Jump to content

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

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

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting
Conservatism
Libertarianism


Politics

[edit]

Our enemy is here, they are lying that it is America

[edit]
Our enemy is here, they are lying that it is America (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)

Violator of WP:RECENTISM. No sustained notability of protests ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bablu Mahato

[edit]
Bablu Mahato (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)

Clearly, it fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Simply being a member of a notable person's family does not automatically make an individual notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, A draft article about the subject already exists, which has been rejected multiple times by reviewers. However, the creator bypassed the process by changing the name and directly creating the article in the mainspace. Baqi:) (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Events in the Life of Harold Washington

[edit]
Events in the Life of Harold Washington (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)

Dubious notability, no images, article itself is of rather poor quality. Issues have gone uncorrected for at least 12 years, based on the top message Sandcat555 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets GNG with its sources. Needs some editing, and I've done a bit (thanks Sandcat555 for bringing attention to the page), but not deletion. As for the notability, Harold Washington was one of Chicago's most beloved mayors, and the downtown Chicago Public Library is named after him in tribute and honor. It and this mural are two of Chicago's several major commemorative remembrances of Washington. The page also gives a well-written and now edited background of Washington's impact on Chicago and an interesting summary and focus on the artist, Jacob Lawrence. This one seems an easy keep, and I've tried to improve it towards that result. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Harold and his library namesake may be fantastic for all I know, but that changes nothing with this article. The majority of the page isn't about the mural at all, despite it being the title. Write a page about Washington, or merge this into something else, but keeping it as it is doesn't fix the problem. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree completely with Randy Kryn - the article does well in explaining both the background of the subject as well as the artist's creation of the mural. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge The comments above do not appropriately address notability. It's rather absurd that more of the article merely summarizes the importance of Harold Washington rather than discusses the mural itself. This is a WP:REFBOMB – The only source for information about the mural is "Jacob Lawrence and the Making of Americans", used as cite 15 and 16. With that, it fails WP:GNG, as Washington being beloved and his background being well-written are utterly irrelevant. My search for sources only found brief mentions about the library's collections. Perhaps it can be merged to Harold Washington Library where it's located. I'm also surprised the article inaccurately states Lawrence painted the mural, when it's actually a tile mosaic. Reywas92Talk 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You worded my view far better than I did myself. Sandcat555 (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoauthoritarianism (China)

[edit]
Neoauthoritarianism (China) (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)

Poster-child for WP:TNT - the article, as it stands, is a substantial WP:COATRACK which is rife with WP:SYNTH that attempts to conflate Neoauthoritarianism (xīn quánwēi zhǔyì) with Neoconservativism (xīn bǎoshǒu zhǔyì) largely on the basis of a single book from 2008. This has led to an article which has been tagged as "reading like a personal essay" since March of this year. Neoauthoritarianism is an actual historical ideology that might warrant a page but this page, as it is right now, does not address that topic, instead being a clearing house for the WP:POV assertion that Chinese government is right-wing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't agree with your argument, and even if your argument is assumed to be correct, there is no reason for the article to be removed from Wikipedia. Neoauthoritarianism is an existing political ideology and is an article that is listed without any problems in Chinese Wikipedia or Japanese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Pro-KMT just tried to add Slajoz Zizek commentaries on Deng as a fascist... I don't have any problem with Zizek personally but I'm not sure it belong here, other people would have to comment. I'll try to review these changes some time...FourLights (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neoconservativism was merged into this article on the basis that, based on our sources, one developed into the other. I mostly put together Neoauthoritarianism one, other people decided to merge neoconservativism into this one. Part of your request is just re-write. I don't have any objection to working on this page again - and I certainly am capable of great labors - but this isn't a great time for me to put a lot into it, and it's not the only article I would be working on cleaning. It doesn't mean that it can't happen, it just hasn't been a priority.FourLights (talk)

If you personally believe that Neoconservativism is distinct and should be seperated into another page again, then you might contribute material to establish this distinction, and why they don't belong as page. I don't know. One developed into the as far as people who put them together know. Sinology is a limited subject in the west, although it can be developed there is often a scarcity of materials. Sources in another language might be end up being needed, I don't speak other languages, but I do enjoy translating them. FourLights (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do contend that neoconservativism is distinct from neoauthoritarianism which, according to most reliable sources fell out of favor with the CPC after the Tiananmen Square incident. Furthermore, things like the Zizek quote, the use of the WP:FRINGE Hageback book, the regular use of citations to support statements not in those citations (see the Zheng, Yongnian citation in the lede for an early example), and the over-reliance on the Chris Bramnal book that was published during the Hu administration to comment on phenomena that the article tries to tie to the current Xi administration are why I say that the dramatic step of WP:TNT is needed here. This article is a giant coatrack as it stands. About the only thing worth keeping here is the name. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and blow it up along with Pro-KMT's template, I can try to revive it later. Since I haven't read your purported sources, I have no idea what you're talking about with regards the distinctions, but Pro-KMT has gone loony with the article anyway. When I do try to revive it, it might involve an additional source, but probably not the one's haven't named since I don't know about them.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send me a link where I read everything that's been done here over the last several months after you blow it up. In case it turns out anything good was contributed.FourLights (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BATHWATER. Parts with WP:COAT should be trimmed down, but that is not a good argument for wholesale deletion. - Amigao (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-KMT has created a template, spamming it all over the places. If Neo-authoritarian has that kind of scope, the article doesn't have that kind of development. Why is there a neo-authoritarianism template spammed all over the place. The original article I had may have been "written like an essay" and needed some fixing but it was at least intended to be academic. Fixing it up will take time I don't have as much of right now.FourLights (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Simon had some additional sources, including ones that distinguish neoauthoritarianism and neo-conservativism, I would be able to put together a new article(s) some time more easily. Currently it is complained it doesn't have enough source material and that the two are conflated. I can't do anything with that, and pro-KMT comes in with materials speculating about people being fascist. If someone else has knowledge they need to step in with relevant information when they can or I'm just wasting time. I'm not putting much effort into this until it's resolved. I already made an article with the limited information I had.FourLights (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kothe

[edit]
Mahesh Kothe (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 subject has only held non-notable positions, such the mayor and corporator of a small city. A BEFORE search returns results related to election preparations, which are routine and lack significant independent coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other people who hold the notable position only as mayor & still have a Wikipedia are as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malti_Rai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Rajan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadwal_Vijayalakshmi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramila_Pandey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firhad_Hakim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Agarwal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junaid_Azim_Mattu
The person is question - Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project that is Solapur IT park.
Read more about it at - https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124 Mohit Gandmal (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not equal "notable". And please stop repeating yourself, we saw your comment the first time. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not satisfy - WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA or WP:VAGUEWAVE or WP:VAGUEWAVES - deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation" or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on the references reviewed, the subject currently qualifies as a local political figure, which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL). The key points are as follows:

1. Local Leadership: The individual has not demonstrated a broad impact or influence beyond local politics, which is a prerequisite for meeting Wikipedia’s specific notability guidelines for politicians.

2. 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections: The subject participated in the ongoing elections, but the results are yet to be announced. If the individual wins and achieves significant influence or recognition, they might become notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines.

3. General Notability Criteria (WP:GNG): The subject does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements, which typically involve substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Thus, unless the election results or future accomplishments establish broader significance, the subject does not currently qualify for a Wikipedia entry. Baqi:) (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Economic Miracle

[edit]
The Trump Economic Miracle (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)

Book's been out for a month, no independent reviews or coverage beyond summarizing what the book says. I would suggest redirection to the author but there are two, so that's out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Party of Ukraine

[edit]
Marxist–Leninist Party of Ukraine (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)

Unsourced since 2009. The external link does not refer to this party, at least per machine translation. Only references I can find to this party are referring or reproducing this article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential election

[edit]
Republican Party efforts to disrupt the 2024 United States presidential 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)

Reasoning is very similar to my reasoning over on another AfD. Simply put the article is flawed inherently as POV, starting with the very title. It's based on accusations from the opposing parties against the Republicans. As such is gives undue weight to one side's POV. It is therefore, flawed and impossible to present as NPOV. I move the article be deleted, and where appropriate, the contents be merged with other articles. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 20:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it could be stated the the existence of the article is a logical fallacy, as the election has been since won by the Republican Party, at the presidential, congressional, and the gubernatorial level (in terms of gubernatorial seats). It would be inherently contradictory that the Republican Party would try to disrupt an election that they would end up winning, especially considering the party’s change in messaging earlier this year regarding voter registration efforts. I second the OPs motion, and the article should be a section within the main election article. Cavvy18 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well-referenced and impartial. In fact, the minority view here is that of the Republican Party; giving it equal weight to the point of view of the Democrats would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE.
JPerez90 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to know the reasoning as to why someone wants this article deleted. As long as it is factual and has good references it should remain, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabdriver000 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- same as my last nom vote •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No suggestion that the "accusations" are inaccurate – these are all extensively sourced, and your not liking it is not a basis for deletion. It's quite well documented that Republicans laid the groundwork to challenge or undermine the reliability of the election had they lost, and that they didn't need to do so does not negate that. It certainly needs trimming and better use of sections though, some are unreadably long and detailed. Reywas92Talk 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep this article, the minority views can always submit their own article providing they can provide proof for their viewpoints. 73.166.121.219 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article is well-sourced and due. If you have issues with the sources used or the language you can discuss that on the talk page, but simply claiming the whole page is biased just because it exists is faulty reasoning. Large amounts of reliable sources have covered this topic. To say that reliable sources don't matter because you think the whole premise of the issue at hand is biased is textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BootsED (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is fine as said above, but even then, this is not grounds for deletion. If you have concerns with neutrality, take it up on the talk page. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election

[edit]
Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential 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)

The very premise of this article is POV. The title, the idea. It is based on a Democratic talking point that is simply an accusation. As an encyclopedia, our job is to make encyclopedic articles that are factual, and without bias. While one side claims that the legislation passed by Republicans is to “restrict voting” and includes the negative connotation that goes with that wording, I’m sure the Republicans would argue that their actions are only to ensure votes comes from only those that are supposed to vote, without outside interference. My point being, as stated, that the very premise of this article, and even its title, is based on accusations from the Democrat party against the Republicans, and is therefore inherently flawed as a POV, and therefore they have no place as articles on Wikipedia as it gives undue weight to one side. Policies violated with this article existing are including, but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:POVNAMING, WP:IMPARTIAL, and more. I therefore move this article be deleted, and it’s contents, where appropriate, be moved to other articles. TrueCRaysball 💬|✏️ 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article is overwhelmingly well-sourced and due. BootsED (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foysal Ahmed Shanto

[edit]
Foysal Ahmed Shanto (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 is clearly a case of WP:BIO1E, as the sources cover the subject only in relation to the 2024 Bangladesh protest where the subject died. GrabUp - Talk 08:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan General Labour Union

[edit]
Moroccan General Labour Union (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/WP:NPROFIT. Cannot find any sourcing that confirms the existence of this trade union other than Facebook. Appears to be a single person as acting as a union. Referred to in a number of locations as "Union générale marocaine du travail" (for example, this Danish trade union report on Morocco, but which cites French Wikipedia as source). I also see some reports referencing the French name, but this has been confused with the long establised UGTM (Union générale des travailleurs du Maroc). I've not been able to do an extensive search in Arabic, but French and English draw blanks. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw the UGMT referred to in the Danish report is not the same body. That was founded in 1960 and is notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, see page 31 of the Ulandssekretariatet report, citing French Wiki, last entry on the table, it's referring to the UGMT, not the UGTM. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal parliamentary republic

[edit]
Federal parliamentary republic (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 be a wholly synthetic topic isolating the intersection of Federalism and Parliamentary system for no reason other than it's a phrase often found in infoboxes. There seems to be no discussion of the subject in its own right, and there do not appear to be sources from my checks either. There are likely more than a handful of other articles of this kind. Likely some should be merged somewhere, but the utility of anything seems marginal. Remsense ‥ 论 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IForIndia

[edit]
IForIndia (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)

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

Delete as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket balance

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

It has a list of sources at the bottom, might be OR, but it's not unsourced. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, and why I said "largely unsourced" - the bulk of the content appears to be unsourced OR. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There may be a list of sources at the bottom, but none of them uses the term "ticket balance" and all are talking about different (but related) things, with this article apparently trying to tie them all together into a coherent concept...textbook WP:OR. This source uses the term "balanced ticket": [3], but I don't know about its reliability. I can find passing uses of the phrase in different non-RS articles (blogs and so forth) but it's not clear that they're talking about the same thing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – it took me about 15 minutes to find half a dozen good news articles from different presidential election cycles that mention ticket balancing -- I added them all to this article and will continue to add more. The original author may not have cited any sources, but this is not an original research essay. This is a term frequently mentioned in the news every 4 years, with sources dating back to the 1990s and earlier. Scholars also frequently talk about how JFK picked LBJ to balance the ticket and unite the Democratic party, that was in 1960. It will not be hard to find more sources. This nom was lazy. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find and add 18 sources in under half an hour. If anyone would like me to find more, please ask! –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps again confirming that unsourced tags are meaningless, but AfDs suddenly get results? Sigh. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darius J. Pearce

[edit]
Darius J. Pearce (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 appear to meet WP:BASIC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Business, and Jersey. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should note that this is not the first time deletion of this article has been debated, I would ask you to explain what has changed since the last debate took place which would mean that the decision to retain the article, should now be re-considered?
    He definitely falls within the general notability guideline in terms of Jersey. Darius J. Pearce is one of the most influential political figures in the island. As you may be able to tell he evokes strong feelings both for and against. However, even from within prison walls (he is not due for release until December 2025 at the earliest) he has still managed to hit the headlines every year since incarcerated (most of which have not been included within the article). Let's face it two people have been arguing for weeks over what should go in the article or not; that in itself dictates that he has some level of notability.
    Whilst it is not unreasonable to argue that no Jersey politician meets the criteria required for WP:BASIC. That would seem to be very unfair to small jurisdictions; likewise no politician of the Pitcairn Islands or of the Faroe islands should be represented as they are not particularly newsworthy outside their jurisdiction. Admittedly a number of the stories which the original article refers to have since disappeared from the web, however, I have reviewed the article and there are a substantial number of stories from other Jersey news sources which have not been referred to.
    There is a danger in people from large jurisdictions not allowing small jurisdictions to be properly represented, I would say if you delete this article then at least 90% of Jersey articles should also be deleted. RichardColgate (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — RichardColgate (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of DariusJersey (talk · contribs). [reply]
    RichardColgate, if he is one of the most influential political figures in the island, it should be no trouble finding sources stating as such. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My only concern was/is to prevent defamation from taking place... deletion achieves that - so I am ambivalent on the deletion generally, but wished to raise the issue of ensuring that small jurisdictions. Trust me - no one from Jersey is of any particular importance outside Jersey other than Henry Cavill of course. So I am sure Curb Safe Charmer and I will agree that it is better if local people decide who is locally notable.
    The article was very old and a lot of the links upon which it was based no longer function, that does not mean that they never did. Wikipedia does not require that the facts are verifiable ONLY from internet links.
    You have decided you want to edit this article so you could do the research I suggest that you look up the human rights case in the Court of Appeal of Jersey, which he won as a litigant in person. The first person ever. Extremely notable within our community. Just go through all the judgements that you removed from the article and you will see why he is notable... he is not a lawyer, he represents himself and he wins. A non-lawyer mentioned in the Letter to the Editor in the Jersey Law Review by Stephanie Nicolle QC (not being from Jersey you will not understand the importance of Stephanie Nicolle but she is THE authority on law in Jersey, she never gets anything wrong).
    I am not here to prove anything to you, BUT... should you wish to delete the article then so be it, there is nothing stopping me from re-posting once I have had the time and inclination to do the research and write the article. RichardColgate (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC, and WP:GNG. Also delete per WP:NOTPROMO as the article is clearly full of puffery and lack encyclopedic WP:TONE. As far as I can tell no serious discussion of notability has taken place anywhere. This is the first AFD, and Talk:Darius J. Pearce has a very nominal wave at a notability discussion without actually engaging with WP:N policy in a meaningful way. The article is currently mainly cited to WP:PRIMARY sources, and those that are not independent or only mention the subject in passing. None of the sources meet the requirements at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG - see Google News, but needs to be TNTed due to COI, neutrality and undue weight. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fails WP:CRIMINAL. And WP:SIGCOV is still not met.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's convinced me. Struck my keep !vote and changed to delete. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I chopped out all the material that not verifiable per WP:BURDEN/ WP:Verifiability; removed criminal content cited only to primary sources which is a no-no under WP:BLPCRIMINAL and WP:Attack page; and removed all original synthesis and analysis on primary sources per WP:No original research. There's hardly anything left now in the article, because there is no secondary coverage of this man except for his criminal activities above. But adding that in now would be against multiple policies; including WP:CRIMINAL, WP:BLPCRIMINAL, and WP:Attack page. There's no way we can have an article on this man.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* I have been persuaded to change from being ambivfalent to being in favour of deleting this article as it stands. I have neither the time nor the inclination to re-write the article now. I will simply re-add if and when I get the urge to write the article to the appropriate standard. Thanks to all for their assistance in bringing the defamation to an end of one of the most renowned and notable anti-establishment Jersey politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardColgate (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the original author of the article, although it has changed significantly since I wrote the stub back in 2006. I concur that nearly all the articles which have been the source of much of the development of this page have now gone dead for one reason or another but the article is nearly 20 years old.

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ "'No doubt' money-launderer handcuffed at father's funeral had rights breached". Jersey Evening Post. Jersey Evening Post. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  2. ^ "How to donate". Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  3. ^ "About Darius". Through Deserts Blog. Friends of Darius Pearce. Retrieved 18 November 2024.
  4. ^ "Darius Pearce Jersey electoral history". Flow.je. Retrieved 18 November 2024.

China-Myanmar community with a shared future

[edit]
China-Myanmar community with a shared future (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)

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

Social radicalism

[edit]
Social radicalism (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)

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

Weak keep -- these are clearly different. The first is "the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system," formerly used to describe Radicalism (historical) and now fully general, across the political spectrum. The second is "is a political philosophy and variety of radicalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical radicalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance." So, the first is just "being radical" and the second is "a specific radical and usually centre to centre-left political philosophy".
While I'm not sure these refer to the same thing, here are a few sources that mention the term "social radicalism", one of which is an entire book about it (found by googling "social radicalism" in quotes):
See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22social+radicalism%22 for some more. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overlap entirely was a misnomer on my part. I am immensely skeptical given the lack of reification of this term that it should be given its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Italy by time in office

[edit]
List of presidents of Italy by time in office (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)

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

Delete. Nothing really to merge, and per same rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office. Procyon117 (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood quota

[edit]
Blood quota (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)

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

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

  • Speedy keep per WP:WRONGFORUM and procedural close. It sounds like these are WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:POV issues but not WP:Notability issues. This could easily be solved by editing the article to fix content issues through WP:BOLD and/or by dialoguing on the article's talk page using the WP:CONSENSUS process. Failing that, take this to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Either way, no notability or WP:Deletion policy based rationale for deletion has been made by the nominator and this should be closed immediately for procedural reasons. AFD is not the place to work out content disputes.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep A very cursory search shows there is ample academic writing on the topic. To quote Jima-González and Paradela-López (Latin American Perspectives 48:6, 194-209, 2021) "The [ 1983 Lucanamarca massacre ] was “justified” by Pensamiento Gonzalo’s idea that “the blood quota” was necessary for the triumph of the revolution" Finding the concept unpalatable is another issue but one should not try to hide or sanewash the darker parts of history just because they make no rational sense. Superboilles (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There are ample sources that demonstrate the notability of the concept from scholarly papers not just routine news coverage. The nomination statement itself did not present strong case against the notability of the concept but focused more on the tone of the content and its perceived biased nature. This is better resolved by presenting a neutral view of events described in the article not through constructive editing. Deletion is not an option. Mekomo (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added WP:Notability issues to the original post with AI, but personally I support a NEUTRALization of the article to meet NPOV.
JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may make a notability opinion here. But you may not modify the text of a signed comment by another editor or the nominator's text. Your contribution was reverted because this is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. I understand you meant it out of a good motivation, but we rely on people not editing other users signed comments or it makes dialoguing reliably no longer possible on any page.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, widely covered in academic studies and a well documented topic in Peruvian communist discussion. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Geschichte (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office

[edit]
List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office (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)

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

Delete. Don't think a merge is appropriate as there isn't any new information to merge. Procyon117 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to be merged (unusually) is the sortable table formatting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Meh, there's no need for a "merge" outcome to have the table in the target reformatted. Withdrawing !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election

[edit]
1820 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial 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)

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

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

1824 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1828 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1840 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (also marked with a may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline template)
1844 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1848 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1852 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1856 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1864 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1868 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1870 Missouri lieutenant gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep all. The nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE; or if they did not competently. In less than two minutes I found this on the 1820 election: [8] which shows that 1. It was not an uncontested election 2. There were three candidates on the ballot, one of whom (Nathaniel Cook) had a vote count just slightly lower then William H. Ashley. It was a close election. The current article is just wrong and full of factual errors. A major office at the state level falls under WP:NPOL and reasonably elections for politicians who meet WP:NPOL are all notable/encyclopedic because that office is deemed encyclopedic. Also this should be a procedural close because WP:SIGCOV on these elections is going to be different for each one, and this a procedurally a bad bundled nomination that would be overturned easily at WP:DELETIONREVIEW for bad process. 4meter4 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All as repetitious electioncruft. I tried to fight against these kinds of articles in the past to little success, so I am a little bit biased against these types. WP:NPOL is not about elections, but politicians. -1ctinus📝🗨 02:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom

[edit]
Lords and margraves of Bergen op Zoom (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)

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

  • Keep. Given there is a museum dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom, it is a historically notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I presume there was no effort made to establish the nature of the 'musuem dedicated to the margraves at Bergen op Zoom'. It is the Markiezenhof, the oldest city palace in the Netherlands and it is not 'dedicated to the margraves'. And its existence and purpose doesn't make the list of lords and margraves of that place any more notable, properly referenced, germane or necessary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Markiezenhof is not exactly a museum about the margraves, it is a museum named after the margraves. Still, the three Stijlkamers, three rooms of the permanent exhibit, are dedicated to Margrave Maria Henriette de la Tour d´Auvergne. So, a part of the museum is dedicated to the margraves, in particular to one of them. Anyway, I have added one more reference, a 170 page book specifically about the Lords and margraves, to further strengthen my case that the topic deserves a standalone article. Best, Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - European noble titles / families are notable when adequately sourced, and this one is. It's a bit too large to merge comfortably to the Bergen op Zoom article. Ingratis (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kai Trump (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)

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

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.
None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).
2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.
3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).
In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)
In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [9] [10] [11] [12], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.
The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.
But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.
Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:
The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.
For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.
For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[13]] and [[14]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hannan Masud

[edit]
Abdul Hannan Masud (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)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the nominator states, "I will withdraw my nomination if the creator can present three in-depth coverage from reliable sources". Can those arguing to Keep point out any RS that provide SIGCOV?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sohan61 it would be very helpful if you could translate the title of each source that isn't in English and set the trans-title attribute of the citation template accordingly. Please also set the website= attribute with the English name of each source website, so we can more easily see what these citations are. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Liberty Forum

[edit]
New Hampshire Liberty Forum (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)

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

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

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

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

The article does not list sources for claims of speakers at various conferences. Several existing sources are primary sources.
The article makes false and misleading claims, engages in original research with no sources, and presents their subjects in a promotional manner.
Example 1, stating that "James O'Keefe – journalist whose investigations have exposed corruption and malfeasance in major taxpayer-funded institutions, including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and NPR". James O'Keefe is a far-right activist that uses deceptively edited videos to attack mainstream media sources and progressive sources, and whose videos exposing corruption have been verifiably proven false, as in the case with the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.
Example 2, stating "Ben Swann – Emmy Award-winning journalist" but not including any mention that he is a well-known, notable conspiracy theorist.
Example 3: stating "Stefan Molyneux – host of Freedomain Radio" but not mentioning how he is best known as a white nationalist.

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relato K

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Relato K (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)

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

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

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

Far right, the opposite of far left. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which, of course, means nothing. The article of Kaiser now has a reference of a book that calls him far-right, but again, only that, a label, without any specific racism, supremacism, or wrongdoing attributed to him. Calling someone "Far-right" seems to be becoming like Fascist (insult) nowadays. In fact, if we check that source, it says that Kaiser is far-right... in the middle of a grand conspiracy theory about how the far-right (the only kind of right-wing politics there seem to be) is out there to conquer the word, destroy the left, abolish democracy, and enslave the helpless working class. I have my doubts that can be considered a reliable source to begin with. Cambalachero (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter how you define it, the article isn't notable regardless. Sourcing is a mess and is mostly SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article should make more clear that the "relato K" concept has been used in several books and hundreds of articles in the press. I'm working on it. It has been used even in the context of the Spanish-language Wikipedia by an Argentine historian (in relation to hundreds of articles on Argentine history). I quote this Argentine historian and provide the citation:

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

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

I tried a translation: "In 2014 I was in charge of an Argentine History Encyclopedia, published by Clarín. I reviewed hundreds of articles related to Argentine history, from little-known fighters for independence to well-known personalities of more recent history. There were few cases in which I did not find an intrusion or manipulation with the classic taste of the K narrative (relato K)." AwerDiWeGo (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Romero, Luis Alberto (2021-03-25). "Wikipedia: el toque del Rey Midas". Clarín (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-09-21.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social utility efficiency

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

  • Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject:
    • Weber 1978 "Comparison of Public Choice Systems"
      • Origin of the metric under the name "effectiveness", has 22 citations
    • "A comparison of efficiency of multicandidate electoral systems" by S Merrill III, American Journal of Political Science, 1984. JSTOR
      • Origin of the SUE name, in a peer-reviewed journal, has 153 citations
    • Postl, Peter and Giles, Adam, Equilibrium and Welfare of Two-Parameter Scoring Rules (August 1, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2124477 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2124477
      • "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (where effectiveness is captured by a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978"
    • Evaluating and Comparing Voting Rules behind the Veil of Ignorance. Postl, Peter. L'Actualité Économique. Vol. 93, Iss. 1/2, (Mar-Jun 2017): 1-32,1A-36A.
      • "Computational results regarding the effectiveness of different scoring rules (… a modification of the effectiveness measure proposed in Weber, 1978)"
      • "According to Weber (1978), efficiency is defined, broadly speaking, as the ratio between the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the actually elected candidate according to the scoring rule and the expected utilitarian welfare generated by the socially optimal candidate." ["D’après Weber (1978), l’efficacité est définie, en gros, comme le rapport entre l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat vraiment élu en fonction de la règle de score et l’espérance de bien-être utilitariste générée par le candidat optimal du point de vue social."]
    • Le Breton, M., Lepelley, D., Macé, A. & Merlin, V. (2017). Le mécanisme optimal de vote au sein du conseil des représentants d’un système fédéral. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 203–248. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044720ar
      • "This coefficient corresponds to what Weber (1978, 1995) defines as the effectiveness of voting mechanism C." ["Ce coefficient correspond à ce que Weber (1978, 1995) définit comme étant l’effectivité du mécanisme de vote C."]
    • Le Breton, M., Blais, A. & Dellis, A. (2017). Élections : comportements, mécanismes et réformes. L'Actualité économique, 93(1-2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1044713ar
      • "It follows in the line of Weber's pioneering work (1978), which, unfortunately, has been forgotten for too long. … The evaluation of the electoral system is then based on the expected value of the sum of utilities" ["Il est dans la lignée des travaux pionniers de Weber (1978), hélas tombés dans l’oubli pendant trop longtemps. … L’évaluation du système électoral est alors basée sur la valeur espérée de la somme des utilités"]
    • "Implications of strategic position choices by candidates" by R Robinette, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "I propose a refinement to the social utility efficiency metric to account for the different utility of the candidate’s chosen positions"
    • "The relative efficiency of approval and Condorcet voting procedures" by S Merrill III and N Tideman, Rationality and Society, 1991. SAGE Journals
      • "the social utility efficiency of approval voting closely approximated that of a Condorcet-completion method (that of Black) and greatly exceeded that of single-vote plurality."
    • "Comparing Approval At-Large to Plurality At-Large in Multi-Member Districts" by JA Hansen, ResearchGate. ResearchGate
      • "For a particular voting rule, we define the social-utility efficiency (SUE) as the ratio of the sum of the social utilities of all winners…"
    • "Influence allocation methods in group decision support systems" by PA Balthazard, WR Ferrell, and DL Aguilar, Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, 1998. SpringerLink
      • "the results of analysis or simulation in terms of Condorcet efficiency or social utility efficiency, or strategies that maximize a voter’s influence over the outcome are not particularly useful to us."
    • "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules" by AY Kondratev and AS Nesterov, Public Choice, Springer, 2020. SpringerLink
      • "however, the Borda rule provides slightly more social utility efficiency"
    • "How frequently do different voting rules encounter voting paradoxes in three-candidate elections?" by F Plassmann and TN Tideman, Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, 2014. SpringerLink
      • "To our knowledge, Merrill (1984) provided the only previous empirical assessment of the Black rule—a calculation of the social-utility efficiency of this rule."
    • "Range voting" by WD Smith, RangeVoting.org, 2000. PDF
      • "Merrill’s utility based substudy is suspicious because … All his data for 2-candidate elections had “100.0% social utility efficiency,” in his terminology."
    • "Second Problem: How to Satisfy the Condorcet Criteria" by H Nurmi, Comparing Voting Systems, Springer, 1987. SpringerLink
      • "the Condorcet winning criterion does not coincide with another almost equally plausible criterion, viz. social utility efficiency (Weber, 1977)."
    • "Making multicandidate elections more democratic" by S Merrill, De Gruyter, 1988. De Gruyter
      • "Chapter 3: SOCIAL-UTILITY EFFICIENCY"
    • "STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction: considerations for voting method reform" by S Wolk, J Quinn, M Ogren, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "To evaluate voting method accuracy and strategy resilience, we present the metrics Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE) and Pivotal Voter Strategic Incentive (PVSI)."
    • "The Pathologies of Voting Schemes" by J Zhang, University of Iowa, 2020. University of Iowa
      • "The difference between the achieved utility and the maximum potential utility is the Bayesian regret. A related concept is the Voter Satisfaction Efficiency (VSE), which expresses the same idea as Bayesian regret but as a percentage."
    • "The case for approval voting" by A Hamlin, W Hua, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "Recent research using computer simulations under a Monte Carlo method demonstrates that approval voting also produces winners that reliably maximize voter satisfaction (Quinn 2021)." "The ability of approval voting to select strong winners has been verified in multiple ways. The first of which is through the use of computer modeling (e.g. Smith 2006; Smith and Kok n.d.b.; Quinn 2021)."
    • "The case for score voting" by WD Smith, Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, 2023. SpringerLink
      • "Computer simulations have been used to compare score versus other election methods by the criterion of Bayesian regret (BR)"
    • "Ants, bees, and computers agree range voting is best single-winner system" by WD Smith, rangevoting.org, 2006. rangevoting.org
      • "Define the Bayesian regret (BR) of voting system E to be the expected regret exhibited by E."
    • "Vote of no confidence" by P McKenna, New Scientist, Elsevier, 2008. ScienceDirect
      • "To gauge this he measured “Bayesian regret”, a parameter that attempts to quantify how unhappy groups of people are following a poor outcome."
    • "Approval in the echo chamber" by B Armstrong, K Larson, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, benarmstrong.ca, 2017. benarmstrong.ca
      • "In particular, Smith provided results from a Bayesian regret analysis of approximately 2.2 million simulations showing…"
    • "Gaming the vote: Why elections aren't fair (and what we can do about it)" by W Poundstone, books.google.com, 2008. Google Books
      • "He began with an idea for comparing the merits of different voting systems, using a measure called Bayesian regret."
    • Not all of these search results refer to the same concept, but there are plenty of hits:
    mind sharing a few? the measure has received coverage nearly exclusively by a dedicated tiny subset of election reform enthusiasts, and as far as I can tell just about zero coverage by any professional sources in the past several decades. Affinepplan (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    please note that the OP edited the comment since the reply. I stand by my statement. Pretty much 100% of this list either contains no mention of SUE or is a low quality / self-published source. Affinepplan (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this criticism of Omegatron's list. I checked three at random and two had, as far as I could see, no mention of this concept whatsoever. The other mentioned it in a single sentence as a possible comparison - not a good barometer of noteworthiness. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Bayesian regret is a different concept and not relevant to show the notability of SUE. and in fact, it already has its own (different) article Bayesian regret
    2. the vast majority of those results for searches with "social utility efficiency" are pulling up keyword hits for fully different concepts.
    I think you have just proved my point? Affinepplan (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are plenty of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure if your Bayesian Regret article is about the same concept. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I spot checked 4 of those sources at random from the list you so helpfully wrote out and none of them even mentioned this metric once. Please don't just bluff and write random links with the assumption that I'm not going to read them. Affinepplan (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Affinepplan Every single one mentions it. I just spend an inordinate amount of time finding direct quotes for you. 😣 — Omegatron (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Bayesian Regret is a different concept. Please do not conflate the two, or think that mentions of bayesian regret implies notability for SUE
    2. None of William Poundstone, Warren D Smith, Aaron Hamlin et. al, Wolk et al are authoritative sources w.r.t. notability; I would categorize them all as cranks to be quite blunt.
    3. All the remaining quotes seem to cite the same Merril 1984 directly in passing but do not themselves examine the metric
    I still remain unconvinced that this passes the notability bar. I would provide more detailed critiques of your list but it seems exhaustingly long. Could you maybe pare it down to what, in your opinion, are the most compelling top five sources and we can focus on those? Affinepplan (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe a possible solution might be to merge this into Implicit utilitarian voting. Both concepts seem to be very related, i.e., how well does a voting rule approximate the best possible utilitarian welfare, with Social utility efficiency seemingly being more experimental and Implicit utilitarian voting being more theoretical and worst-case oriented. The Implicit utilitarian voting article is not very up-to-date at the moment, however updating it and including Social utility efficiency as a small subsection on precursors might be worth it. Social utility efficiency on its own however does not seem notable enough for its own article. Also pinging @DominikPeters and @Erel Segal. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are very similar topics and merging them makes sense. I am less clear what the framing and the title of the merged article would ideally be. Currently, "implicit utilitarian voting" suggests that the aim is to design systems that do well on the distortion measure, while "social utility efficiency" stresses the idea of a metric. To me, the metric framing makes more sense. DominikPeters (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on the metric angle making more sense. Jannikp97 (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps distortion deserves its own article? based loosely on the summaries in https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370215000892 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00911
and the SUE can be folded in as a side note. I am happy to defer to your recommendation of a merge rather than a delete. Affinepplan (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a completely different topic and it would be inappropriate to merge this into that. That is a voting system, this is a metric for measuring the performance of voting systems. That's like merging fuel efficiency into Toyota Corolla.
There is no problem with this article and no reason to delete or merge it; just leave it be. — Omegatron (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is a problem --- the problem of WP:Notability Affinepplan (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to merge these, because these are two very different approaches (minimax regret vs. expected utility).
If they were merged, I'd agree with DominikPeters that merging in the opposite direction is probably better. Of the two approaches, expected utility is the older and more well-established concept, while relative distortion is a new-ish introduction from CS/algorithms—actually, the first paper discussing distortion (in 2006) talks about the already very long history of expected utility approaches to social choice:

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

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

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

again, to be clear, this article is not about "expected utility." This article is about a so-called "SUE" which of course while bearing resemblances to expected utilities is not identical.
Please, I ask you again, remain on topic to this deletion discussion for this specific topic, and do not draw irrelevant comparisons or other non-sequiturs to obviously notable topics. Affinepplan (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility is social choice and welfare economics 101. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article is not about generally "the idea of comparing voting rules based on their utility." this article is about a particular --- nonnotable --- metric. I guess you would be referring to Utility or Comparison of voting rules#Utilitarian_models ? which yes, both of those are reasonable and notable articles & subsections.
Please focus on specifically the article for which I have nominated deletion, and not the general concept of "utility in social choice 101" Affinepplan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can demonstrate noteworthiness. I don't think this has been done so far. Omegatron's list of articles seems to include some low-quality sources and many articles that don't actually mention or discuss this concept. And Closed Limelike Curves' comment is only really a defense of the much broader topic of comparing voting rules based on utility. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, ok, I think I understand the issue now. From what I can tell, you and Jannikp are interpreting the question as being about social utility efficiency as a mathematical expression (i.e. actual_utility / ideal_utility). I agree that's not notable, since it's just a slightly-different way of expressing the utility. However, DominikPeters, Omegatron, and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature, which is exclusively in the context of the SUE of a voting rule. In other words, the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules (because SUE is specific to social choice).
But all of this is a bit of a digression. Regardless of the title, the article mostly discusses comparisons of voting rules based on their expected utility, and the article actually discusses many slightly-different variations on the same metric (e.g. Bayesian regret, VSE, and SUE). This slight mismatch might warrant retitling it, but not deleting the content entirely. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> and I are thinking about how the term "social utility efficiency" is used in the literature,
it is not used in the literature.
> the article is about applying the concept of utility to evaluating voting rules
no it is not. it is about SUE.
can you please stay on-topic and stop muddying the discussion with unrelated commentary about the general concept of utility in social choice? this is the third time you've done so. Affinepplan (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like the article Social utility efficiency as currently written is actually a particular metric. And based on a Google Scholar search, it doesn't seem like the phrase "social utility efficiency" is widely used in the literature at all. So unfortunately I don't follow your response. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gumshoe2: Are there at least 3 sources? Yes. Are they reliable? Yes; at least 9 are peer-reviewed academic research. Are they independent of the original subject? Yes, at least 15 different unrelated authors. Is the coverage more than a trivial mention? Yes, it is even the main topic of some papers. This clearly meets the notability criteria. — Omegatron (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify a particular three you have in mind? As I said, at least some of the articles you gave don't seem to even mention the topic. Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hykeham Memorial

[edit]
Hykeham Memorial (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)

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

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

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

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

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 soft redirect‎ to List of political parties in India. A delete nomination, a keep, and a redirect might seem to add up to no consensus without enough discussion. However, the keep !voters did not show the other two to be incorrect about dearth of evidence for independent notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

[edit]
Haryana Gana Parishad (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)

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

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

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

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

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International (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)

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.
    If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.
    As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:
    "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."
    I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Politics proposed deletions

[edit]

Politicians

[edit]

Scott J. Andreassi

[edit]
Scott J. Andreassi (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)

Former county politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bablu Mahato

[edit]
Bablu Mahato (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)

Clearly, it fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Simply being a member of a notable person's family does not automatically make an individual notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, A draft article about the subject already exists, which has been rejected multiple times by reviewers. However, the creator bypassed the process by changing the name and directly creating the article in the mainspace. Baqi:) (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usama Leghari

[edit]
Usama Leghari (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)

Another hyperlocal politician who fails at WP:NPOLITICIAN as a small town MP, fails at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article does not demonstrate or verify his notoriety. Even the reference are of low reliability Jinnllee90 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Kothe

[edit]
Mahesh Kothe (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 subject has only held non-notable positions, such the mayor and corporator of a small city. A BEFORE search returns results related to election preparations, which are routine and lack significant independent coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other people who hold the notable position only as mayor & still have a Wikipedia are as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malti_Rai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priya_Rajan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadwal_Vijayalakshmi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramila_Pandey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firhad_Hakim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinod_Agarwal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junaid_Azim_Mattu
The person is question - Shri Mahesh Kothe, apart from being a mayor has also initiated one of most important project that is Solapur IT park.
Read more about it at - https://www.thebridgechronicle.com/news/maharashtra/solapur-get-it-park-5000-jobs-expected-29124 Mohit Gandmal (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not equal "notable". And please stop repeating yourself, we saw your comment the first time. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not satisfy - WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:JUSTA or WP:VAGUEWAVE or WP:VAGUEWAVES - deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus. Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: the main claim of subject's notability ('Future Nobel Prize') is unattributed speculation" or "Does not meet WP:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. Mohit Gandmal (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on the references reviewed, the subject currently qualifies as a local political figure, which does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL). The key points are as follows:

1. Local Leadership: The individual has not demonstrated a broad impact or influence beyond local politics, which is a prerequisite for meeting Wikipedia’s specific notability guidelines for politicians.

2. 2024 Maharashtra Assembly Elections: The subject participated in the ongoing elections, but the results are yet to be announced. If the individual wins and achieves significant influence or recognition, they might become notable under Wikipedia’s guidelines.

3. General Notability Criteria (WP:GNG): The subject does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability requirements, which typically involve substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Thus, unless the election results or future accomplishments establish broader significance, the subject does not currently qualify for a Wikipedia entry. Baqi:) (talk) 09:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina F. Acosta

[edit]
Gina F. Acosta (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. A staff member at the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines does not count toward WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Multiple secondary sources such as The Philippine Star, Daily Tribune and GMA News Online have covered this government official from the Office of the Vice President (OVP). The OVP's questionable use of confidential funds under VP Sara Duterte has been among the top issues discussed in Philippine politics this year, if not the topmost (alongside tensions in the South China Sea and the POGO menace), and much of the Philippine media has been extensively covering the hearings conducted on this matter by the House Committee on Good Government in the past few months ([20][21][22][23][24]).
On November 5, Acosta was among the seven OVP officials who issued a position letter asking that the house congressional inquiry into their budget use be terminated ([25]), and by November 11 was among the four OVP officials ordered arrested based on a contempt citation issued by the committee for their non-attendance at the hearings ([26]). During the November 20 hearing, OVP chief of staff Zuleika T. Lopez and a branch manager of Land Bank of the Philippines gave testimonies that pinpointed Acosta as the OVP official who directly handled the confidential funds of the vice president ([27][28]). The varied independent coverage cited in this paragraph alone, in my view, merits notability for the article; further coverage in the media is also anticipated in the aftermath of the testimonies given in the Nov. 20 hearing. LionFosset (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LionFosset All the sources you mentioned are good but they do not count toward WP:GNG sources. The subject fails Wikipedia criteria for politician and non WP:GNG sources cannot be used for WP: SIGCOV. Please read more about WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh Moriarty

[edit]
Darragh Moriarty (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)

As a city councillor, he doesn’t satisfy the notability standards at WP:POLITICIAN, nor do I see evidence of WP:SIGCOV, either from the references here, or a general internet news search, outside of his candidacy. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel De Nortúin

[edit]
Hazel De Nortúin (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)

As a city councillor, she doesn’t satisfy the notability standards at WP:POLITICIAN, nor do I see evidence of WP:SIGCOV, either from the references here, or a general internet news search, outside of her candidacy. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but only if that's actually significant coverage. The article from The Ditch is not significant coverage of De Nortúin, instead just referring to a complaint she made about an actually notable politician in Leo Varadkar. The Irish Times coverage posted here is a routine feature on a candidate going door to door which does nothing to define notability, while the one in the article itself is about her and two other councillors criticising the lack of maternity leave pay - again, not defining notability for her. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NPOL is not met. WP:GNG is not met. (None of the sources in the article contribute to notability - being the subject's own LinkedIn profile, an interview, trivial passing mentions and the same type of coverage which we might expect for any local politician/candidate. Of the sources more generally available, returned from a WP:BEFORE search, may include some from reliable sources (like Irish Times or RTÉ) but all of these are also either passing mentions, interviews or the same type of electioneering coverage that is applied to any and (often for "balance" reasons) all candidates in an election.) FWIW, I'd just about be "OK" with draftify as an alternative to deletion. Until after the coming election. But, in all honesty, it wouldn't be my first choice... Guliolopez (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Phoenix has an entire profile[33] on her that I (or others) could use to expand the article and help meet SIGCOV. As User:DesiMoore points out, elected local officials can be notable if they meet WP:GNG. I created Hazel Chu when she was a councillor because there was SIGCOV in Irish papers on her. So whether De Nortúin becomes a TD or not shouldn't be the decider. Sources, not position, denote GNG. Derek Blighe and Philip Dwyer, for example, have never held elected official.
I'm surprised other Irish users did not check The Phoenix, which carries two profiles of a young person and older person of interest each issue, when seeking sources on De Nortúin. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. F. Campbell

[edit]
C. J. F. Campbell (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 notable local politician Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Lost in Quebec (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, mayors are not deemed "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on a depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about their political career: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But as is so often the case for bad articles about mayors, this consists almost entirely of background biographical trivia about his personal life, referenced to primary sources, with no substantive information about his mayoralty and no GNG-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azlan Mohd Lazim

[edit]
Azlan Mohd Lazim (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)

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

Andrzej Gajec

[edit]
Andrzej Gajec (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)

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

List of presidents of Italy by time in office

[edit]
List of presidents of Italy by time in office (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)

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

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

List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office

[edit]
List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office (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)

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

Delete. Don't think a merge is appropriate as there isn't any new information to merge. Procyon117 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to be merged (unusually) is the sortable table formatting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Meh, there's no need for a "merge" outcome to have the table in the target reformatted. Withdrawing !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomba Jawara

[edit]
Bomba Jawara (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)

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

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.

Nirantara Ganesh

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

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't have too much editing knowledge or anything. But I came across this article. This guy is a very famous social worker. Damn famous. I'm not sure whether this has to stay. But he's every famous. Wholeddadawgsout (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wholeddadawgsout: Being Damn famous does not inherently make a person notable per our guidelines. Please read WP:NOTABILITY. GrabUp - Talk 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. However, I’d like to clarify a few points. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage in reliable and independent mainstream sources. These sources discuss the subject in depth, not just passing mentions.
Additionally, while the subject is not an MLA or MP, notability on Wikipedia isn’t limited to holding public office. The article doesn’t contain any promotional content or unverifiable claims; it simply presents factual information based on reliable sources.
I believe the page meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and provides valuable information. I’d appreciate reconsidering the deletion Anandrajkumar0000 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anandrajkumar0000: Please provide those significant coverages here so others can evaluate them. GrabUp - Talk 16:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pet WP:MILL - every three weeks, I served two 12- hour shifts as an EMT and also ran for village trustee, in beautiful New Paltz, New York. That doesn’t make me notable, and neither is this doctor/political party jumper/ social worker / damn famous guy notable. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about this guy is notable in any way. Only notable thing (at a stretch) is his relative. Procyon117 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Pendleton

[edit]
Louis Pendleton (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)

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

"Credible claim to notability" or not, we'd have to see a lot more reliable sourcing than has been brought to bear before a notability claim would turn into a notability lock. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two solid sources with in-depth coverage between the CNN piece and his obituary, and some minor ones pointing towards wider notability. Collectively I think this demonstrates notability. Ideally we would have a third strong source per WP:THREE; hence why the "weak keep" as opposed to keep.4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two sources isn't enough for GNG. If a person doesn't have "inherent" notability (e.g. holding an NPOL-passing office) that would require us to keep an article irrespective of its current quality of sourcing, then it takes quite a bit more than just two pieces of GNG-worthy coverage to get them over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aslam Chowdhury

[edit]
Aslam Chowdhury (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 ANYBIOP and WP:POLITICIAN. Deleted 9 years ago per A7 美しい歌 (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
What is required to be included in this article for it to come out of the deletion process?
The individual is a high profile politician of Bangladesh Nationalist Party who has been arbitrarily imprisoned by a toppled regime for 8 years. Intlctzn (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of long media coverage regarding the individual which spans over a decade.
"Bangladeshi Dissident Aslam Chowdhury released from prison". Foreign Policy Blogs. 2024-08-27. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Morshed Khan, Afroza Abbas, Aslam Chowdhury round off BNP success on appeals". www.unb.com.bd. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP appoints three more members to Chairperson's Advisory Council"."Bangladesh politician arrested for 'Israel handshake'". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury walks out of jail after 8 yrs -". The Daily Observer. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Bangladeshi Opposition Official Arrested for Alleged Contacts With Mossad"."Bangladesh opposition official arrested over Israel meeting"."BNP's Aslam on seven-day remand | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh". The Asian Age. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel". Police claim BNP leader Aslam has given substantial information about plot with Israel. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy arrested over 'meeting' Mossad agent [ Tritiyo Matra News ]". www.tritiyomatra.com. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Aslam arrested in Dhaka over 'Israel plot' to overthrow Hasina regime". BNP’s Aslam arrested in Dhaka over ‘Israel plot’ to overthrow Hasina regime. Retrieved 2024-11-11.bdnews24.com. "BNP's Hannan says RAW released Aslam's photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media". BNP’s Hannan says RAW released Aslam’s photo with Israel politician in Bangladesh media. Retrieved 2024-11-11."Govt stages drama over Aslam's meeting with Israeli leader: BNP"."BNP leader Aslam Chowdhury gets HC bail". The Business Standard. 2021-05-30. Retrieved 2024-11-11."BNP leader Aslam Chy released on bail". daily-sun. Retrieved 2024-11-11. Intlctzn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep Nominator for this deletion quotes WP:POLITICIAN to delete this article but per aforesaid guidelines, politicians who have held office[1] or received significant press coverage (as politician[2][3] / business head[4]) are considered notable. Main article's political career section seems to fulfill this criteria.
(if) other concerns on quality of article can however be raised on main article page and improvements invited, this should not warrant a deletion though Nisingh.8 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newagebd.net/post/politics/238360/bnp-appoints-three-more-members-to-chairpersons-advisory-council
  2. ^ https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bangladesh-minister-blames-murders-secular-bloggers-israeli-led-conspiracy-1563969
  3. ^ https://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=74574
  4. ^ https://today.thefinancialexpress.com.bd/politics-policies/trial-proceedings-against-bnp-leader-aslam-chy-to-continue-hc-1649010018
  • Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have deleted, in the past 10 years, thousands of articles about diplomats, political party officials, losing candidates, and activists, up to and including candidates for the United States Senate, for lack of significant coverage. Only members of parliament or the equivalent are automatically included here: not political party officials. It’s about as strong a consensus as you can imagine on Wikipedia. If you haven’t ever read Wikipedia, you might not know that, but that’s not our problem, because in 2024 everybody knows that. We are not Ballotpedia or Truth Social. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

That's too much! He isn't a former mayor but also politician featured in lot of Bigg press News. He was the Mayor of Golapganj which was indeed featured in various bigg news like The Business Standard and The daily star although Aminul Islam Rabel was not featured primarily but as Mayor of Golapgonj. And first finish the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Golapganj Therealbey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, it is not ready for the main space. If he is noteworthy, you will certainly be able to find information about him to write an article that is not just an infobox. In that case, move to Draft, improve, and ask for a review. If there is nothing else, delete without delay. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i didn't written that doesn't mean ge isn't important! there is much info about him on internet but not written in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gunnar Norberg

[edit]
Gunnar Norberg (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)

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

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

UTC)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

[edit]

Files

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Open discussions

[edit]

Recently-closed discussions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=1259134453"