Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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


Politics[edit]

John Englart[edit]

John Englart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic vulnerability[edit]

Systemic vulnerability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Conor Collins[edit]

Conor Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[1] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Sinema Project[edit]

Replace Sinema Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability guidelines; PAC largely became irrelevant to releated election; could be merged into background for 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona RenewIR (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Johnson (labor leader)[edit]

Jeff Johnson (labor leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of questionable notability. I encountered this page during New Page Review and after discussion with the author provided some time for additional sourcing. However, after a couple weeks the sources provided do not meet the standard for WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A quick review:

  • Source 1, 5, 13, and 19 are oral histories or personal papers/writing by the subject and thus primary sources. Source 5 also includes an unattributed biographical note, but it is published by the Labor Archives of Washington, which cannot be an independent source on the topic of Jeff Johnson, a local labor leader. The union alliance that Johnson led is listed as a major funder of the archives and Johnson was himself a board director of the Labor Archives.
  • Source 2 is to WP:BALLOTPEDIA, about whose reliability there is no consensus.
  • Sources 3 and 8 are to a newsletter published by Johnson's organization and thus not independent.
  • Sources 4, 6, and 7 are to a labor-specific industry publication and thus ineligible for notability per WP:TRADES.
  • Source 9 and 11 are local news blogs that are mostly reprints/paraphrases of an organizational press release.
  • Sources 12 and 14-18 are WP:ROUTINE coverage of Johnson in articles that focus on other issues on which he is invited to comment.

In my analysis, that leaves only Source 10 to count as significant coverage, and we'd need to see more for this to pass notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously stated in my discussion with you that the article from the Tacoma News Tribune counts as a reliable secondary source. If that and source 10 count as significant coverage, I believe the page should be allowed to stay up. In addition, I would argue that the other coverage of Johnson in the Seattle Times and Everett Herald constitute significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The Herald and Tribune are real independent news organs (not just blogs) from Tacoma and Everett, Washington, which are the 3rd and 7th largest cities in the state, respectively. Labor history is a traditionally underrepresented field of history, and coverage of leading figures like Johnson on Wikipedia helps promote research. Deleting this article would be contradictory to Wikipedia's efforts to increase diversity in biographies. Mathieulalie (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I realized the Tacoma News Tribune piece is mostly a reprint of a press release, which makes it a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a JSTOR source, hopefully that will prove notability. Mathieulalie (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR itself is not a source, it's just an index (like Google News). In the underlying source by Myers (see here), Johnson is briefly quoted/referenced on two pages of a nearly 300-page book. That's a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 is fine for now - as you say, @Dclemens1971 there is no consensus about Ballotpedia, so, unless the source is deprecated in a future discussion, it is perfectly usable.
Sources 4, 6, and 7 are marginally useful, but not unusable. I don't see a reason to dismiss them per WP:TRADES, unless it can be established that the sources are directly connected to Johnson, and therefore not independent.
Sources 12 and 14-18, as you mention, make only cursory mentions of Johnson - but WP:ROUTINE, per my reading, says that routine events are not in and of themselves notable - it does not say that articles covering routine events are completely unusable for any purpose. Here, they are not being used to establish the notability of a routine event, they're being used to establish the notability of Johnson, by showing that he has been invited to make published comments on a variety of issues.
Plus, there's source 10.
Overall, while Jeff Johnson is obviously not a major, epoch-shaping world-historic figure, I see more than enough published material to establish that he is a notable figure in the world of modern labor organizing in the USA. For someone who is studying that topic, this article may be interesting and useful. I see no compelling reason to delete the article, so let's keep it and let interested editors continue to improve it. Philomathes2357 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philomathes2357: WP:ROUTINE is specific to WP:NEVENTS. Biographies go off of WP:BASIC and the "trivial coverage" mention there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my general impression, thanks for the clarification. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Philomathes2357. There is enough evidence of notability in the published sources.--User:Namiba 13:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see just enough sources to pass GNG. This is especially true if the biographical note and the content description to the Jeff Johnson papers are independent. --Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not, though -- they're published by the Labor Archives of Washington, on whose board Johnson serves and which is funded by Johnson's organization. See here: https://labor.washington.edu/labor-archives#about Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Labor Archives of Washington is part of the University of Washington Libraries Special Collections, and the biography to his finding aid was written by a UW Special Collections staff member, funded by the Washington state budget. Johnson's papers were processed independently of his input. Finding aids are academic research materials, not promotional materials. The article was not written to promote Johnson's political career (even if it were, it would have little effect since he is retired) but as a public service to promote knowledge about the state labor council's activities, specifically its role in farmworker organizing and the 15Now campaign. Furthermore, neither the Labor Archives nor Johnson receives any money from people viewing his papers (or any other collections). Mathieulalie (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnson appears to serve on a board of an entity that supports the Labor Archive, not the archive itself. And in this particular context, it probably shouldn't be a surprise that the former president of a local labor union would be asked to join the board of a non-profit focused on a labor archive. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Labor Archives also isn't a nonprofit or a business, it is part of the University of Washington Libraries. Mathieulalie (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, with that second sentence above I was meaning to refer to the Friends of the Labor Archives organization. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A biography about someone who's on the board of an organization that exists to give money to an entity and whose own organization is a donor to the entity cannot be truly independent if written by staff of an entity. See WP:COISOURCE, "less direct interests can be harder to see and more subjective to establish." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep or redirect to Washington State Labor Council - there is smoke here. The problem is that we can't track down where the fire is. If you'll allow me to be morbid for a moment, I strongly suspect Johnson will immediately and unquestionably meet our notability guidelines the moment he dies and has obituaries written about him in several Washington newspapers. Fortunately for Johnson, he is still alive. But for our purposes and at the present time, the sourcing is thin (as the OP notes). What's available often briefly quotes Johnson by virtue of his position as the head of the union, and does not dive into specifics about the person themselves. I'd be fine with either keeping this article or merging its content into the organization that he ran. To me, the following sources count towards notability and have swayed me:
  • Ballotpedia with its bio + "In 2015, Ballotpedia identified Jeff Johnson (Washington) as a top influencer by state."
  • The biography written by archivists in charge of his papers should also count, as we have no reason to assume that the decision that Johnson's papers were important enough to archive was swayed by outside factors.
  • Sources I don't think count toward notability include:
  • I don't believe nwLaborPress/Northwest Labor Press can count towards notability because it's a newspaper that specifically focuses on unions in Oregon and Washington. To me, it's the definition of a trade publication within this topic area, and our guidelines say that "there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability."
  • The Tacoma News Tribune source is a press release with a little added text. For our purposes, it's a republished WP:PRSOURCE.
  • The Seattle Times's first reference has Johnson mentioned twice for an email that he wrote to politicians. Subsequent references appear to also briefly quote him, although I've run out of free articles and haven't been able to view all of them. If that holds true, they don't meet the standard at WP:BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". An example of trivial given in footnote 7 there is "a mention in passing ('John Smith at Big Company said...' [...] ) that does not discuss the subject in detail."
  • The Olympian is close as there is some context given. However, it's thinly written without much depth.
  • HeraldNet articles 1, 2, and 3 don't meet WP:BASIC. Johnson is briefly quoted in all of them.
  • Patch is not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. (See the disclaimer at the top: "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.") Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to the sources accepted as reliable, multiple mentions elsewhere add to notability. In addition to sources accessible on the internet, as a union leader it is highly probable that the subject has also been covered in as yet undigitized print media.--Ipigott (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just enough evidence of notability and does no harm. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michaud Affair[edit]

Michaud Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May)

There are some sources that vaguely talk about this election, but they're all in passing or in context of other elections - [2] [3] [4] Soni (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May)

I've found some sources for this election, but they're mostly in passing, so I don't think an article right now is appropriate - [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. (Especially considering the sourcing.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer The problem is that the sourcing is completely in passing or just vaguely alludes to things.
    1 literally mentions the assembly elections once (in title) saying "The upcoming Lok Sabha elections will be a test for the 2027 assembly elections (this article)."
    2 is the same, it's a listicle style video news, asking "Why is Akhilesh Yadav not fighting in Lok Sabha elections" and answering with 5-6 reasons, only one of which is "Because he has an eye out on 2027".
    3 is similar. The only mention of this article is in one throwaway line saying "They're ready to make OBC govt in 2027"
    4's only mention is "Congress may extend their Lok Sabha election alliance to 2027"
    5 is again only saying "The Lok Sabha elections may tell us how the 2027 elections will turn"
    Each of those sources have exactly 1 sentence that talks about the article (the next UP LA election) and it's always in context of the Lok Sabha. It's consistently throwaway and never actually covering the topic in any way. There is no electoral plans or promises or schedules or anything, it's pretty much just "What we do in this election may also affect the future". That's not coverage Soni (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The event is a notable one and almost certain to take place, which is your only deletion rationale - there's no rule that we have to have specific election dates in order to include an article on an upcoming election, and there are sources which do clearly allude that it will be taking place. SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm just rebutting your "Especially given the sourcing" because I have gone through the sources and noted that none of them actually discuss this election other than to say "Something in this other election may also affect the next UP LA elections". And that's as good as passing. Compare this to the next Tamil Nadu elections, where there's multiple sources about parties directly discussing the specific next election ("PMK aims to form TN government in 2026: Anbumani", for example).
    There's a more general discussion to be had on "Should we have an article even if no sources discuss the next election". I don't plan on repeating my arguments for it in all 5 related (but not the same) XFDs, so mentioning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election. I believe there should only be an article if we also have some sources about the election, and local consensus at other AFDs agrees. Soni (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yet another WP:TOOSOON article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 07:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same here. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May) Soni (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May)

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [10] [11] [12] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election[edit]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May) Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -
    If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.
    I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.
    This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apni Party Pakistan[edit]

Apni Party Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:NORG. If it had won a seat in the national or provincial parliament there would be some presumption of notability at least. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. The only reference is a list of all the political parties in Pakistan – 168 of them. They're not all notable, or worthy of mention. Many, if not most, will disappear without a candidate who wins anything, or having any noteworthy coverage. If its candidate wins a seat in the next election, or in a few years, it can have an article. Unless notability is established in some way, this one should be deleted. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A single sentence and a single source simply stating that the party exists isn't enough for notability. The party hasn't won a single election yet (that I could find), nor could I find any reporting of the party, or even a profile on what the party believes. We just don't have enough for an article at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, articles author made a request for undeletion before this deletion discussion was finished. This could be relevant. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Adams[edit]

Vikrant Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

India-Latin America relations[edit]

India-Latin America relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America
48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra[edit]

Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of questionable notability and definitely a WP:NOTNEWS. Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content".

Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hajizade[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
@Correspondentman: What does "feels like PROD" mean? Also, this article has already survived one deletion nomination – it's a good idea to summarize the previous consensus and give at least a brief argument against it. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa It seems that most of the users in the previous discussion are from Azerbaijan. A link to a website is like an advertisement. Correspondentman (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Canadian identity[edit]

Arab Canadian identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to the deletion of:

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

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

2028 Tasmanian state election[edit]

2028 Tasmanian state election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
    Where is your sourcing from multiple secondary reliable sources which demonstrates demonstrates WP:SIGCOV? Demonstrate it is notable with sources. TarnishedPathtalk 05:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every other state/territory had their "next election" page created shortly after the last, however agree with @AveryTheComrade it should be moved to Next Tasmanian state election Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions and perhaps that practice should cease. TarnishedPathtalk 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk 05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable.
-Samoht27 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a particularly notable election (no non-local coverage, so WP:MILL), and only sourced to election results - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early recreation once sources materialize, as is often the case when approaching elections. The Keep !voters did not raise a valid argument, and appear canvassed. Owen× ☎ 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Western Australian local elections[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2025 Western Australian local elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted in November 2023. My rationale last time was "There have been no reforms to local government since then which might merit mentioning in this article. It is far too early for people to announce their candidacies." This is still the case. This article was created far too soon. Steelkamp (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - it was mentioned last deletion discussion that there was no confirmed date, that has now been fixed and reliable sources added
I see no good reason why an upcoming election should not have a page once the previous election (in this case 2023) is finished
Next Australian federal election was created a couple weeks after the 2022 election, 2025 Western Australian state election was created in very early 2023, 2026 Victorian state election was created in 2023, etc
There's only about a year-and-a-half left until these elections
See also WP:FUTUREEVENT Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Federal elections and state elections are vastly more important than local government elections. Besides, federal elections and state elections usually have something tangible to write about soon after the previous election. That is not the case with this article, where its basically saying what the date is, and repeating a bunch of stuff from the 2023 local government election article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But at what point would you want the page created? As I said we are only about a year-and-a-half out, we know the date and coverage will eventually pop up as well
This page existing as it is with a bit of background info harms no-one Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When coverage eventually pops up. Steelkamp (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in deletion discussions. TarnishedPathtalk 10:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: this isn't ready for mainspace. All sources in the article bar one are primary sources and the one source that isn't primary (The Mandarin) doesn't mention when the election is and is about changes being made ahead of elections which occurred in October 2023. None of the other material is covered in an article which I would expect of the name "2025 Western Australian local elections". In short this is lacking in coverage in secondary sources. However this will happen in over a year, so best to push to draft for the time being where it can be worked on until it is ready for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 10:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Election is less than two years away and as arandomalt mentioned, coverage will come soon AmNowEurovision (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is standard practice for the next election to have a page created after the prior one is completed, even if there haven't been many significant developments. Additional coverage will follow soon enough. Goodebening (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: the sparseness of the article ia good indicator that it is much to early to have this in mainspace. Similar discussion of premature election coverage have appeared at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination) and the 1st nomination. Teraplane (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not convinced that these articles (including the 2023 article) meet the WP:GNG. Local council elections in WA remain largely discrete events and there is very little coverage of them as a "set of elections" – which is to be expected when councils are almost uniformly nonpartisan and the majority of them have residents numbering in the hundreds. Only a handful of candidates would be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. The article on the 2023 elections relies on primary sources for election results and then a scattering of "controversy" articles on individual candidates; I can't see the 2025 article progressing beyond this because there just isn't the coverage to expand it. ITBF (talk) 07:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Local elections, including Western Australian local elections, are notable enough for a statewide page and given the close proximity of the 2025 elections this page should stay Nottashaa432 (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I can't help but notice that most editors arguing to Keep are low edit or new accounts. Not sure how to factor that into a closure but I'd like to see more participation from regular AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this would assist in closing this discussion but for the record if the vote opposing deletion doesn't get up I would prefer draftify as suggested by @Teraplane and @TarnishedPath Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) rather than total deletion 00:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be a keep regardless the number of keep votes because the keep rational is extremely weak. TarnishedPathtalk 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the deletion of 2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed. Okmrman (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Arizona. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding a deletion rationale I don't entirely understand, the article is just a simple re-telling of the election result in a medium-sized American city. I could see it maybe being kept if it were somehow exceptional in any way, including regional coverage, but that's not what's here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For failing WP:GNG? There's only one source, the election results, and mayoral elections are classic WP:MILL fare. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having one source is an issue that could easily be fixed by seeking out additional citations, that's not what AFD is for. This isn't WP:MILL either, its a large enough city that it's elections ARE important. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then find a source other than a local paper which reports on it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. No reason to not confine this to the biography about the mayor. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I am interpreting the course of discussion as having 2 editors making reasoned arguments for keep, 1 making a reasoned argument for deletion, and nominator making reasoned pivots between mostly delete-oriented arguments and a "keep for now" view (which itself seems almost like a !vote for no consensus outright). I assigned no weight to the final keep !vote with an incomprehensible rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 14:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform[edit]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them, and I looked harder than usual. The article is basically sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having....for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy which is trying to dupe communist organizations. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Interestingly the organization's website has no "about us" or "our history" section, no contact info (address, phone number etc.) except a gmail email address. It's a stretch to even call it "sourced to themselves" because the "about self" info in the article (eg when it was founded) is not even on their website. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to keep via WP:IAR North8000 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML, so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for keeping the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [18] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization. We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short "we attended an event of theirs" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is "we have sources which cover the subject". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I'm of two minds of this.....actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Maybe if we strip out or reword that areas where they have been used as a source on themselves this would become an edge case keep-able article, waiting for coverage of the organization per se by independent sources. I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find that that would be one of the best possible solution regarding this article Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try that and we'll see where/how this goes. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be in favor of at least temporarily keeping this article, maybe on an WP:IAR basis regarding GNG notability. I did some editing to more clearly identify self-described material as such. It probably is still distorted in some sense in that it has undue stuff in it. For example, if a few representatives marched in a parade, such gets a few sentences in the article. Even if this organization is just a Russian scam regarding Ukraine, this article at least gathers together the small amount of material and sources available on this arguably or possibly impactful entity. I'd probably put a summary of this AFD discussion at the talk page. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I can make the time before Wednesday, I think adding more context behind the dissolution of the Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties and the ensuing split between the European Communist Action and WAP is important to document, and adds more context and notability to the article. Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, this article better not be deleted before then. Charles Essie (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent actions by the Platform have received coverage by various independent Russian media organizations, which I have added to the article. There also seems to be at least two journal articles that cover / discuss the Platform to some extent, which I would love to access but can't [1][2] Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not so much inside topic of this particular international, but for now like that. Nubia86 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Politics proposed deletions[edit]

Politicians[edit]

Barry Lewis (politician)[edit]

Barry Lewis (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable subject as the nominator describes. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a credible reason to consider them a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office — but this is basically "he is a councillor who exists", referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This politician isn't really relevant outside of local politics in Sutton. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Kumar Singla[edit]

Lakhan Kumar Singla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

M. L. Ashwini[edit]

M. L. Ashwini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Singh Debbarma[edit]

Kriti Singh Debbarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K. Antony[edit]

Anil K. Antony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Carter[edit]

Rodolfo Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Shane Merrill[edit]

Shane Merrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Tony Dyer[edit]

