I would like to see a specific reference of that, not just a generic label that seems to be applied at random. Cambalachero (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far right, the opposite of far left. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, means nothing. The article of Kaiser now has a reference of a book that calls him far-right, but again, only that, a label, without any specific racism, supremacism, or wrongdoing attributed to him. Calling someone "Far-right" seems to be becoming like Fascist (insult) nowadays. In fact, if we check that source, it says that Kaiser is far-right... in the middle of a grand conspiracy theory about how the far-right (the only kind of right-wing politics there seem to be) is out there to conquer the word, destroy the left, abolish democracy, and enslave the helpless working class. I have my doubts that can be considered a reliable source to begin with. Cambalachero (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter how you define it, the article isn't notable regardless. Sourcing is a mess and is mostly SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be SYNTH, I don't see the sources saying these various bullet points are related. Article draws conclusions that don't seem to be there. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should make more clear that the "relato K" concept has been used in several books and hundreds of articles in the press. I'm working on it. It has been used even in the context of the Spanish-language Wikipedia by an Argentine historian (in relation to hundreds of articles on Argentine history). I quote this Argentine historian and provide the citation:

"En 2014 dirigí una Enciclopedia Histórica Argentina que editó Clarín. Revisé varios cientos de entradas de Wikipedia referidas a la historia argentina, desde los casi ignotos guerreros de la independencia hasta conocidos personajes de la historia más reciente. Son contados los casos en que no me topara con una intrusión o manipulación con el clásico sabor del relato K."^[1]

AwerDiWeGo (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a translation: "In 2014 I was in charge of an Argentine History Encyclopedia, published by Clarín. I reviewed hundreds of articles related to Argentine history, from little-known fighters for independence to well-known personalities of more recent history. There were few cases in which I did not find an intrusion or manipulation with the classic taste of the K narrative (relato K)." AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Romero, Luis Alberto (2021-03-25). "Wikipedia: el toque del Rey Midas". Clarín (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-09-21.

Social utility efficiency

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Social utility efficiency

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

The definition of SUE as appearing in this article appears to be only discussed by Samuel Merrill and no other authors (excepting SPS and other unreliable sources) in the past several decades. I do not think this meets the notability bar. Affinepplan (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
- Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
  - Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
- "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
  - Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
- Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
  - "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
- Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
  - "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
  - "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
- Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
  - "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
- Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
  - "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
- "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
- "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
  - "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
- "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
  - "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
- "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
  - "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
- "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
  - "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
- "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
  - "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
- "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
  - "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
- "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
  - "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
- "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
  - "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
- "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
- "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
  - "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
- "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
- "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
  - "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
- "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
  - "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
- "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
  - "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
- "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
  - "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
- "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
  - "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
- Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
  - https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22social+utility+efficiency%22
  - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22voter+satisfaction+efficiency%22&tbm=bks
  - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22bayesian+regret%22+voting+method&tbm=bks — Omegatron (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret

2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.

I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE

2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.

3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric

I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911

and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.

There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).

If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:

most work in economics assumes cardinal preferences and takes a utilitarian approach. This viewpoint dates to the work of Bentham at the end of the 18th century, who argued that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong." [...] The utilitarian approach is prevalent, for example, in mechanism design, and perhaps even more so in algorithmic mechanism design [Nisan 2007].

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept

again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.

Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.

Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e. actual_utility / ideal_utility). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice).

But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,

it is not used in the literature.

> the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules

no it is not. it is about SUE.

can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this AfD does not qualify for "Speedy keep".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. The sources provided here show that its mention would be due there. Regardless of notability, which I take no position on, this topic is presented most clearly with other metrics for voting rules. I'm not concerned about making that section too long because I think it should probably be split out into its own article anyways, also for editorial reasons. In any case, this seems like a plausible search term; and redirection would be preferable to deletion. McYeee (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to merging it into a page about evaluating voting rules based on different metrics. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be merged with Implicit utilitarian voting. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Comparison of voting rules#Evaluation by metrics. I think the sourcing is there for WP:SIGCOV so a merge is not necessary. However, it would not be out of place in the Comparison of voting rules article. Oppose merge to Implicit utilitarian voting as these are two separate but related topics that can not be easily contained under a single title/scope.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hykeham Memorial

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

Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)

I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there should not be articles for parish wards, but Hykeham Memorial (formerly North Hykeham Memorial) (https://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE05014436), with the same boundaries as the parish ward (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/north_kesteven_order_map.pdf), is a ward of North Kesteven district. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources supporting independent notability. WP:EXIST is not a carte blanche to include everything under the sun. Wikipedia is not the directory of political parties in India, or anywhere for that matter, nor is it a collection of random information. And this is about a party that's currently in the national parliament but about in no sources appear to be interested? Come on. Redirect it, graciously, to List of political parties in India. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

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

Article about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address any of my points. There are no rules on Wikipedia about when a party is notable or not. And you didn't go after any of the other examples of parties that are as small as this one I showed you as an example to get them deleted either. So what really is your point here? -- Ermanarich (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs some more civil discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I do not know the particular requirements for notability about political parties on Wikipedia, but I am not sure their share of the vote is a consideration given other articles I have seen accepted from draft status. They seem to have been covered multiple times by news in Iraqi Kurdistan and they participated in their parlimentary elections. I even found this source which is not currently used in the article[24] which google translate tells me describes their break from the Kurdistan Islamic Movement for at least a paragraph or so.--Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has not provided a source analysis to demonstrate why this topic fails to meet WP:ORGCRIT in relation to the cited sources. Given that these are in Arabic, any good faith nomination would require the nominator to engage with the sources in relation to ORGCRIT. We're not just going to assume here that this hasn't met WP:THREE without a source analysis; particularly when we are dealing with a topic cited to exclusively foreign language references. Additionally, the nominator has largely based their deletion opinion on a statistical analysis not connected to any WP:SNG, WP:GNG, or WP:ORG policy, and in a way that seems unduly prejudicial. There are many nominal political parties that get SIGCOV even when they don't usually get many votes within elections.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I am re-writing the article. Easily passes WP:SIGCOV. There's quite a lot of scholarly publications on this group.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to analyse the changes added after the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is WP:SIGCOV based on the work and sources brought in by 4meter4. It passes notability. Mekomo (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Rmr. Ragulvarma

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

I couldn't find any information about this individual through Google searches, which makes me inclined towards this being a hoax. None of the references cited in the article appear to mention the person, and the content seems to be copied from the article on R. S. Munirathinam. Since the article was accepted via AfC, initiating a deletion discussion might be the most appropriate action. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Hitro talk 07:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azlan Mohd Lazim

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

Notability-tagged for 11 years. Fails WP:ONEEVENT. It's hard to understand why a biography about this person (not that it is a real biography at the moment) is warranted. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Gajec

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

Previous PROD by User:Mccapra was deleted. Subject is simply not notable--being mayor of a small city does not confer notability, no secondary sourcing proving notability is provided, and the two short web articles linked, one of which is simply an obit, don't give any indication that the man lived a life that made him notable. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the concerns raised about Andrzej Gajec's notability, but I believe the article should be kept. Serving as the mayor of Stalowa Wola for several years gives him a certain local prominence, which is relevant within the context of Polish municipal politics. Although his political career may not have garnered significant national attention, his role in a city of this size is still noteworthy and reflects a level of civic responsibility. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small town mayor for 3 yrs in the late 20th Century doesn't give you notability. Sources simply confirm this person held the post and I don't find anything about them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a mayor is not inherently notable (and certainly not for a small place with a population of less than 60,000). His certain local prominence is not an indication of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Meters (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Italy by time in office

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

Unsourced, and has no information that isn't present in List of presidents of Italy, apart from 'cause of end of term' (which could easily be added). Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really to merge, and per same rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office

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

Unreferenced, and there is no information here that isn't already present in List of prime ministers of Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The other list is better and has all the same content. We don't need duplicate lists.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of prime ministers of Italy (specifically, adapting the table on the new target to be sortable and thus to provide all the navigational value here). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A similar list of prime ministers which appears comprehensive already exists for about a decade before this was created. This List of prime ministers of Italy is detailed enough and this nominated article does not need to be merged with the earlier list. Mekomo (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't think a merge is appropriate as there isn't any new information to merge. Procyon117 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The thing to be merged (unusually) is the sortable table formatting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Meh, there's no need for a "merge" outcome to have the table in the target reformatted. Withdrawing !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomba Jawara

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

Really not sure what to do here. Looks like most of the media references to this person are to this very wikipedia article, and other links reference or duplicate the content here as well. There's this pdf that mentions someone by the same name and this one as well, but otherwise except for one archived link which I will go ahead and convert to a dubious reference, it's unclear what the story is here, so it would be good if people more knowledgeable than I can chime in, and either update or remove this article. It has been unsourced since 2021. It looks like it was unsuccessfully BLPPROD'd here but I think even with that external link as a reference it should qualify for AfD. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Africa, and Sierra Leone. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. GranCavallo (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Downes

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

Would not qualify for NPOL. If qualified for NACADEMICS, would need some sources to support that, which I'm not seeing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Computing, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citation profile in GS looks pretty strong,[25] with three papers >1000 citations, further seven >500 and nineteen in total >100. If there were clear sourcing for co-inventing massive open online course then I'd say that met WP:PROF per #4; I see the article on MOOC cites an article in Times Higher Education for their course being the one to inspire the coinage. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong citations, with all top-cited articles single-authored, highlighting notability Bernie Clay Bear (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In (reliably published journal paper) "MOOC rampant" [26] Jon Baggaley has this to say: "The invention of the MOOC is commonly attributed to two Canadian bloggers, Siemens and Downes, although, to do them justice, neither of them invented the MOOC itself, and Downes has since described their influences by earlier course designers ... . Nor do Downes or Siemens appear to have invented the MOOC term. That honor is claimed by a third Canadian, Cormier (2008), who came up with it to describe a Siemens and Downes course." Nonetheless, I think the statement that Downes played a key role in the rise of MOOCs is clear enough, giving him a strong case for the rare notability criterion WP:PROF#C4. It may have been a case of being in the right place at the right time but you could say that about a lot of notability claims. I think the case for #C1 is also strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammad Quraishi

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

No indication of notability. Being on a school board is not a prominent political position, even if he was the youngest. Article had previously been speedy deleted, both under this title and Ammad Uddin Quraishi. ... discospinster _talk 05:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Television, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no. Fails WP:NPOL; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, being on a school board is not notable. Even so, much of the article describes what the whole board did, with no indication of whether he contributed to those activities.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational. Mekomo (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to Draft - Article reaches both general notability guidelines as established by Wikipedia standards as well as subject specific guidelines for a politician. A school board position in New Jersey is a state level office , thus reaching notability under subnational politician rules. Since an individual or role not accorded presumed notability may still reach notability thresholds through the general notability guidelines, it is important of note that the individual was the youngest muslim elected to public office in the United States (relevant see: Bushra Amiwala). It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous".

Sources cited are reliable, secondary sources of significant press coverage, which has primarily appeared in print or on regional air (TV/radio), and has since been archived. BernieBruh (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, being the youngest identity to hold an office in the US is pretty significant. LahrenFan21 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Simons (politician) and Jaylen Smith (politician) and others were 18yo when elected mayors of their municipalities, so not really a first here. Djflem (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, mentioning Simons and Smith does give credibility to the WP:NPOL element as well as the WP:SIGCOV element. Simons coverage is local media, and Smith's mayoral election in a municipality 1/22nd the size of Quraishi's still holds notability. Smith of course benefits from national coverage, esp in relation to joining Clinton and Harris at events of course. LahrenFan21 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LahrenFan21 having contributed nothing to Wikipedia outside of Ammad Quraishi and BernieBruh having contributed nothing to Wikipedia outside of adding Ammad Qurashi to things before authoring the Ammad Qurashi article we are discussing. Neat. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Local school board office holders and coverage of those positions is considered WP:ROUTINE historically at AFD; and dismissed under WP:NOTNEWS. We would need to see media coverage outside of the local area to prove notability for Quraishi, and that just isn't the case in this instance.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @4meter4 While I do agree that school board office holders are typically considered WP:ROUTINE, as it was notable for Amiwala when published in 2019, it is notable that Quraishi holds a national title in that role. I understand your point on the sourcing of more media coverage, and am working accessing archived national news sources to attach to this article. BernieBruh (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National title? There's no such thing as a national title for a local school board member. If you mean the claim that he is youngest muslim to be elected in the United States, I don't think that claim is something that is provable. For one, we don't typically go around collecting data on the religions (or ages) of school board members or any other minor elected office holder nationally, and two proving that claim would require analyzing the religions of every school board member and minor elected office holder who has ever held office historically in every city, township, and bureau with elected offices nationally. Somebody could been elected as an auditor in a small town who was younger and muslim thirty years ago, and it probably would have passed without fanfare. In other words, its a highly speculative claim, and the sourcing itself doesn't appear to support the claim under our policy at Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the poor choice of words. Appreciate you pointing that out. But yes, referring to the claim of being the youngest muslim to be elected in the United States. It's true that data on religions or ages aren't gone around to be collected, but the latter is public information via filing data and reports. The former can generally be deduced if not reported. I agree with you that someone could have been elected to another position who was younger (than 18) and longer ago, which would then need to be reflected. I disagree that it's a highly speculative claim, but can concede that the sourcing can be stronger on noting that superlative. There is an archived story in a national publication that I'm working to source that had made note of it. Regardless, I still think it makes sense to Keep the article live (not just because I worked on it), but to add a tag to get more source material or citations. BernieBruh (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an individual's already-thin claim to notability is not supported by any reliable sources then it is inappropriate to publish it. Putting the article in draft will give the opportunity to find archived sources, and I originally did that, but you re-published it anyway. ... discospinster _talk 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the guidance you left on my talk page about moving the page back when ready for publication, though now I see I should have opted for "submit for review" option instead, so my apologies on that front. My understanding that the notability claim was supported by a reliable source, being The Record (in circulation since 1895). But I'll still work on attaching additional sources. Thanks, BernieBruh (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Record article only states that he's running, not that he's the youngest Muslim to be on a school board. ... discospinster _talk 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can deduce people's religions based on what? Their names? Where they live? People of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) live all over the world and have many kinds of names. See if you can guess the religion of the person based on their name in this list: Ammar al-Basri, Peter Finch, Jermaine Jackson, Vinnie Paz, John Walker Lindh, Abdulahad AbdulNour, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Keith Ellison, Leda Rafanelli, Gabriele Torsello, Rita Habib, Robert Dickson Crane, Shotaro Noda, Ryoji Aikawa, Masayoshi Ōhira, Tani Yutaka. Also where has there ever been a collection of the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database? The answer: No where. To run for office in a town the official process varies from state to state. Depending on the state one lives in, one files to run for local office at sometimes the township level and in other places it might be administrated by the county or at the state level. While their might be a record of the names of past office holders at local level in a state document; typically the age of that person isn't recorded except on the filing document which is generally held in the archives of the township or the county. While there is the freedom of information act, figuring out even where to look to get the ages of past people in elected office would be very challenging; particularly for people elected prior to the internet era in a small town (of which there are more than 19,000 in the United States). That would require physically going down to the township building and digging through old election filing forms. Some of those might have been thrown out after a period of time, lost, or destroyed. Others locked away in a dusty file cabinet that no one has looked at in decades. The point is, in no way did someone actually compile all that data and definitively come to a conclusion on this claim. It's simple guesswork, which is meaningless.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, generally speaking/on average, yes we can deduce most people's religions based on their name or country of origin. (My family has a very stereotypically Jewish name, for example, and it doesn't make us any less Jewish.) There are many Wikipedia articles detailing names associated with religions or identities. Quraishi, some names in Arabic-language surnames, Jewish surnames to name a few. That doesn't negate your point about people of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) having many kinds of names, but cherry picking a few (including converts) to make the point is counterproductive. Regardless, a source cited in the article makes reference to the fact that Quraishi is Muslim. I'll be sure to cite it where appropriate. And sure there may not be a collection of all the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database, but that isn't how we do research or source and present materials. Otherwise, there's no place for sites like Wikipedia on the internet. Contributors find sources and information and add or update articles as those sources are sought or are discovered, since there isn't a universal database containing all of the information. If that's the standard by which we're to source information, then we need to scrap this entire site. I do agree with you that it's not easy to source info and figuring out where to look to get some information is very challenging, but not impossible. Plus, even if someone didn't compile all that data and definitively come to the conclusion, a reasonable inference can be drawn, and titles can change hands over the years as someone else comes along, or uncovers a source that reveals new information. Best BernieBruh (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how Wikipedia works. We have rules regarding WP:Verifiability. We also have rules regarding WP:No original research. Inference does not meet the standard of our verifiability rules, and making inferences as you suggest is a form of WP:OR which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy . Another one of those rules is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is an extraordinary claim, and it therefore requires extraordinary sourcing which means a minimum of three high quality references that are clearly independent of the subject (which excludes local media). So far there are zero sources that I would consider meet the standard we need to verify this extraordinary claim. In short we can't make this claim on wikipedia. And FYI, research of the kind I described above is what an academic or a journalist from a reputable publication would do before making the claim your making. That would be the standard of sourcing needed to publish that fact in a reputable journal or newspaper. Reliable publishers don't present guesswork as facts, and if they are guessing they say so up front by saying is "possibly" or "maybe". If I were to make that claim about Quraishi definitively being the youngest musilim American ever elected before an IRB board at my university while trying to get a journal article published I would get scoffed at with "how can you prove that?" questions. It wouldn't fly. And it doesn't fly here. Not without stronger evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No COI on the Quraishi article, but a potential COI on the Amiwala one, on which I've refrained from edits and additions. BernieBruh (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a school board does not pass WP:NPOL, and the entirely expected existence of purely local coverage of the school board's activities is not sufficient to claim that a school board trustee has passed WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy NPOL. We're writing history here, not news — our job isn't to maintain an article about every individual person that somebody in Bergen County, New Jersey might have read about in their local newspaper yesterday, it's to maintain articles about people who will have national and/or international significance that will endure into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s. School board trustees, however, almost never have anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on a school board does not provide an automatic pass via WP:NPOL. The sources we want to see is coverage of the subject's accomplishments and legacy in office. This is the same standard we hold to mayors and city councilmembers. We can recognize notable firsts, but those firsts must be recognized by sources with a national scope (and must not be sourced entirely to a claim that a subject makes about being a first). Nothing suggests the sourcing exists in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/ (still) ~~Keep~~. In part agree with @Enos733 that serving on a school board is not an automatic pass via WP:NPOL, and with @Bearcat that the job here isn't to maintain an article about every individual person... but rather those that have national and/or international significance. The nod to national significance that does endure the times is the fact that Quraishi is the youngest of a particular community group (in this case Muslim, perhaps also Pakistani-American) to serve/get elected to office in the United States, even if it is a school board position. I've updated source material on the article and will include the citations here as well that do make a note of it with a national scope. I did find a source that appears to be produced by the subject pointing to a dead New York Times link; however, I need the guidance of the Wikipedia veterans and editors on what to do about these dead links, and archived links or documents.

References: New York Times (dead, searching for alternate), Muslim Public Affairs Council (dead, archived), The Daily Stack (subject owned, points to these sources) BernieBruh (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Age is not a permanent notability claim in and of itself. Being the youngest person to hold an NPOL-passing office would be a secondary fact of interest, but not a person's key notability claim — the NPOL-passing office would already clinch notability regardless of age, and age would just be a mere footnote to that rather than a notability maker in its own right. But being the youngest person to hold an NPOL-failing office is not special enough to make a person a topic of more enduring significance than any of his older colleagues, because it doesn't render him more famous than other school board members. And as for those sources, the Daily Stack and the Muslim Public Affairs Council are primary sources that wouldn't count as support for notability at all, while Fort Lee being just a stone's throw across the river from New York City renders the New York Times into the run of the mill coverage of local school boards that's merely expected to exist rather than nationalizing coverage, because Fort Lee is inside the NYT's local coverage area. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cockeram

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

Does not pass GNG. All mentions appear to be passing mentions and no SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Like nom I am only able to find passing metions, no significant coverage. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support all reasons given above. Mekomo (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was blanked by the author, who also attempted to blank the entire log. Subject does not seem to be immediately notable, though I'm not sure if the article is significantly different from the version deleted in 2019. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for why this article should now be removed, is because Taylor is a mayor of a city with a population with 50,000. Also, the article is well sourced about M. Taylor. Lastly I added edits on how he made national news on two occasions, which wasn’t the case back in 2019. So it seems like he has significant credibility on becoming an article for Wikipedia. Raspberry505 (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Shattuck

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while losing candidates get articles only if they can establish that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or they can show credible reasons why their candidacy would be a special case of greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this makes no other notability claim at all besides an unsuccessful candidacy, and is referenced only to the bare minimum verification that he existed rather than anything that would make his candidacy permanently notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 13 November 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) 18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Doing a quick WP:BEFORE, Shattuck was indicted for election fraud after the 1914 election (which he lost), but died before trial. Not sure a six year mayor who failed to rig a congressional election is notable, but it is vaguely interesting and has some expansion potential. I'll add what I found to the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was indicted, so there was probable cause of election fraud. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERP, a criminal accusation is not in and of itself enough to secure the permanent notability of a person who wasn't already notable for any preexisting reason prior to being charged with a crime. We would need to see verifiable evidence that he was convicted, not just indicted, and we would need to see a lot more detail about what the purported election fraud entailed, and evidence that it had a verifiable long-term impact on anything. (For instance, an election fraud conviction that had the effect of influencing major changes in election fraud law would have a stronger basis for notability than one that just disappeared into the ether afterward.) Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh Kumar Singh

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Adamantine123 (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, I disagree. Based on this alone, we have an elected politician passing WP:NPOL and a pass the popcorn moment, to boot. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my mistake, someone completely changed this article which was earlier about a minister of Bihar. Even I have edited it before. See current version, I have restored the orginal version. The version I nominated for delition was about a non notable politician of the same name. Adamantine123 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it not make more sense to rewrite the article to be about the elected politician??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, we need to get present one deleted. Adamantine123 (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was about an elected representative and minister in Government of Bihar, Santosh Kumar Singh means this person File:Chief Minister Nitish Kumar with minister Santosh Kumar Singh (cropped).jpg. However, a new user changed it to current version and made it an article about a non notable politician of the same name, File:Son of Shri Prem Shankar Singh.jpg this person is an officeholder of a small regional political party and not elected to any constitutional post, even a local body. Therefore, I nominated it for delition.Adamantine123 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close - The article was hijacked and turned into a biography of a non notable individual. Clearly passes WP:NPOL and @Adamantine123: should at least check the revision history before nominating, these nominations are a waste of time for the community. Dympies (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz has reverted it into non notable version. It was me who added the picture of Santosh Singh the labour minister, which helped me to identify later that it was highjacked. You should also mention that it is not notable in present form. Adamantine123 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misrepresent Liz's edit here, she only reverted your disruptive revert which removed the afd template while the discussion was still going on. As per the latest revision the subject is clearly notable having been elected to a legislative body [27]. Dympies (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nirantara Ganesh

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

I don’t see significant coverage of the subject in the cited sources and those I searched; hence, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the subject is not an elected MLA or MP and therefore fails to meet WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Politicians, and Karnataka. GrabUp - Talk 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't have too much editing knowledge or anything. But I came across this article. This guy is a very famous social worker. Damn famous. I'm not sure whether this has to stay. But he's every famous. Wholeddadawgsout (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wholeddadawgsout: Being Damn famous does not inherently make a person notable per our guidelines. Please read WP:NOTABILITY. GrabUp - Talk 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. However, I’d like to clarify a few points. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable and independent mainstream sources. These sources discuss the subject in depth, not just passing mentions.

Additionally, while the subject is not an MLA or MP, notability on Wikipedia isn’t limited to holding public office. The article doesn’t contain any promotional content or unverifiable claims; it simply presents factual information based on reliable sources.

I believe the page meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and provides valuable information. I’d appreciate reconsidering the deletion Anandrajkumar0000 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anandrajkumar0000: Please provide those significant coverages here so others can evaluate them. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pet WP:MILL - every three weeks, I served two 12- hour shifts as an EMT and also ran for village trustee, in beautiful New Paltz, New York. That doesn’t make me notable, and neither is this doctor/political party jumper/ social worker / damn famous guy notable. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honours received by Suharto

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

Already in the main article of Suharto features the all the awards and honors that is featured in this separate article of the list of awards and honors he received. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. मल्ल (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORK. He was the grand Poobah and dictator of his country, so of course he was going to get every single medal awarded by his country, and even a few from his friends and supporters. This list borders on Propaganda and hagiography. Bearian (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pendleton

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

Biography of a dentist and local political activist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for dentists or activists. From its creation in 2020 until today, this was a short stub staking its notability on leading a local political activism committee, and was sourced entirely to just one obituary in his local newspaper -- but one local obituary isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself, and leading local committees isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass GNG.
Then within the past 24 hours, an anonymous IP vastly expanded it with a lot of additional information that may have been gleaned partly from private insider knowledge, without adding even one new source to support any of the new information, and there's still nothing in the newer information that would clinch free passage of WP:NPOL if the article is still referenced entirely to just one local obituary.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived media coverage from the Shreveport area than I've got can find improved sourcing for it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just a local obituary for referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vast section and paragraphs are mostly uncited and includes only one reference. and also subject is notable for one event, per WP:1E it doesn't fulfill significant coverage criteria.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault

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

WP:NOTNEWS, followup of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia). No evidence that (or reason why) this protest will have more sustained, enduring notability than the countless other protests happening every day and being reported on in news articles. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside comment about the Trump articles in general. Based on Category:Trump family and subcategories therein, I suspect AFD will have numerous Trump-related articles up for deletion. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and potentially merge with pages describing other Trump statues. While the Portland and Philadelphia ones are confined to a particular timeframe, I think there is notability in the fact that statues have popped up since 2016 and perhaps pages can be merged into a single "Trump Statues" page with some editing to remove extraneous details. Nnev66 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This article seems properly sourced. I would also support a merge to some relevant article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe an article like sculptures of Donald Trump could make sense? Clearly there is a lot of coverage on the numerous works of art (both positive and negative) which depict Trump. And while the individual pieces might be problematic from a NOTNEWS standpoint, the overall subject of Trump in art almost certainly has encyclopedic value.★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Public art depicting Donald Trump," perhaps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Will anybody remember these that didn't live in Philly or Portland in a week? A month? A year? Grahaml35 (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, subject has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury

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

Not meeting WP ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?

The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.

"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subsections all can be under controversy, A bio is not notable just for 1 event hence fail WP:Bio, You might choose to add any notable things he has done in the future. Tesleemah (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added more information. Intlctzn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartley (British writer)

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

This article has zero independent sources that provide any nontrivial content about the article subject. Most of it is just blog posts he made or articles he wrote. The rest discusses that he was elected to local government as a district councilor. The BBC covered one of his opponents. Here's the only text the BBC wrote about the article subject: Mr Humphries is contending the Droitwich Central ward against John Hartley of the Conservative Party and Chas Murray of the Liberal Democrats.

I have looked, but cannot find better sourcing.

This article topic does not meet either WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NPOLITICIAN and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the response of the article creator was to blank this AFD and most of the article. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally proposed deletion and none of the subsequent edits have addressed my concerns about WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turing test#Tolkien test per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the redirect will work here, as the article on the Tolkien test for Artificial Intelligence was created by the same editor as this article, and has since been redirected to Turing test, which does not now seem to mention Tolkien. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources about this 'Tolkien test' are a pair of blog posts published last month. - MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As User:Espresso Addict says, this is a less than a month old post with no independent RS. Amusing but not notable at this time. Lamona (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The removal of a large proportion of the text and references by the article creator shortly after this AfD commenced makes any notability even less evident, but the subject's term on Wychavon District Council for Droitwich Central falls far short of the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, and his essays on the Homiletic & Pastoral Review site, Mind Matters and Times of Israel blogs do not demonstrate attained WP:AUTHOR notability. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

Non notable Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much! He isn't a former mayor but also politician featured in lot of Bigg press News. He was the Mayor of Golapganj which was indeed featured in various bigg news like The Business Standard and The daily star although Aminul Islam Rabel was not featured primarily but as Mayor of Golapgonj. And first finish the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Golapganj Therealbey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it is not ready for the main space. If he is noteworthy, you will certainly be able to find information about him to write an article that is not just an infobox. In that case, move to Draft, improve, and ask for a review. If there is nothing else, delete without delay. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i didn't written that doesn't mean ge isn't important! there is much info about him on internet but not written in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines for local politicians are pretty strict. A mayor of a relatively small town like Golapganj Municipality is not notable. The news coverage would need to be national or global in scope and not just local to justify an article under GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote here in this discussion so I don't think a Soft Deletion is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[28] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete If notability is not met, it is clearly a problem- However. Even if GNG is met, if WP:BIO fails, it violates the BLP policy. Passing mention references aren't that acceptable either. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’m confused: does the article even claim that he was notable? He was the mayor of a small town. In general, that does not establish notability on Wikipedia. Llajwa (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Critically fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, and WP:SIGCOV. There are multiple independent book sources from reliable academic publishers, and newspaper articles with in-depth significant coverage. I'm not seeing a valid policy based rationale for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have "meets GNG" and "fails GNG" as arguments. Can we get a source table? And what's this about violating BLP policy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[1] Jersey Evening Post. Jersey Evening Post https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2022/12/05/no-doubt-money-launderer-handcuffed-at-fathers-funeral-had-rights-breached/. Retrieved 18th November 2024. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[2] "How to donate". Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[3] "About Darius". Through Deserts Blog. Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[4] "Darius Pearce Jersey electoral history". Flow.je. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

[5] Romero, Luis Alberto (2021-03-25). "Wikipedia: el toque del Rey Midas". Clarín (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-09-21.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects