Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

Next Brandenburg state election

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

While statute dictates the next state election must be before the end of 5 years, the date of this election is not set, and many variables could change the next election date. This leans toward WP:CRYSTAL. No objection to draftifying. Risker (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006

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

A private member’s bill which was not enacted. The references cited are to Seanad debates, which don’t indicate notability beyond the many PMBs each year, and one from an organisation which was responsible for drafting the bill. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or, failing that, merge/redirect to Genealogical_Office#Questions_over_legal_status_of_the_office. As an alternative to outright deletion. (As noted in nomination, there is nothing to indicate that this failed bill has any lasting notability. That it was created by a contributor with a username indicating a vested interest does very little to help. Text on this (non)event can easily be covered within the article which covers the office involved. Whether/not a redirect is retained won't really impact the "discoverability" of that text.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upper North Province, Maldives

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

The article lacks notability and only has one source. The main text of the article seems to be copy pasted across the below mentioned articles. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the following related pages due to the above mentioned reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Administrative divisions of the Maldives#Seven Provinces. Duplicative standalone articles that don't really say anything are not needed. Reywas92^Talk 01:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all without prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to put more work into any of these, as these were official government historical areas. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political handicapping

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

This article is unsourced and largely duplicative of horse race journalism. There might be a small amount of content we can merge into that article. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Horse race journalism, per nom and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or if not, delete. Even from a sourcing perspective, most potential references to improve the article utilize the language of horse race journalism and not "political handicapping." Waterfelt (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Horse race journalism, same metaphor. --Altenmann >talk 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested; see WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content forks of unclear necessity. The standard format for Canadian provincial election results is to include the final vote counts in the unified "candidates" tables within the main election article first, and then consider moving that table to a new separate "results" page only if article-size considerations demand that. That is, separate results pages do not always have to exist across the board separately from the main election article: that's a size control option, not a standard requirement. And when a separate results page does exist it's supposed to do so instead of the candidates table being present in the main election article, not alongside that, and it's supposed to consist of the candidates table being moved from the main election article so that the separate page looks like this.
But that's not what's happening here: all of these pages exist alongside, not instead of, the candidates tables still being present in the main election articles, and all of them are transcluding individual "district results" templates instead of using the unified table like they're supposed to.
Additionally, it warrants note that these were all created within the past month by a (non-Canadian, as far as I know) editor who doesn't really contribute on Canadian politics on a regular, ongoing basis, and instead tends to jump in only on election nights to create a hashpile of improperly formatted stubs about the newly elected legislators, which other people inevitably end up having to repair after the fact -- just in October's New Brunswick election alone, I and another editor both had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong, and at least in my case it wasn't the first time I had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong.
Again, it's an either/or choice between including the candidates table in the main article without a separate results page, or moving the candidates table to a separate results page instead of being in the main article. There's simply no prior precedent or need to duplicate the same information in two different places, and no election ever needs both a candidates table in the main article and a separate results page. It's one or the other, not both, and either way it needs to be formatted via the unified table, not via the transclusion of 50-70 individual district results templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These pages are for the templates to make it easier to view results than the tables which are difficult to read. I am currently constructing Results of the 2024 New Brunswick general election as the riding results on some pages are still missing. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to arbitrarily decree that all of the hundreds of Canadian election articles that are doing things the way I described are doing it wrong, or arbitrarily impose a new way of doing them — you would need to establish a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada that the old way is a problem and that your way fixes it.

The tables are not "difficult" to read in any way, and the templates do not make it "easier". The tables, in fact, offer necessary information that your templates completely fail to provide. Since the tables group districts regionally, for example, it's possible to view variations in regional support — was one party significantly more or less popular in one region than it was in another, etc. — that a strictly alphabetical list fails to reveal. And since the tables have an incumbent column, they offer a way to track whether each incumbent was reelected, defeated or just didn't run again at all, which using the individual riding results templates fails to achieve.

Both of those are necessary information in a compendium of election results, which the existing format fulfills and your new variant format does not. So you would need a consensus that the long-established standard way of doing election results — either in the main article without having a separate results page to repeat the same results, or moving the table to a standalone results page without keeping duplicate data in the main article at all anymore — needs to be changed, and are not entitled to arbitrarily decree that yourself. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth noting that Ontario has a separate page potentially as it the largest province with 124 seats in their legislature, and there would be article size related constraints to not doing so. Similar to how federal elections in Canada have their own distinct results page see Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding for the 2021 Canadian federal election. Can also be said, that both the Ontario page which is mentioned and the fed. election page follow a different design than the articles in this nomination.
    
    Given that results in both prov. and fed. elections in Canada vary tremendously by region of a province - or the country - i would make that case that regional groupings (of alphabetical constituencies) for election results makes considerable more sense than alphabetical across the whole province. But I would say that this is a conversation for a different forum other than AfD. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read" because they are not in alphabetical order instead they are listed by region. These pages are similar to those for Australian states as seen at Category:Electoral results in Australia which I presumed were comparable with the pages that exist for Ontario elections. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't mind that these articles exist, but I do agree with Bearcat that it's nice to have the ridings ordered by region and having an incumbent column, which these articles lack. Though, I do see why having the ridings ordered alphabetically would be useful as well. But, I'm not sure if just having a bunch of result templates by riding is all that useful other than to show the results by riding, alphabetically. They don't show the incumbents, and don't really let the reader compare the results with other ridings like a sortable list might accomplish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has to be either/or as both can exist as Results of the 2011 Ontario general election by riding compliments 2011 Ontario general election. The listing of templates is standard for pages like Results of the 2024 Queensland state election. I think its helpful to see candidates alongside vote share. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles mentioned in original nom. Articles are redundant (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) to the main page for each election, and don't provide any new valuable information that couldn't be found on each respective constituency/elected officeholder page. Using Ontario as an example doesn't make sense as it's the largest provinces, which may require a stand-alone article - not due to notability or ease - but due to overall article size - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These would be valid forks if they needed to be (if the election article was long enough), but I agree as currently written they are duplicative, though they do present information in a slightly different format, so I don't think they're redundant. At the end of the day though we only need the results sorted one way. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of India

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

A new article not meeting WP:NLIST and unwarranted in the presence of List of prime ministers of India. At heart, it's a two-element list, and the rest is WP:OR. A PROD was contested; I considered a merge, but there doesn't seem to be any unique referenced material to merge. Klbrain (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and India. Klbrain (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anybody wanting this info can just look at List of prime ministers of India#Lifespan of prime ministers. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates information already avialable at List of prime ministers of India. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unnecessary. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and info is available in List of prime ministers of India#Lifespan of prime ministers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout in the European Parliament elections

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

This article reads like an essay, and indeed was one written for a university assignment. The topic could probably be covered in sufficient detail in a new section in Elections to the European Parliament rather than being a heavily padded-out standalone article. Number 5 7 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are issues with this article, but deletion of this article is no solution as this is a topic worthy of retention on wikipedia BlunanNation (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The voice is certainly more academic than encyclopedic and I usually dislike new articles from students, but there's a decent amount of good content here, as well as a lot of solid sources specifically on the topic. Much better than most assignments I see! It could use clean up and trimming, but not cut so much that a merge makes more sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

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

This article has lots of references, but there is no definition of "metropolis", so it is essentially a discussion of the etymology and a prose list of some big cities. The etymology belongs on Wiktionary, not as a WP article. The list is far less useful than List of largest cities and the like, since there are no clear criteria for inclusion. There is no potential for the article to grow beyond this, because unlike mega city and megalopolis, there is no agreed definition for "metropolis"; it's just a synonym for "big city".

(Any deletion would probably involve merging or redirecting with Metropolis (disambiguation), which obviously should remain) Furius (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might be a case of WP:TNT but I don't think we will benefit much from deletion. Shankargb (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that once WP:TNT was complete there would simply be nothing left. What do you think would be the content of this page after clean up? Furius (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metropolitan area. Agree with nom that there's no consistent definition and little substantive overview content, most of which is redudant to what's in the other article. Many of the country-by-country listings are pretty blah, just listing cities and populations with more prose than necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not in good shape at the moment but the concept of a "metropolis" is trivially notable. Astaire (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it? This is like having an article on tome when we already have book. Furius (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree with @Reywas92 that the content is mostly redundant with metropolitan area Earlsofsandwich (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Metropolitan area, per Reywas92 and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Shahzad

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [1] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [2], [3], [4], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalist political economy

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

This page largely duplicates the content of the Institutional Economics (IE) page. It states that Institutionalist political economy (IPE) builds upon institutional economics, but does not make clear how it does so. The only writers mentioned by name in the article are key institutionalist economists who already appear in the IE page: Veblen, Commons, Mitchell, etc. Even more significantly, the article does not provide clear evidence that IPE is an accepted term with a meaning that is distinct from IE. Among the cited references, only Ha-Joon Chang's 2002 article uses the phrase "Institutionalist Political Economy." The other articles seem to apply institutionalism in various senses to political economy, but do not establish a school of thought called "Institutionalist Political Economy." Googling "Institutionalist Political Economy" strengthens the sense that this is not an established school of thought: the first page results show a handful of articles by writers (especially Chang and Streeck) trying to claim the term in recent years, but no encyclopedia entries or news articles suggesting that their efforts have succeeded. Nor is it clear that Chang and Streeck are engaged in the same project or members of the same school. (Streeck 2010 does not even cite Chang 2002, for example.) Finally, to the extent that consistency across Wikipedia is a relevant consideration, I would note that I attempted to create a "Legal institutionalism" page about a year ago -- because there are, in fact, a number of writers who refer to themselves as "legal institutionalists" and who belong to a relatively coherent school of thought (Hodgson, Deakin, Pistor, etc.). A reviewer rejected the attempt. The reviewer's reasons would seem to apply even more strongly (or at least equally well) to the existing "Institutionalist political economy" than they did to the proposed "Legal institutionalism": "It's not clear to me that this is a coherent concept that really differs from Institutionalist political economy and Institutional economics. I understand that source #1 is trying to make that argument, but do the other sources? Some of the sources, such as #6 and #10, do not even contain the term legal institutionalism. And there are other sources that seem to use the term in a different way, as part of legal theory rather than economics." If a "Legal institutionalism" page is inappropriate, then a fortiori it seems as though an "Institutionalist political economy" page is inappropriate. RLHale (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency (party politics)

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

Fails WP:DICDEF and, as a disambiguation page, WP:PARTIAL. Geschichte (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tendencies have an important role for Trotskyites in particular that goes beyond dictionary definitions. If there are ways to improve the article so that it stops meeting WP:DICDEF then let me know. JASpencer (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the entry now consists of exactly one sentence and no sources. Multiple paragraphs with multiple sources, that's no longer a dictionary definition. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a disambiguation page per WP:PTM. Currently not suitable as an article if it's only WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand in the spirit of WP:DABCONGOV. There are two interwiki links, and fr:Droit de tendance looks promosing. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Tendencies serve as formalized factions influencing party dynamics, distinguishing it from a mere dictionary definition WP:DICDEF. A bit of TLC can bring it up to speed. --Snowycats (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is a pure DICDEF. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Municipal Party of Ljusnarsberg

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

Sure, this ultra-local party will have some coverage in its local municipality of 4,407. But it's just no way that it is notable on a larger scale, so fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator seems to be hinting at WP:AUD with the statement about coverage in its local municipality, which specifies that to pass WP:NORG a subject will need coverage beyond a local area. However, the article already has WP:SIGCOV present in its single source thus far in a national Swedish newspaper. The nominator has not described the results of a BEFORE search to indicate whether any other qualifying coverage exists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nerikes Allehanda is not a national newspaper, it is a regional newspaper for Närke. The piece in question is not mainly about Ljusnarsbergs Obundna Kommunparti either. Geschichte (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The example at WP:AUD is 'the weekly newspaper for a small town', Närke has a population of 223 000 people and Nerikes Allehanda is a daily newspaper with 20 000 paying digital subscribers and a print circulation of 43 000 in 2015. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.", covering Närke makes it regional. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added some additional sources from the regional radio station SR P4 Örebro. I also believe I saw some other print sources in Mediearkivet, but I've lost access since I last looked at this article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nerikes Allehanda and P4 Örebro have a wide enough coverage area that I don't believe either is affected by WP:AUD, as said above. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at https://tidningar.kb.se there seem to be some mentions that at least go beyond reporting results in national newspapers, but I don't have access to this either without going to an archival institution. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism

AfDs for this article:

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

Something of a procedural AfD. Article was subject to a delete !vote in 2014 but, irregularly, was turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. I say this was irregular because "redirect" was not the closer's notes. However this led to the eventual forking off of the present version of the page from the surviving redirect. I am personally neutral about whether to delete this article but felt an AfD would be an appropriate way of ascertaining present community consensus regarding how to handle it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's interesting to note that there are quite a few references to "progressive conservatism" on JStor - but not with regard to the Canadian political ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise Google Books has reference to "progressive conservatism" in the comtext of US, UK and Japanese politics but, again, not in Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the page contains original research and SYNTH, that is not a reason for deletion, at least not on its own (there are exceptions like WP:TNT for a completely unsalvageable page, which does seem to be the reason it was deleted 10 years ago). As the nominator demonstrated in their comment above, sources are out there to demonstrate the subject is notable, and notability requirements do not require that said sources are in the current version of the article. Can the page be made better? Absolutely. But there are no valid reasons for deletion presented here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to mention that the procedural reasons in the nom comments do not seem to be completely accurate (and even if they were, nominating a page for deletion because that's what the consensus was more than a full decade ago is strange to say the least).

This seems to be the sequence of events:

Ten years ago, this page was nominated for deletion and closed as delete. The day after, the page was made as a redirect. I get that one could say that's technically not what the consensus asked for, but there did not seem to be any prejudice against the redirect existing. At first, Progressive conservatism was a redirect to Progressive Conservative Party. At some point, it became a redirect to Compassionate conservatism.
2 years later, this redirect was discussed, a discussion where a possible outcome was deleting the redirect. Instead, the redirect was changed to Progressive Conservative, a disambiguation page.
2 more years later (2018), an editor again began the process of fleshing it back out into an article, something they very much had the right to do and was not in any way defying the years-old consensuses from the 2014 AfD and 2016 RfD.

Consensus does not last forever, nor does prejudice against recreation. Usually, 6 months is the amount of time editors are expected to wait before either renominating a kept page or recreating a deleted page. There's no official amount of time, but half a year seems to be the norm. This page was recreated 4 years after the deletion discussion, and has existed for the last six. The article has undergone sporadic development ever since then. Bringing it back to AfD in 2024 on the basis that the result of the 2014 AfD wasn't properly upheld is bizarre. There's no procedural need to have this discussion again, and without any WP:Reasons for deletion, it feels a little silly.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly aware that consensus doesn't last forever. However we had an article that was not deleted when it should have been. I felt sounding out the current consensus via an AfD would make sure we knew whether it should exist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is well sourced, well written, and covers a topic which is present across multiple countries and time periods, and which is, as far as I know, not covered by sections of any other articles. Rares Kosa (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the details of how to delete articles, but the bottom line issue about this article is the following: is there a a single subject of "Progressive conservatism" that this article is talking about or is this article showing multiple subjects put together on the assumption that there is a single subject called "Progressive conservatism"?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct minor Trotskyist group. No demonstration of meeting GNG within the article, with sourcing being from self-published sources (mostly their own) so violates WP:ABOUTSELF. Checks on scholar show no notable academic discussion of the group. No likelihood of improvement and no obvious redirect targets.

Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Trotskyist internationals#Defunct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at this, problem with this redirect is that there's no reliable evidence they ever became an established "International", just that they had a handful of supporters outside of the UK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you just described half of all Trotskyist internationals? :) FWIW, WP:NLIST does not require individual entries in a list to be notable, just the class itself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn while that first comment is definitely something I agree with, with this one it's not the lack of notability but the complete lack of any evidence it was effectively organised beyond the UK. There doesn't appear to be any list of national sections elsewhere, so I don't think it meets the definition of even being an international. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In French, I can find this, a translation from the Permanent Revolution group, on the site of their French sympathising group, indicating that 33 members from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and Sweden were expelled from the LCI. At the end of the statement it indicates that the Australian section of the League (WPA) has joined them, along with members from Sweden and Ireland. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

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

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes, moreover your whole comment is 100% AI generated without actually going through the sources. Can you point out any specific source which is not credible? IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. Ihsaan45 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIMUN clearly passes CNG, it is a clearly prominent organisation with enough credibility on the internet. Rjain1998 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the nomination looks AI-generated. The page looks somewhat fluffy. I took you up on your challenge and sampled one source I looked at, "Billabong School: Bringing Change with Students' Holistic Development". September 2018. Retrieved 2020-02-29., and it looks completely useless. The source is not very reliable and is not relevant for what it is supposed to back up in the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk)
~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: because it is promotional and lacks credible, verifiable citations. Charlie (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG.Ihsaan45 (talk)

~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep:: This organisation has articles from sources such as forbes and vogue, DNA, Times of India so should keep Rjain1998 (talk)

Rjain1998 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been found to be turning a redirected page into a page about IIMUN's founder, potentially indicating a case of article hijacking. Charlie (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have run a thorough check of the resources listed, and have found that two sources lead to dead links, owing to the dated nature of the original webpages/websites. While I am in the processing of editing it, I would like to point out that multiple sources have been provided to justify the sentences stated, and most of them are from extremely credible news channels/publication houses in India, including 'Times of India', 'DNA', 'Free Press Journal', 'India Today', 'Forbes India' and more. Request you to take their authenticity into consideration. Rjain1998 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (France)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Every source given is from the organisation itself or a Maoist blog site, except one by the conservative tabloid Diario Correo, which mentions the French organisation in passing. Online searches in English, French, and Spanish return zero reliable sources, and I doubt such sources will be found in print offline. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found multiple sources in French which discuss the party, especially in relation to the Gilets jaunes: "Morts aux porcs": de violents tags anti-police en plein Paris, "De Rugy Escroc on te fera payer": qui est le Parti Communiste Maoïste qui revendique ce tag?, Nantes. Tags sur son mur de résidence : qui menace François de Rugy?, Vice interview with a PCM member, Montpellier: le préfet accuse des groupes révolutionnaires communistes d'infiltrer les manifestations des gilets jaunes, Droite identitaire, gauche radicale : quand les extrêmes gonflent les rangs des Gilets jaunes. Need to look at this further, but "zero" reliable sources appears incorrect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is not in-depth; the focus is on the gilets jaunes, not the Maoist Communist Party in particular. Yue🌙 01:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The party is underground now but still actively exists, but it clearly needs updates and translations. DuCouscous (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, sources do exist. User:Goldsztajn are you arguing for a Keep here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, the party doesn't exist anymore, this article should be deleted. There has been no action claimed by the PCm the past 2 years and according to witness it ceased any operations. DuCouscous (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid reason for deletion per WP:NTEMP; something does not just lose notability because it no longer exists. If the party has received sufficient previous SIGCOV, preferably WP:Three sources that pass SIGCOV, and are reliable and independent of the subject, then it would be notable. I would note that I don't see that in the article as of now; a lot of the article is sourced to what seems to be a Wordpress blog of dubious reliability and independence, and the party's own Web site, which is obviously not usable in determining notability. Similarly, a search for the party's French name returned foreign Maoist parties, though perhaps that's due to the name being a fairly generic term. A search for the party in English was also mostly unsuccessful for similar reasons. Feel free to ping me if additional sources are found, but presently I feel that deletion is most appropriate. Nowhereman1994 (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Young Liberals

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

No independent or third-party sources. Structure section just consists of a list of names which seems like WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in Google News, one passing mention in Google Books. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in dire need of improvement — I would certainly prefer it being kept as opposed to deleted. Failing that I would prefer it be draft-ified or the like.

