Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Human3015 (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 11 February 2016 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Popcorn_Politics (FWDS)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
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.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
{{{linktext}}}

 {{{linktext}}}

{{{linktext}}}

{{{linktext}}}

{{{linktext}}}

|}

Related deletion sorting


Politics

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn Politics

Popcorn Politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable web content that does not seem to meet the web content notability guidelines. Speedy deleted once before but recreated essentially unchanged. The only sources offered are from those associated with this web content and only support its existence without indicating why it is notable. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the creator of the page is a paid employee of the company creating this content. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  20:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK  20:50, 11 February 2016 (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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian National Union – New Democracy

Bulgarian National Union – New Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads like a political campaign platform, not an encyclopedic article, completely unsourced. If this article is kept, it needs to be substantially rewritten or pared down to one paragraph. But in this case, TNT might be the way to go as the article reads as if it is promoting this political party. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite the lead and discard the rest. It's a fairly marginal party (less than 6000 votes in the 2014 elections) but its outrageous activities have received quite a bit of media coverage. Uanfala (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was thinking about prodding this, but I found enough hits on Google News that it seemed easier to let someone else deal with it. Since we're here, I went back and did more thorough searches. They do have a bit a coverage, it's true – but it seems to be mostly trivial mentions as a part of neo-Nazi activity in Bulgaria. A sample of what I've found: [1] from San Jose Mercury News (an AP story that was widely syndicated), [2] from USA Today (another AP story that was widely syndicated), and [3] from Sydney Morning Herald. There are a few more, but they're either even more trivial (names in a list of far-right parties), or they're syndicated AP content. I don't think there's really enough here, though I'm willing to reconsider. There are also some hits at Google Scholar, but I had a bit of trouble finding ones that weren't trivial mentions and gave up a bit quicker than usual. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like Uanfala's suggestion to rewrite the lead and discard the propaganda which is likely a direct translation from the party website. The party is notable and is featured in national news in Bulgaria from time to time, mostly because of its extreme character rather than any significant public support. That international media have mentioned it is surprising to me, but it's an argument for keeping the article in some form nonetheless. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if someone can write a sourced, neutral stub, then I guess that's fine. I did a few searches to find hits in Bulgaria, but my ability to do so and read them is obviously quite limited. Google Translate only takes you so far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cleaned it up some. The party appears to be notable enough by our standards, if only because their antics get them in the news. Can't figure out if they're really Nazis or fascists. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the recent thorough improvements and some added sources. Additional Bulgarian-language sources possibly exist (additional reporting is mentioned in ref #1 for example). GermanJoe (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at best Move to AfC draft as although this is newly founded, it may have local coverage thus familiar attention is needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 17 February 2016 (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.
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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in District of Columbia, 2016

United States presidential election in District of Columbia, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It feels like an unneccicary expansion to the 2016 election page, rather than it's own page. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it back because the article is part of a series of articles on the election results of the all the primaries in the 50 states, six territories and the District of Columbia. See below:
Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Young Liberals (Australia). (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 06:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Western Australian Young Liberals

Western Australian Young Liberals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Australian Young Labor, this page is not independently notable from Young Liberals (Australia). It does not have reliable third party sources and should be deleted and merged into the main article to avoid an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. There should not be separate standalone pages for different state branches unless they satisfy the WP:NOTE criteria, which these clearly do not, and even then I would argue Young Liberals (Australia) provides superior context. Paperclip Maximiser (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related South Australian Young Liberal Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reasons as above. Paperclip Maximiser (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:09, 6 February 2016 (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.
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people killed during Euromaidan

AfDs for this article:
List of people killed during Euromaidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks was deleted on December 20th, mainly per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. You can also "take a pick" from theWOLFchild's brilliant list back in the other AfD discussion (WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE). While I don't necessarily agree with most of the arguments there, I see no reason why this article shouldn't be deleted as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps at best as this would seem acceptable but it may simply be best mentioned through the main article. Notifying 1st AfDers Fram, Clarityfiend, Amortias, Spirit of Eagle and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 02:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename The term "Heavenly Hundred", which refers to the killed Euromaidan protestors, has gotten some substantial coverage in English sources[4][5][6][7], the Ukrainian government has named an award after them and several memorials have been built. As such, I'm not particularly convinced by indiscriminate arguments, since many of the deceased fall within a clearly defined and notable group. I think it would be preferable for the article to be written primarily about the Heavenly Hundred with a list of the specific members attached under a collapsible at the end. If we wanted to go this route, then a lot of the information needed to build an article about the Heavenly Hundred already exists within the current article; we'd just need to re-arrange, re-word and snip a few things here and there, plus do some general clean-up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Each individual in the article's sourced and it's a lot more than just a list, There's all of the history included as well, I have to agree with my previous !vote ... It's well sources and it still passes GNG... –Davey2010Talk 00:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it should be renamed to "Heavenly Hundred" because it is the common name for these people and ussualy these people are mentioned as "Heavenly Hundred". There are some reasons to keep the article:
  1. This article is about the extremely notable thing in history of Ukraine. These people changed history of Ukraine for a future century. Notability of this article is absolutely obvious: "Heavenly Hundred" have been written about and shown in hundreds, if not thousands, newspapers and TV-news in nearly every country of the world (in Ukraine, in USA, in UK, in Poland, in Germany, in Lithuania and I can write thousands of these links). It have been much talken about in whole world, and was on a front of ukrainians mind for the the first half of 2014. They been mentioned by many politics, not only in Ukraine, but around the world. There are even movies about them. The notability of this article is colossal.
  2. Nearly all of them were recognized as Heroes of Ukraine which makes them even more notable.
  3. It is not just a list, here are a lot of facts. In this article the list itself takes a bit more than a half of page with other half being facts, and there are enough facts for article to exist even without the list.
  4. If the article Casualties of the September 11 attacks exists, this article has the same right to exist.
  5. From WP:NOTMEMORIAL:

    Wikipedia pages are not:
    ...
    4. Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.

Mark this: must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This article perfectly satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements. This rule is about not creating articles for any person dead and is the particular case of the rule of not creating articles about yourself or your friends.
--Tohaomg (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems to be that some misunderstanding of the rules took place. There is clearly written in the rule, that articles about deceased people could not be created only if this people are not notable. Since there are 120 references on the page in question, its notability is undisputed.--Trydence (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not memorial list. Almost all of members of list are Heroes of Ukraine, so it is it list of notable people famous for notable event.--Anatoliy (Talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (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.



Politicians

Mukesh Sharma Pahalwan

Mukesh Sharma Pahalwan (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 does not pass NPOL or GNG. Almost all the paragraphs failed verification in the initial article that was draftified [8]. The rest are routine coverage and passing mentions from recent Indian elections. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai

Yazeed Al Rashed Al Khuzai (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 WP:NAUTHOR. An author with non notable literary works. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Lancaster, Pennsylvania mayoral election

2001 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 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)

No lasting notability for this election, fails WP:NEVENT. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Kapur

Ramesh Kapur (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 article has been padded-out with lots of passing mentions of the subject donating to this or that campaign, but the only significant coverage is in Caravan magazine (notably less positive than the current version of the article) and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (essentially an interview). One independent source isn't enough to achieve a neutral point of view. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coachman

Michael Coachman (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)

Non-notable political candidate. Of the 25 sources cited on the page: 1 is his campaign website, 4 are election results pages, 1 is a poll, 2 are Ballotpedia, 5 are brief WP:ROTM articles about him declaring his candidacy, 1 is about the recall he started and includes quotes from him, and 6 don't even mention Coachman. The remaining 3 are more in-depth articles from local outlets focusing on his attempted recall or the time he tried to arrest city council members. Coachman certainly rises above the level of a random perennial candidate, but that's not enough for notability, and I don't think he meets WP:GNG based on the coverage I'm seeing here. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is hard not to see this article as part of his campaign, given the timing. (This month) Lamona (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be no debate about this one. Per the facts laid out in the nomination, this is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila

Alfonso de Ceballos-Escalera y Gila (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The presently used references are either primary or unreliable sources. The article was deleted on Spanish Wikipedia in 2018; that discussion also points out the issues with this article. toweli (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Smuts in British Transvaal

Jan Smuts in British Transvaal (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 is entirely unsourced and reads like an essay. The topic itself does not appear sufficiently notable for its own article. While a merge has been suggested in edit histories, doing so would require the introduction of unsourced and essay-like material into an otherwise non-problematic page. Additionally, a section to this effect already exists at Jan Smuts. The content of the article is not suitable for any page and thus should be deleted. Garsh (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hikmat Zaid

Hikmat Zaid (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 article is highly promotion and extremely non neutral. It does use sources for some material but other material is extremely lacking in basic citations. Some sources cite to sources that are, in my opinion, not reliable at all. Others are to Fatah or Fatah-related organizations for which the subject was a non-trivial member and therefore not independent.

Created by a COI contributor and previously draftified and disputed. Creator has now been blocked for sockpuppetry for trying to deceive the connection they have had to the subject, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abul7ik/Archive#10 August 2024. I understand that, given the COI, this could still be sent back to AfC but, given the block, I think that would be a round-about way of just {{g13}}ing the draft.

I also think this article is on the cusp of being {{g11}}ed but I may be biased given that my previous attempts to aid in fixing the draft have clearly been met in bad faith. I think any attempt to add maintenance tags would double the size of the article. My opinion is that it exists solely to promote the subject, and there is valid justification for a TNT deletion here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We shouldn't delete the Wikipedia page on Hikmat Zaid. He's a key political figure, and plenty of pages exist about less important people. If the article needs workᅳlike if it reads too much like it was written by a botᅳlet's just fix it, rather than remove it. This page actually has value in allowing people to understand current politics a little better. Let's work on improving this, not deleting it.
Drake Thompson (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I began process of trimming down the thread starting with the lead. Can check preview here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hikmat_Zaid&diff=prev&oldid=1240506350 Drake Thompson (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update Reworked lead, early life and education and early political career sections. Wouldn't mind some help with the rest if anyone is interested (: Drake Thompson (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reworked Rise to power section Drake Thompson (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drake Thompson: please strike this, your second !vote, as you've already !voted once. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Pawan

Pandit Pawan (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 or WP:NPOL, There is no Indepth coverage. Most of the sources are user generated, not reliable sources, (WP:RS). Notion Press, Goodreads.com, Gaana. etc. All these are non-reliable sources. Youknow? (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Naikwadi

Idris Naikwadi (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)

Non notable local mayor. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NPOLITICIAN; subject does not appear to be a politician or judge who has held "international, national, or state/province–wide office", nor has he been a member of a legislative body at that level. Fails secondary criteria of receiving significant coverage as a local politician as well; searching his name yields almost nothing except a few articles merely stating he was elected (and later expelled from his own party), but nothing remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV.
On top of this, article appears to have been created by the subject and is nothing more than an (unreferenced) list of his positions and awards, as well as an external links section of dubious quality and significance. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 05:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rudoy

Andrey Rudoy (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 to fail WP:NBIO. The Russian sources on this person's activities presented in the article are either blogs or very insignificant media. The conformity of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SINGER criteria are also failed. Dantiras (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Shacham

Chaim Shacham (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)

Non-remarkable diplomat. The only WP:SIGCOV, the Miami Herald story cited in the article, fails WP:BLPCRIME. If that's used to try to establish notability, we have a WP:BLP1E situation. Longhornsg (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be pedantic, a piece of coverage cannot fail BLPCRIME, but the article topic sure seems to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of G-hits, but I don't see anything else that would help establish notability. Donald Albury 12:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom & above. FloridaMan21 23:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Oliver

Laureen Oliver (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)

Oliver seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the coverage on her consists of brief mentions, mostly in local outlets. Mooonswimmer 23:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NBASIC would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per Bearian and Cielquiparle. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. A. Firoze Noon

A. K. A. Firoze Noon (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)

From reading the cringe-worthy prose of early revisions ("one of the finest sons of the soil, who shines in the civil and political society all by his own radiance ...", etc.), this appears to have been created as a memorial, which is not what the encyclopedia is for.

Searching online and offline in English and Bengali found nothing beyond the short obituary and death anniversary notice, a primary source program listing, and bookseller sites. It doesn't amount to significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.

After stripping out everything for which no source could be identified, it is clear that he meets none of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion seems likely, but even a little more discussion would help settle this for good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrali Gasimov

AfDs for this article:
Mehrali Gasimov (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 individual's activities have not been topic of secondary reliable sources and there is no significant coverage. If you look at the article, it only provides information about the person's education and later acquisition of the relevant position. The position held by the individual and the award received do not alone make him notable. The references given do not meet significant coverage; they are merely brief news reports about visits, congratulations, and meetings. Additionally, it's worth noting that there are suspicions that this article was created through UPE (see). It is one of several articles created in multiple language sections for advertising purposes using paid editing. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand (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:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [9]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DISAGREE Re ‘’ List of electoral firsts in New Zealand ‘’ Wikipedia articles on individual MPs frequently refer to an individual MPs claim to fame eg being the longest serving MP (Rex Mason), and the parliamentary website itself has a list of “longest serving Members of Parliament” [[ https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/mps-and-parliaments-1854-onwards/longest-serving-members-of-parliament/ ]]. There are similar lists for other countries eg List of electoral firsts in Canada and List of electoral firsts in the United Kingdom. Hence I do not see the need for an item by item justification of this or similar lists. Hugo999 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and what Wikipedia writes isn't relevant here. WP:NLIST is which states: 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you explain your logic with All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research.? I don't follow at all, and your point here seems to be adding 2 and 2 to get 7. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these entries involve original research, for example Iriaka Ratana's source here: [10] does not say she is the first. Instead someone has come to that conclusion via their own research. Stating that these MPs are notable for their 'firsts' is also typically original research, as without a source that states it it's an assumption that their 'first' made them notable rather than the fact that being an MP makes one notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having sourcing issues doesn't necessarily mean that it's original research, though. A cursory google search of that specific example found this within about 20 seconds. I also still fail to see how their inclusion of a first leads to the assumption you're stating at the end, or how that somehow diminishes the notability of the list. I think at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards keep. Turnagra (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't state she was the first MP to give birth. NLIST requires it to have been discussed as a group by a set of independent reliable sources and I do not see any group discussing it. I see no evidence of notability of a list of 'firsts'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, tag it with Template:Citation needed. MPs are discussed as a group and first things are notable to mention - not to mention there are dozens of other "lists of firsts". I'm tapping out of this one now, so no need to continue responding to try and push your point further. Turnagra (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that other "List of electoral firsts in ..." be added to this AfD. I get the trivia argument and think it applies to them all, not just this one. Kiwichris (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD is successful I will nominate other similar lists. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The similar lists should be considered together as a group, not one by one, and should include the category Category:Lists of the first women holders of political offices. So are you prepared to resubmit a proposal to delete as a group all the lists you think should be deleted? This is so that people who object to List C being deleted are not told that it has already been discussed for List A and List B without your participation? Hugo999 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to discuss how to go about deletion of other list articles we can do it on my talk page rather than here. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above the New Zealand Parliament website has a section called

Doubtless the Parliamentary staff (Parliamentary Library researchers ) got enquiries from both visitors and other MPs, and wanted a reliable source! Hugo999 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the lists at [11] - this isn't random TRIVIA but is normal statistics of who has served in the legislature, and any cleanup of being discriminate (most of it is) can be performed in editing. NLIST requires sources, this is source-able. SportingFlyer T·C 04:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references that are presently used in the article mention him once at most. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

AfDs for this article:
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)

Non-notable former congressional candidate. Given the coverage cited on this page, it's clear that Kulkarni received more media attention than your average congressional candidate, but I don't think a few articles in national outlets is enough. Plus, in the 4 years since his last congressional run, Kulkarni seems to have received zero media coverage. The fact that his media attention completely dried up the moment he was no longer running shows that he isn't notable and that people probably won't be searching for him in 10 years. This article was previously nominated for deletion in May, but that discussion was closed as "no consensus" after only 1 editor participated. That editor voted keep--but they seem to have a personal connection to Kulkarni, judging by the fact that they uploaded the photo of him on the page and tagged it as "own work." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. As it has already had another AFD, Soft Deletion is not an option. Hopefully, we'll see more editors participating in the coming week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurij Viditsch

Jurij Viditsch (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)

A 17th century Slovenian mayor is hardly notable enough to keep a page here. Although he was mayor of Ljubljana, the capital city of Slovenia, which could be grounds for some notability, no sources exist which make significant mention of his life or do anything more substantial than say his name.

Here are all existing sources I could find about him:

  • [12] (which apparently consists of articles from Wikipedia according to this site here)
  • [13] (only mentions him once)

The only page on Wikipedia that even makes mention of him is List of mayors of Ljubljana. If it weren't for similarly useless pages about mayors from Ljubljana's history whose pages should be deleted alongside this one, this page would be an Orphan. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He was a town judge, an innkeeper, and a mayor of what is now a capital city of an independent country, so there clearly is historical interest in keeping information on this person. There are in-depth discussions of him in the relevant literature; see e.g. Ljubljana Mayors Through Time (pg. 73). I could agree on having this article merged elsewhere but not on its outright deletion. --TadejM my talk 13:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The currently cited sources are short descriptions or lists. There is no WP:SIGCOV on online sources. The source cited by TadejM is also a short description, not in-depth discussion. I would have agreed with Soman on being careful with applying contemporary notability standards for historical figures, however, notable historical figures are still covered in-depth by reliable sources; old, printed ones, if not available online. We don't have proof of those at this time to say the subject merits an encyclopedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," which is a clear case here. The said article illustrates the person's notability and it is not a trivial mention. There is no mention of 'short description' in the relevant guideline. You may compare this article e.g. to this one that we have decided to keep. I would hope that a historical personality is at least on par with a random sportswoman who got to participate in the Olympics. --TadejM my talk 05:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here (Something about Ljubljana street names and surnames from the early 17th century (according to two new urbaria from 1620-1633)) is another reference that provides further information on Jurij Viditsch (Georg Widitsch) and describes him as a very notable personality for Ljubljana at the time. The article discusses in depth two urbaria composed under Jurij Viditsch. --TadejM my talk 07:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=704476568"