Tony Dyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [19]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, this is one of the exceptions to the rule: someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely something worth taking up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I certainly understand what you're saying and recognize consensus can change, but am generally adverse to new interpretations being established in one-off AfDs. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Nice try to start for deletion on other peers who was sat in the House of Lords. Where your leader Timothy Blue? Well, who care the position in the House of Lords was hereditary or election won? You should note that their Era not same, so political positions are may vary. Plus, I dont understand why the nominator JMWt trying gave wrong example? A members of the National People's Congress and British old parliament are not same. of course, A standing committee member of CCP is also enough to pass WP:NPOL. Donttake it WP:IDONTLIKE.
    1.47.157.71 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established. Added a reference. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One point that's been missed in the discussion above is that his inherited Scottish peerage did not entitle him to a seat in the House of Lords; the Viscountcy created in 1911 did. Maybe that has more to do with the political connections of the Master of Elibank than his father, but a Conservative being added to the House of Lords under the last majority Liberal administration suggests to me that something more than routine was going on here. Choess (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, presumably WP:NPOL doesn't apply..? In which case the above claims of 'automatic notability' doesn't apply either. Edit: maybe I've misunderstood your point. Are you saying he was or wasn't in the HoL? Edit 2: I'm wrong, your point is that it wasn't an inherited HoL seat. JMWt (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep good article and a member of British nobility thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artha Woods[edit]

Artha Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and also no sources to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice J. Buah[edit]

Eunice J. Buah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Karla Hernández-Mats[edit]

Karla Hernández-Mats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Anja Hirschel[edit]

Anja Hirschel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Kanak Dhanai[edit]

Kanak Dhanai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable, the listed sources are mostly statistical websites on election and stuff like that. No GNG pass here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttarakhand. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my check, I found that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL criteria, as he was never elected as an MLA or MP. The fact that his father was an independent MLA does not confer notability to the son. GrabUp - Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and role as politician, author and policy researcher is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Guedes[edit]

Alan Guedes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and utterly fails WP:GNG. Being the mayor of a certain city that is most populous in a state shouldn’t inherently make them notable as there are no sources to establish GNG. Sources are either WP:ROUTINE or WP:RUNOFTHEMILL which do not count towards GNG. Just like other articles on mayors that I have nominated in the past, just saying one is a mayor doesn’t count, aside that, they should at least pass the three basic criteria for GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Brazil. Owen× ☎ 07:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on my check, these sources can’t establish notability due to a lack of in-depth coverage, failing WP:GNG. Additionally, he fails WP:NPOL. I agree with the nominator, who said, “Being the mayor of a certain city that is the most populous in a state shouldn’t inherently make them notable.” GrabUp - Talk 08:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer M. Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Salmón[edit]

Elizabeth Salmón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG because she enjoys in-depth coverage mainly by primary sources (the UN -- I also found university coverage of her as its associate but did not add it). In-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources appears not to exist. Separately, she remains far from passing special criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN as well. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Pretty sure her position would meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, but regardless, there's been coverage of her since the appointment of both her and her activities (and North Korea being angry at her findings from her work). For example:
I think there's enough here to meet the WP:GNG. SilverserenC 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, Law, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The UN special rapporteur post seems to satisfay WP:ACADEMIC #7: having an impact outside academia in her academic capacity, in this case being appointed by the UN as a legal expert on human rights. PamD 07:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I disagree that she meets NPOL, but being a UN rapporteur and having regular media coverage meets NACADEMIC #7. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Likely passes GNG with the JoonAng and other newspaper articles listed above. I'm unsure about satisfying academic notability, but there is ample coverage in RS for general notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has anyone searched in Spanish for Spanish sources. They wouldnt come up if looking in English. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not. I would expect searching in Korean and whatever the Hangul transliteration of her name is would also be fruitful. SilverserenC 20:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert P. Watson[edit]

Robert P. Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only real claim to fame in the article is a "former candidate for the United States House of Representatives" and an academic. The information for the candidate for the House of Representatives specifically states he was considering running and formed an exploratory committee. This does not meet the requirements for notability. The article was created in 2005 so there has been plenty of opportunities to add reliable sourced content if it existed, but from what I can see it doesn't exist. This individual does not meet the requirements for notability to have a stand alone Wikipedia article. VVikingTalkEdits 15:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Academic notability in the subject's field would probably be established via reviews of his books. Checking JSTOR finds at least one for The Ghost Ship of Brooklyn [25], Affairs of State [26], George Washington's Final Battle [27][28], The Presidents' Wives [29][30], The Nazi Titanic [31], and America's First Crisis [32]. So, there may be a WP:PROF/WP:AUTHOR pass here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the many published reviews I found for his many books. He also has a distinguished professorship but the case for WP:PROF#C5 hinges on whether one counts Lynn University as "a major institution of higher education and research". He's not notable as a politician but that's irrelevant; he's also not notable as an astronomical body nor as a species of insect. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS I removed the political campaign from the article altogether, refocusing it on his academic career, as I could not find good enough sourcing. The best I found was this dubiously-reliable interview (also potentially WP:CIRCULAR) which mentions the campaign without any specifics in response to which Watson states "I plead temporary insanity." I don't think that's good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:AUTHOR is met. XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Bam[edit]

Akshay Bam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Another case of a politician who got involved in the upcoming election and withdrew or defected to another party and stuff like that. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, some are unreliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)[edit]

Kevin Baugh (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Baş[edit]

Hüseyin Baş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Brad Chambers[edit]

Brad Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

@Oaktree b: On what basis are you arguing this? If it was a statewide elected office, you would be correct, but a statewide appointed official is not considered automatically notable. There are thousands of unelected positions in state government, they aren't all notable. Can you link me some other state secretaries of commerce who have Wikipedia pages? Or anyone else who's held an appointed position in Indiana state government that got a Wikipedia page solely on that basis? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not a ministerial position in the state government? Here in Ontario, the Minister of Commerce would get their own article. Elected or not, if it's a cabinet-level position, we've always held them to meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: In Indiana, the secretary of commerce and president of the Indiana Economic Development Corp. is part of the governor's cabinet. [33] AHoosierPolitico (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that still passed NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it not a member of the state's legislature? It would fall under here [34] Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Please try to familiarize yourself more with US politics before participating in discussions like these. No, the state secretary of commerce is not part of the state legislature, nor is it a particularly high-profile position. Again: if you're so confident that this position satisfies NPOL, you should be able to link some people who served as Indiana Secretary of Commerce (or any other equivalent appointed position in a US state's cabinet) who got a Wikipedia page on that basis alone. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
  • Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES and Oaktree b. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Baxter Jr. for precedent of state cabinet secretaries kept. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that what I explained above? I participated in both votes that you've linked, one had good coverage, the other doesn't. He's a member of the sub-national gov't. US Politics is pretty much like Canada, we have the parliamentary system, the US doesn't. Both work basically the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vast majority of coverage is about his failed gubernatorial run, not about his appointment to a position which doesn't necessarily pass WP:NPOL (there is very little coverage of him in his cabinet position.) So I don't think the position merits the NPOL assumption when it clearly does not receive significant press coverage apart from his appointment. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Claudio Ferrada[edit]

Claudio Ferrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Edward J. Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Edward J. Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Akbar Shandermani[edit]

Akbar Shandermani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Anatoliy Korniychuk[edit]

Anatoliy Korniychuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Source eval:

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

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

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

Sri Preston Kulkarni[edit]

Sri Preston Kulkarni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.
    And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?
    I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.
    Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Horace Pierite, Jr.[edit]

Horace Pierite, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician, and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline. This article should be deleted. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He has held national office, as Native American tribes are sovereign per U.S. law. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian
Law Library of the Native American Rights Fund have copies of these docs. Here is an example showing Horace was Vice Chairman in 1974. https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/constitution/tunica-biloxie/index.html AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horace Pierite Jr held multiple offices within the Tunica Biloxi Tribal Government. He is also one of the four signers of their original legal documents filed with the State of Louisiana. The Tunica Tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law and treaty. I have no idea why PigeonChickenFish is trying to deny or diminish this Native American's contribution to his tribe and his nation. I have noticed a pattern with PigeonChickenFish regarding multiple Native Americans and their tribes in Louisiana. You can review PigeonChickenFish changes to those articles. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Priyanshi Arya[edit]

Priyanshi Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable. There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years. This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: "Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-03-26. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV. Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya? Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is
    In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se..
    Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet. It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV, an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media. I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call. May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified. thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News. There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports. Davidindia (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and potentially WP:BLP violations. As a university student she is not notable, absent significant coverage in Chronicle of Higher Education or the equivalent. One reliable source by definition fails SIGCOV and WP:OR. We very rarely keep any academic who has not gained tenure with at least an associate chair. There's also disputes in the sources about whether she's dalit or middle class - a real BLP violation if you're an Indian reader - and very likely to be the subject of an edit war. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources given like Indian Express, Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Economic Times are major reputed newspapers in India and the three news websites, News Minute, News Laundry and Wire are equally reliable and reputed news houses. Except Sportsgrail all the sources cited are secondary and from mainstream news industry as reputed as Chronicle of Higher Education or much more. All are highly respected news outlets. The article about the subject is not for an academic, per say, but for a political leader in student politics. I could not understand the dispute of the subject being a Dalit. Anyway, I leave it to the editors. If possible, it can be put in the draft space. Thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Keep, Delete or Draftify arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete University-level student leader is inherently nonnotable unless some national level achievements. - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With due respect to the senior editors here, who have been doing great work on Wiki for years, I am just curious to understand if there is a wiki guideline or policy that prevents student leaders from having a BLP page. I saw that many student leaders in Europe from Digby Jacks to Malia Bouattia to Shakira Martin to Zamzam Ibrahim, have articles. Many BLPs on student leaders were created on Wiki with just a reference or two, when they were first created. Here in India, a leader from JNU|Jawaharlal Nehru University is not just a university-level student leader... any leader from JNU gets ten times more visibility and recognition in India than a state university, say Bangalore University. Many from JNU have become National leaders later on. The subject is also notable because she is the first queer dalit student. But this bit was removed to make sure there were no BLP violations and to protect the confidentiality of the subject, as there were not many sources and it was not clear if she was “out” I feel this subject BLP passes the WP: GNG. But I leave it to the editors to decide. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Draftify. The page is currently confusing with the sources given whether the page is on Priyanshi Arya or Dhananjay. I do not think a local student union leader is notable but seems like the subject must have made some achievement that could be worthy of notice so I lean on draftifying this page for improvement with more reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) and after going through all the sources more discreetly, many are poor to unreliable to lack of coverage on the subject. General Secretary of a university is OK but it is not a significant enough to be considered notable when you cannot find more reliable sources with indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RangersRus The person who "won the Jawaharlal Nehru University student union (JNUSU) election for the post of General Secretary." is Priyanshi Arya and not Dhananjay. The author of this article is suspiciously using the "Dhananjay"'s coverages to imply notability on Arya. Dhananjay is not inherently notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through the sources and also tried to find sources on the subject but not any help. It lead me to change my vote. Page and the subject fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the outset, I would like to declare that I have absolutely no conflict of interest. I just saw the news and did the article. I have a lot of respect to the editor for all his work, especially with a number of good articles and C rated articles. I am taken aback by a comment that attributes motives. 1000s of editors use the subject in search and cite all the articles that quoted the subject, which is quite normal. AfD discussions are not 'voting' and since it is relisted, I used the bullet as Keep. My only point is when student leaders in Europe have pages why not in India... especially when Priyanshi has at least one article, exclusively about her (Zee News is a reputed media outlet). I just want everyone to know that I am just doing this in good faith, and have no particular interest in the subject. Thanks and regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Ignoring the back-and-forth accusations of COI/SPA, the arguments on the Delete side are based more on source analysis and guidelines, not to mention being decisively more numerous than the Keep !votes. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Waqar Zaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved.  So let it be reviewed by the community.
    And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest,  you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
    Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
    I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass GNG notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

  • Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oblivy, What do you mean by "inadequate independent sources"? I can't find any reference that isn't independent of the subject. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source Assessment Analysis
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/ Yes Yes according to WP:RSP, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source ~ ~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694 Yes in Urdu language Yes BBC is renowned to be reliable Yes ✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka ? ? mere interview No ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/ ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/ ? ? No Not opening, dead link ✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette No advert site No No ✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800 ? ? probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/ ~ ? archived, Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world No No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/ ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf No No Non existent pdf No ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/ No Not opening.. Dead link No Not opening.. Dead link ? ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/ ? ? archived ? ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/ No No archived site ~ ✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol ? No Link not opening ~ ✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup ? ? ~ Probably paid promotion ? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders ? ? Probably paid promotion ~ ? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/ ? No Probably paid promotion ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704 ? ? Probably Paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade No No Probably paid press ~ ✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220 ? ? Probably paid press ~ ? Unknown
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}}.
  • Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not supporting any side. The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment. It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. This is very clear! Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.
Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.
Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links. Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.
GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).
With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC. I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TV shows/films Roles Reference
Living on the Edge
Pakistan's most popular TV reality show		 Director [3][3][4][5]
XPOSED Creator and host [6][7]
King of Street Magic Creator and host [7]
Desi Kudiyan Creator and host [6][7]
The Cricket Challenge Creator and host [7]
BOL Champions season 1 Executive producer [8]
Babylicious Executive producer [7][8]
The Musik Director and producer [3][9]

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Caligiuri, Vittorio (2024-05-02). "A new ring in the spiral: re-reading Marini's work at the end of the hegemony of US-led imperialismBook Review of Ruy Mauro Marini, The dialectics of dependency . New York, Monthly Review Press, 2022 (1st edition in English)". Middle East Critique: 1–6. doi:10.1080/19436149.2024.2348306. ISSN 1943-6149.
  2. ^ Ford, Derek R.; Svensson, Maria (2024-04-13). "Still-existing utopian pedagogy: Architecture, curriculum, and the revolutionary imaginary". Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies: 1–17. doi:10.1080/10714413.2024.2336816. ISSN 1071-4413.
  3. ^ a b c "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  4. ^ "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  5. ^ "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  6. ^ a b "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  7. ^ a b c d e "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  8. ^ a b Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  9. ^ Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
  • Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."
I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.
@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable [35]. You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence [36], even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [37], you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [38] [39], all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [40], [41], [42], [43] [44] but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, close to the borderline of WP:GNG, fails WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this [45] may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This [46] is a mere passing mention of the subject. This [47] and this [48] appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This [49] seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This [50] is a clear sponsored post instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These [51] [52] sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • JoelleJay, I disagree with @Maltuguom's source assessment. They labeled every single source except, BBC and Reuters, as unreliable and paid, even though most of the coverage was critical of the subject, like in these examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. From what I understand, subjects are considered notable if they are directors, producers, or even if they have significant roles (incliding creators) in TV shows. This guy meets all those criteria. I'm curious why we have BLPs on less famous Pakistani actors but not for someone who is a popular, albeit controversial, TV figure in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So every director and producer is notable just because they produce or direct just a few movies? It is deeper than you think. There must be significant coverage to meet those notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ludamane, Why not? This section states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Such as The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source analysis to which I have nothing much to add. This is a non notable subject and should wait until such a time when notability meets at least WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Articled contains so much unreliable sources. Ludamane (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another sleeper account joining the AFDs for the first time, i guess! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have taken ownership of this AFD otherwise why throwing accusation at every editor that comment in this AFD? I have read countless AFD discussions with lengthy threads more than this particular one but never have I seen single editor being uncivil in their discussion as you do here. This is a non-notable subject and majority opinion show that this subject does not meet any notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not implying that everyone here is a sleeper account, but it's worrisome that some including you who've never engaged in AfDs before are suddenly joining in, especially when this AfD itself was initiated by a sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not check who initiated this AFD and my position here is based on the unreliable sources in this article. Subject is not notable and there is no need wasting so much time and energy on this. Ludamane (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't seem logical to label respected Pakistani publications like DAWN and The Express Tribune as unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article from the DAWN is a very short interview and that's mostly categorised under primary sources more so that that interview was very trivial and did not discuss any serious issue of much public interest Ludamane (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saqib, please stop. You opened a SPI about 2 users who !voted Delete, not sure it was appropriate nor wether it will be endorsed but that should be enough. Assume good faith and consider NOT commenting on every !vote that does not go your way. I generally don't comment on behaviour issues unless I am personally involved, but your comments do not seem to be made in a constructive spirit (and that is an understatement, believe me). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got over 6 editors voting for deletion here, but I've only filed SPI on 3 of them, not all. My worries are totally legit. These 3 sleeper accounts, never even glanced at Pakistani pages before, NOR ever participated in AfDs before. Anyway, I'm throwing in the towel on this one. Don't really care if this BLP sticks around or not, but I'm still scratching my head over why someone's going all out to axe this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Piscili and Ludamane are not "sleeper" accounts and they had participated in AfDs before. I have no time to comment anymore on the issue, sorry. Still, I'm inviting you again to change your approach. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, Sure, I'm stepping back from this now. But before I bow out, I've to say that this is seriously risky. Anyone could get a BLP wiped out like this, even if the subject clearly meet WP:N. I dropped a note on your tp explaining that this subject isn't just some ROTM figure in Pakistan. He's controversial, sure, but undeniably popular and gets loads of press coverage in RS. And here's an interesting tidbit: even Jimmy Wales himself once edited this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, you need to see this [53] [54] its the hatred i received just for sharing my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arora Akanksha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.
    Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.
    Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani[edit]

Endri Shabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Local-government level politicians are not inherently notable under NPOL, and subject fails GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira[edit]

Amilcar Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this article. From the page and sources I would say this person should have an article, but maybe there is sense in requiring more sources that are independent as mentioned by the user Timothy. O.maximov (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions[edit]

Files[edit]

Categories[edit]

Open discussions[edit]

Recently-closed discussions[edit]

Templates[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=1225329632"