I had previously stub-ified the artcle by removing vast amounts of content in this edit and here. I was hesitant to do such but believed it to be needed due to verifibility concerns and to avoid a directory article. After that I'd put it on my radar of pages needing additional content.

I believe that EYL scrapes GNG, from a quick gander using the book search, it seems to be mentioned at least in more than one book (Though firefox seems to be preventing me from using preview to look in the books rather annoyingly), though as you said no significant news coverage. I may be mistaken, but I believe the EYL have had some different names in their past as well which may have better coverage, but I'm struggling to recall or pull up what they were (Which doesn't really help the case I suppose).

I'm under no illusion that this isn't a weak case from me however, and I believe you're right to have brought this up Bejakyo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book mentions may be a reference to National League of Young Liberals which is not the same org Czarking0 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two hits I found in Google books are the merest passing mentions, not wp:sigcov. I also proposed a redirect to Liberal Democrats (UK) in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Liberals_(UK) after making this nomination.

Orange sticker (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It would make significantly more sense to merge English YL into Young Liberals (UK). However, I note that there is no entry for Scottish Young Liberals (it redirects to Scottish Liberal Democrats), and that other political youth groups (such as Scottish Labour Students) have individual sub-national organisations with their own pages. For the sake of neutrality all such should be treated consistently. Espatie (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge should be considered, as I opined below, however: "...I note that there is no entry for Scottish Young Liberals (it redirects to Scottish Liberal Democrats), and that other political youth groups (such as Scottish Labour Students) have individual sub-national organisations with their own pages." "Other stuff exists" or "other stuff does not exist" is not a reason for deletion (nor for keeping a page) nor does it violate WP:NPOV (unless you can show that there are editors purposely suppressing X and/or purposely supporting Y). The only case I'd say is acceptable for this sort of consideration is during AfDs or otherwise 'official' discussions... quoting or citing official decisions/judgements/etc as precedent(s) is/are acceptable. MWFwiki (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. The group's existence (and merely mentioning its existence as fact) does not constitute notability (nor coverage of notability). Merge into English Liberal Democrats would be supported. MWFwiki (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. No coverage in independent reliable sources. A merge would be acceptable. The English Liberal Democrats would probably be a good place for this content. In the intro to that article it says that this umbrella title (or group?) covers about eleven groups including youth groups. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough well-sourced content there for a merge. All of the article's citations are primary sources from the party's website or social media accounts. --Tserton (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Michelle Regalado Deatrick

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

I do not think this woman is notable. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Poetry, Environment, and Michigan. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming that members of county boards of commissioners are not considered inherently notable. Regardless, article is massively promotional and refbombed with all manner of fluff pieces and non-independent sources (e.g. her organization's social media pages). If kept, should be reduced to a stub. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanta Debbarma

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

The article fails WP:GNG and does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kambala Srinivas Rao

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or even WP:NPOL due to a lack of reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. The subject's activities, while notable within his community, lack documented national or regional impact, and the article has a promotional tone. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability (of any flavour), just promotion. A7-speedied, and immediately recreated by likely COI editor. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician, and activist. RangersRus (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to address the concerns:

1.Notability (WP:NPOL):

Kambala Srinivas Rao is the President of *Vishwa Hindu Dharma Parirakshana* and joined the BJP in December 2024, a move covered by reliable sources such as OneIndia, The Hans India*, and The New Indian Express. His contributions include cultural preservation and strengthening BJP's presence in East Godavari, which demonstrates political significance.

2. Reliable Sources:

["Vishwa Hindu Dharma Parirakshana president Kambala Srinivasa Rao joins BJP"](https://www.oneindia.com/india/vhdp-rama-sena-president-kambala-srinivasa-rao-joins-bjp-party-strengthens-itself-in-the-rajahmundr-4025853.html)

Rama Sena Leader Kambala Joins BJP"](https://www.thehansindia.com/andhra-pradesh/rama-sena-leader-kambala-joins-bjp-932535)

["Kambala Srinivas Rao’s initiatives highlighted in BJP strengthening"](https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2024/Dec/26/rahul-gandhi-used-to-undermine-india-on-foreign-soil-mp-daggubati-purandeswari)

3. Significance:

His community-focused efforts in temple infrastructure and cultural preservation add to his profile as a social activist.

Given the above, I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria (WP:NPOL, WP:GNG). I am open to suggestions for improving the page help out to publish my article without any error Durgaprasadpetla (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a response without AI? In addition, these sources that you've linked are equally poor. Thanks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, and when you call approving your own AFC submission "removing an unnecessary disambiguator", it doesn't indicate a healthy understanding of policy. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanad Zakaria Warsame

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

Unsourced and does not meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG requirements. Completely unsourced article going on 13+ years, and has had no major edits (barring the metadata box removal April 28, 2016) since 2010 (all other edits since 2010 have been wikilinking and template/grammatical adjustments). No reliable sources are immediately apparent, so nominating for AfD. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ethiopia. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any secondary English language sources at all that didn't trace back to Wikipedia. I had no luck finding the unspecified BBC World News article that is the only source, couldn't find any coverage about an assassination on 8 July 2008 in Jijiga, and couldn't work out what EVIFF actually is. I'm not sure whether being "senior congressman of the ONLF" confers any notability, but I couldn't find a source to verify it anyway. Unless someone is able to track down any Somali language sources, I think this has to be a delete given that I essentially couldn't verify anything in the article. MCE89 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Gupta

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

Sources are not reliable and SIGCOV, fails to meet GNG and also fails WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 12:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. GrabUp - Talk 12:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe redirecting to Kanpur Bolshevik Conspiracy Case is a good option per WP:ATD.GrabUp - Talk 12:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Lacks notability Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Yadav (politician, born 1998)

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

Sources are passing mentions and do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject, hence failing GNG. Additionally, the person is not an MP/MLA, thus failing WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 12:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 12:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Cecilia Allen D'Mello

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

Fails WP:NPOL and sources are not SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local representative of a larger city is not considered notable per NPOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Azad

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

Being a mayor does not pass WP:NPOL, Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom on the basis of failing WP:SIGCOV. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : Lacks notability. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Mahmood Alam

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

Fails WP:NPOL, failed to win the election. Also, no SIGCOV coverage found so fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mahmudul Hassan

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. A civil servants with a non notable position at Dhaka North City Corporation TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aatral Ashok Kumar

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

The sources are one-event cases of WP:BIO1E, and the subject failed to win the election, so it fail WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable politician, fails WP:NPOL. also does not satisfy WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Considerably removed the unwanted section and added the Citations from the respectable source. Improved the page and kindly check it. Thanks Kandhan selvaraj (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's very strong consensus that merely being a candidate isn't automatic notability. I also don't see any thing close to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NPOL - Xoocit (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Sources are single-event so a case of WP:BIO1E. GrabUp - Talk 19:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two news articles are all I find. Being elected to a school board isn't notable, no matter what ethnicity he is. Does not meet NPOL. Would also not meet GNG as we don't have enough coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Somalia, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, as he has not received enough reliable, non-trivial coverage to fit the second criteria. Jordano^5³ 22:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm someone who prefers we didn't delete so many articles but even by my standards there's not enough notable about this person. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 06:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sympathetic to 'firsts' in political offices, but that's not the consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of India

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

A new article not meeting WP:NLIST and unwarranted in the presence of List of prime ministers of India. At heart, it's a two-element list, and the rest is WP:OR. A PROD was contested; I considered a merge, but there doesn't seem to be any unique referenced material to merge. Klbrain (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and India. Klbrain (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anybody wanting this info can just look at List of prime ministers of India#Lifespan of prime ministers. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates information already avialable at List of prime ministers of India. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unnecessary. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and info is available in List of prime ministers of India#Lifespan of prime ministers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazi Shahzad

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [5] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [6], [7], [8], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Maulana Shakhawat

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

Fails to fulfill WP:NPOL and Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects