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

Pandit Pawan

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Haryana. Youknow? (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waipareira

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

Non-notable electorate that only briefly existed for 3 years. No independent secondary coverage appears to exist. Can be mentioned elsewhere like the Te Atatu electorate. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are joking, aren't you? How can an electorate not be notable? Electorates are unique (hence, a merger is inappropriate); they form the basis for electorate seats. There is no way that you'd see an electorate deleted and I encourage you to withdraw this nomination. Schwede 66 05:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no subject specific notability for electorates. I did not see any reliable SIGCOV at first although I have found one source now: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Shacham

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, Israel, United States of America, and Florida. Longhornsg (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be pedantic, a piece of coverage cannot fail BLPCRIME, but the article topic sure seems to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A number of G-hits, but I don't see anything else that would help establish notability. Donald Albury 12:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom & above. FloridaMan21 23:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking of the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

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

Recommend draftification - article currently violates WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Politics, and Politicians. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this will pass WP:NEVENT. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom. Maybe once we have actual information on what is in the leaks and if Iran is really behind it, the article can be more than stub-length.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Action Memorandum 235

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

Delete or redirect to Presidency of John F. Kennedy as WP:AtD. One of hundreds of executive actions by President John Kennedy, not all of which have notability as evidenced by their WP:LASTING significance of WP:SIGCOV. There are some passing references [2] [3] in books, but nothing that justifies a standalone article or that can't be covered in better context in the redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect There's literally no content or secondary sources here, just the text that could be at Wikisource. Next time try PROD or a bold BLAR and see if anyone objects. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 conference on US privatization of national security

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

Redirect to Private intelligence agency. Fails WP:NEVENT: the conference was a routine academic conference with no WP:LASTING effect, and coverage lacks WP:DEPTH. Better covered in the context of the privatization of intelligence and national security, hence the redirect target. Longhornsg (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Events, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, but that would be a misleading redirect. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *if* there was to be a redirect, this would be the appropriate target: Princeton Project. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian (database)

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

Redirect to Federal Bureau of Investigation, where the information is already covered. Database, one of likely hundreds that the FBI uses, is not notable on its own and is better covered on the agency's page. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Politics, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. C F A 💬 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Freedom Caucus

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

Fails WP:NORG. All coverage I can find is either routine and trivial. The best article available is this short routine AP piece about starting it. Most other coverage focuses on members of the caucus with trivial namedrops. WP:ORGTRIV applies here. C F A 💬 17:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Idaho. C F A 💬 17:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by User:IdahoPolitics a sock puppet of User:Tyler Ricks fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Axad12 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect or selective merge to Idaho Republican Party#History. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TESCREAL

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete (nomination). 'TESCREAL' refers to a nonsense conspiracy theory that disparages people such as Nick Bostrom without citing any sources that are credible on the question of whether Nick Bostrom is an 'evil eugenicist' or whatever. If the principals hadn't coined 'TESCREAL' the title would be Weird accusations by Torres and Gebru that everyone who talks about AI (but isn't focused on certain political priorities) is part of a worldwide conspiracy to implement an catastrophic version of eugenics and it would be obvious that it shouldn't be the title of an article on Wikipedia. The term 'TESCREAL' is simply an attempt to invoke reification bias – the idea that something with a name necessarily 'carves reality at the joints'. ~~Jruderman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)~~ (E: due to new COI, I am disconnecting my name from the nomination reasons and downgrading from bold to italic.) Jruderman (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There remains significant sourcing on this article that indicates WP:N. there are mostly WP:SPS blogs that describe this as a conspiracy... Folks attempt to invoke WP:FRINGE on this mostly as they see any criticism of their pet philosophy as outrageous. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still feel like the majority of the "Alleged TESCREALists" section is WP:SYNTH whereby big name people who are well-connected to ONE of these ideologies, or loosely/possibly connected to a few, are lumped into being part of the theorized TESCREAL "movement", by either random commentators, or some journalists seeking readers.
I think these types of tenuous connections to an overarching ideology are almost WP:GOSSIP, but I guess Wikipedia's policies around famous people MAY make it acceptable: if the news covers "Elon Musk says Trump is anti-TESCREAL" and "Trump says Musk is a TESCREAList" - than we can include those sourced personal attack statements?---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH states that wikipedians can't do original research and use that. Most sourcing in article is pretty clear about directly stating person x is associated with TESCREAL. If multiple sourcing all state that these folks are criticized by person x as being part of TESCREAL, I see no reason to not include.

"Some have alleged Elon to support some TESCREAL ideals. (source 1, source 2)" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific indication of which attribution should be considered wrong? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Avatar317's concerns, and have removed the various "so-and-so is alleged to support TESCREAL because they support one of the letters" content. The rest of the article seems well-enough sourced to be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding removal of material, see [[4]].

If necessary, we can open up another talk section about it or WP:BLPN section. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've reverted the indiscriminate blanking because this has already been discussed at length. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the BLPN discussion remotely having a consensus to include what is, roughly, third-party accusations regarding an ideological bundle that the targets either disagree with or have not even deigned to acknowledge. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that the content was added back change your position? Alenoach (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. There will (probably) be an RFC about some of this content once this AFD closes. (Also some of the later comments here are just weird.) Walsh90210 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, and the suggestion that this is a "nonsense conspiracy theory" is Jruderman's own opinion — not one that exists in reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit to address a few of the arguments by other !voters.
- WP:FRINGE concerns should be handled in the same way we handle other notable fringe topics; that is, if there is quality sourcing available that describes this as a fringe theory, it should be incorporated into the article. But claiming that the topic is fringe based on personal opinion, without any RS to support that stance, and arguing it should be deleted because of that, falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory.
- Concerns about the "Alleged TESCREALists" section should be handled via the normal editorial processes (talk page, WP:BLPN, WP:RFC if needed), not AfD. The section makes up only about a quarter of the entire article, and certainly wouldn't justify WP:TNT even if it was determined that the section should be omitted.
- I don't think the page should be merged back into Gebru or Torres' pages, primarily because 1) it independently meets the GNG, but also because 2) it will result in two roughly identical sections at each page which then need to be maintained separately. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are required for inclusion, but we also try to stick to including only things that are true. There is no rule requiring reliable sources for removal of misinformation or personal attacks. Jruderman (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think an article needs to be deleted because it's a "nonsense conspiracy theory", you need to at least demonstrate that that's more than just your own personal opinion (not to mention demonstrate why that means it ought to be deleted — many nonsense conspiracy theories are well documented on Wikipedia). I could say that we should delete the article on, I don't know, eugenicists because I think the term is a "nonsense conspiracy theory", but such an argument would be rightly ignored at AfD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which sourcing is unreliable or untrue? and can you provide the evidence? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres. The sources that use the term TESCREAL often relay directly the views of Timnit Gebru or Émile Torres. The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies, so making it the title of a Wikipedia article is somewhat tendentious. And the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks, often attributing opinions to people that would deny having them. Dispassionate, fact-based journalism generally avoids ideologically loaded terms like TESCREAL and uses more precise vocabulary to refer to the philosophy they are talking about. Alenoach (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term has received widespread use beyond Gebru and Torres, and I mean use, not just reporting. The sources in the article prove this, especially the academic ones. A grouping can be a concept also, these are not mutually exclusive. Can you provide examples of the mentioned 'personal attacks'? JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point

1) "Merge into the articles on Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres"
I don't think it would meet WP:MERGEREASON, which specifically argues against merging if:
- The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles
- The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short
2) "The term itself does not correspond to a well-established concept, but rather a contentious grouping of different philosophies,"

TESCREAL meets WP:GNG due to reliable sourcing. It probably is a contentious grouping and philosophers can argue about it all they want, but that doesn't mean we get to be arbiters of whether it is valid or not, only if it is notable. And the context of personal attacks, in terms of criticizing WP:PUBLICFIGUREs, seems tenuous.

3) the term appears mostly in the context of personal attacks,

This is mostly WP:BLP talk again. See above my reply to Walsh, but we've discussed that criticism of WP:PUBLICFIGURE can and should be documented.

4) "Dispassionate, fact-based journalism"

Most contemporary philosophies often do not get massive news coverage. In fact sourcing for wikipedia is only mandated to be WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:INDEPENDENT. There is no mandate for entirely unbiased sourcing and it seems onerous to demand that of TESCREAL when other philosophies regularly use sourcing that is biased towards them.

As an example, when looking at the Effective Altruism article, I count at least 9 sources from MacKaskill, the founder of EA, 3 from centre for effective altruism, at least 4 more from Peter Singer, another leader of EA, and a few opinions and philosophical arguments in journals. Its not wrong to use WP:OPINION to fill in sourcing.

In terms of reliable sourcing in the current article that discusses the term (and arguable aren't opinion pieces), see the following: [5] [6] [7] [8] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced and has received widespread use in the media and also a considerable use in academic literature. The language of the nomination is highly POV and personal. The editor has not provided a credible argument for his accusation that this is a 'nonsense conspiracy theory', and the statement that the sources (which one?) does not cite 'any sources that are credible' is factually wrong. The justification of the nomination has more bias than the whole article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no conspiracy or anything fringe here. There is legitimate and significant criticism against the unifying and overlapping narratives promoted by those in the transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, effective altruism, and longtermism communities. Gebru and Torres have quite remarkably presented a cohesive critical theory of technological utopianism in the form of a simple to remember neologism to describe the last 25 years of a campaign of distraction and misdirection that has infected entire parts of our society and prevented social change from occurring, all because a small group of tech bros believe that humanity should stop addressing our current social problems and simply resign ourselves to becoming cyborgs. This is, actually, what people like Kurzweil, Musk, and many others believe. It's a legitimate topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth noting here the presence of a keep vote made on the explicit basis of the article's usefulness as a political smear. jp×g 🗯️ 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not worth it, as there’s no political smear implied in anything I’ve said here. This discourse is part of the longstanding criticism of technological utopianism. It has nothing to do with politics at all. It has to do with the irrational basis for utopian ideas promoted by people in the tech industry which often has the result of delaying mitigation of social issues. One contemporary example that is being widely discussed by philosophers in this regard, and is part of the same body of work, is the notion of promoting space exploration, such as the kind we find in the language of Elon Musk. This language is entirely irrational, as there is no rational basis for supporting space exploration (and I consider myself a strong supporter of it). This example is directly relevant. Musk appeals to the threat of human extinction to promote colonizing Mars. He speaks of becoming a multiplanetary civilization, which is the language of mitigating the existential risk of extinction, in other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket. By so doing, he gets lucrative military contracts and government subsidies, and never has to actually deliver on his utopian promise. Meanwhile, many other social issues go unaddressed without funding. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how does this have anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia POLICY? I understand that you like this concept as a criticism of TU, but that is NOT a policy based argument. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a weird comment. I just directly answered and refuted the allegation that I was supporting an article based on a political smear. I was not. In my reply, I gave an example of the criticism and how it directly pertains to the subject of the article in question. This article does not meet the criteria for deletion as stated by the nominator. Since you evidently missed it, to reiterate: it’s not a conspiracy like the nom claimed, and it’s not a political smear of any kind. It’s a relevant and timely criticism of technological utopianism based on relevant, scholarly opinions. The criteria for deletion has not been met by the nom or anyone else. Time to close. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the risk of getting dragged on Mastodon for this aside, I think this is a WP:TNT case. The prior three comments to keep were from the article's primary authors. Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months, and pretty much any thread started there is guaranteed to get a very prompt hostile response from one of them. Neutrality concerns are vaguely insinuated to be part of the conspiracy. I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK. There was a BLPN discussion about this before -- while there was only one person in the discussion who wasn't active at the article's talk page, their response was that it shouldn't have a list of people alleged as being it. Citing this discussion as some sort of definitive proof that this section needs to be in the article is very bizarre to me. But it is one of many bizarre claims that are made on a regular basis with respect to this article.

Essentially: two people claim there is some group that does XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. Cool. A few people have reported that these two people claimed there was some group that did XYZ, ABC, DEF and PQR. That's also cool. But what we don't have is any reliable source saying this -- they're quoting someone else saying this. It is a very fundamental distinction. For example: a certain politician (incorrectly) said another politician was born in Kenya; there are all kinds of sources that reflect this; but that source does not say the guy was born in Kenya! It says that the guy said he was. We would not use this source to say that the guy was born in Kenya: it's just common sense.

The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult, which exists for the sole purpose of denigrating people that its creators disagree with. Someone might respond to this by saying "no, you've got it all wrong, they're just describing a tendency". Yeah: they are describing a tendency... of people who they hate and think are evil, and regularly go on extended diatribes about how they are ruining everything, and created the term to be able to say negative things about them more easily. They post on social media about this Wikipedia article.

Nobody else uses this term. It is not used by the people who it allegedly describes. There is no group of people who call themselves this. The term is not ever used for neutral commentary on a "tendency" -- it's used as an insult for when people are stupid. We would not, with a straight face, write a Wikipedia article called DemonRat Party and then say, wow look, all of the sources say that they're awful people who love taxes and crime, we'd better just write about these claims at great length, because look they're notable. Imagine for a minute that a WSJ editorial and National Review columnist called the Democrats the "DemonRats", so we had RS SIGCOV: we would still not turn DemonRat Party blue because the resulting article would be bad. We would definitely not want to keep it if it were being written entirely by people who had spent several months arguing that we needed to include diverse perspectives by writing said article to be as long as possible and say as many negative things about the DemonRats as we could possibly fit in it. It would also be bad to write an article called Child molestors and/or Donald Trump supporters, WP:SYNTH together a bunch of sources criticizing each of these groups individually, and then say "this is clearly notable because we have 800 studies about child molestation, 800 studies about Trump voters, and then 2 thinkpieces saying one was the other".

Political insults can be notable, but this isn't an article about a political insult. It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) of the factual claims about politics being made by its originators. While it's possible to come up with a bunch of passing mentions where someone used this term, and a few pieces of coverage of the people who invented it saying it -- and while it may indeed manage to barely scrape past WP:DICTDEF -- it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing. What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH bordering on WP:FRANKENSTEIN, and I think that since the term (and indeed this specific Wikipedia article) is being actively used as a cudgel to own the libs, we should either make this into a stub or a redirect or an article that is very closely focused to be about the term as a term and not a dumping ground for random political commentary that happens to mention the term. jp×g 🗯️ 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point by point rebuttal of this wall of text.

"Two of those (Joaquim and Blue) have been WP:OWNing the talk page for the last few months"

That we can argue against bad-faith arguments and demand you point out specific places where the article is failing is not owning the article. If you cannot point to specific arguments, and keep changing why you think this article is bad indicates flawed WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning.

"I am concerned, as I have been for basically the article's entire existence, that it is a WP:COATRACK."

Every section on that article is concerned with TESCREAL. Looking over most sourcing, most sourcing talks for long lengths about TESCREAL.

"There was a BLPN discussion about this before"

You never answered questions about WP:PUBLICFIGURE or why it would not apply. Also, I have always found the reasoning that TESCREAL=Political Attack to be a bit flawed. By that logic, the section about Transhumanism#New_eugenics would indicate every transhumanist is a eugenicist.

"Essentially: two people claim"

The Kenya Birther conspiracy can be attributed to Donald Trump, then we can use overwhelming sourcing to state its false. Do you have overwhelming sourcing to state that TESCREAL is a conspiracy that balances out the dozens of sourcing that explains it? In the past folks have attempted to completely delete large portions of this article on the basis of a single blog page.

"The term is, at its root, explicitly a political insult"

Unless you find a source that suggests this, beyond the blog post of the philosophers that are criticized by Gebru and Torres, this argument is unsubstantiated. Even if it was a political insult, we have plenty of those documented, along with alleged people who have epitomised the political insult.

" Nobody else uses this term."

There are close to 25 sources in the article that all use the term. The original AfD was deleted for notability, but since then the term has come into resurgence with significant sourcing.

"it's used as an insult for when people are stupid"

Sourcing and the article says nothing about intelligence of the people who are alleged to be TESCREALISTS.

"It is a WP:COATRACK where the notability of the term is being used to justify extremely detailed coverage (and uncritical repetition) "

Find the critical information to criticize the term or to justify a policy such as WP:FALSEBALANCE. So far, most sourcing indicates that people take this criticism from Gebru and Torres as actual philosophical arguments, not just some petty insult.

"it's not possible to come up with solid citations that it is a real thing."

Again, provide a list of why all the sourcing is bad?

"What we have is a big wall of WP:SYNTH "

Every sentence is cited and attributed. We do no original research. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info. JPxG has:

continued to assert that I insult everyone I disagree with on the talk page (I was confused tbh?) [9]
that Joaquim has falsely accused editors of COIs on the talk page [10]
and now has suggested I and Joaquim have been WP:OWNING the page by continuing to edit, discuss controversial changes

He has thrown out constant walls of inconsequential texts and vague WP:WIKILAWYERING that take time to debunk. I'm happy to work point by point, but much of this remains frustrating waste of time. I'm a firm believer that all editors are biased, myself included, but much of this has become less of dealing with the article, and more WP:FORUM behavior that may be worth ignoring in the future. For any closer, this latest comment by JPxG could well be considered WP:FORUM instead of actually based on real wiki policy and discarded.

I want actual sourcing that proves me wrong, so we can include it in this article with the criticism it needs, like all philosophical arguments. (see my edits where I add criticism here [11][[12] [13] [14]) I am willing to engage in good-faith discussion, instead of blindly thrown out wikiterms that dont apply. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize I needed permission to type three paragraphs of text at an AfD. As for your "points" -- you were given specific objections to specific pieces of content, some different times, by some different people -- why don't you go read through the old threads? I'm not going to just arbitrarily type out eight paragraphs in their entirety over and over again every time you feel like it -- especially when your response to a several-long-paragraph post is to insult it for being a wall of text.

I agree completely that trying to engage on the talk page with you and Joachim (its top two editors by a wide margin) is a frustrating waste of time. This is why I don't think the article is salvageable. jp×g 🗯️ 02:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - from WP:PROFRINGE: "Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play." - I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I see this as similar to the Cold fusion case, where the authors went DIRECTLY to the press to publicize their results, rather than wait for others in their field to vet their findings.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that there are already folks already citing Gebru's and Torres' works, which are published in First Monday, which is a peer reviewed internet focused journal.
Cold fusion gets debunked by reliable sourcing. I don't see reliable sourcing that "debunks" the idea of TESCREAL, at best like philosophical back and forths that discuss and sometimes criticize it.
Gebru in particular is a highly regarded scholar in the field of computer ethics. Torres is still a postdoc, but working with Gebru on this seems like the normal academic process.
What would the debunking of a counterargument against a philosophy look like exactly?

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any sources that talk about TESCREAL as something OTHER than Gebru & Torres' theory/creation.

How do you even establish that? Every mention of TESCREAL must trace its origin, this alone doesnt make it simply 'Gebru & Torres theory/creation'. Many of the sources do use TESCREAL beyond simply stating its origin.

If this was not fringe, than it should be easy to find mainstream philosophical discourse in which MANY philosophers have agreed that this theory is valid, but we don't have any such sourcing.

Thats not how philosophy works, there is no agreement of validity, people simply use concepts for their analytical value, and the article does present academic literature confirming this use. By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism and many related articles, because there definitely isnt 'MANY' philosophers agreeing that the 'theory is valid'. The thing that matters most in this different is that TESCREAL is recent, but that doesnt annul the 30-something sources confirming its notability. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that is how religious studies work. If someone claims: 1) that a new religion or cult (TESCREAL) exists, meaning it has followers who follow specific tenets; 2) that this new religion has many adherents in a certain industry; and 3) that specific powerful people are believers; and maybe also 4) that it CAUSALLY motivates them to do nefarious/bad-for-humankind things; than for mainstream scholars to accept this theory the person(s) claiming this needs proof to convince mainstream scholars. That has not happened here. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But who is talking about a 'cult' exactly? I dont think that Torres and Gebru, neither the sources used in this article, seriously insists in attributing a cultist behavior, that is not essential at all. Secular religion is concept of substantially different meaning when compared to simple religion.

If you want transhumanism-religion implications, you sure can find an incredible wealth of research. Neither of this is important for this article anyway. The article is not based on this at all. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"By this definition you could go as well to delete extropianism"

This approaches WP:POINT but let's have a separate AfD after this one, ok? Jruderman (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not WP:POINT because this is not a rule after all, just a particular interpretation of what it means to have academic notability. It doesnt apply here and wont apply there. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, Technology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, in agreement with Avatar317 explanation. Historyexpert2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pause discussion?~~ I want to see what Torres says here and on Twitter over the next few days. Jruderman (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why would twitter matter? wait did torres spread awareness about this afd? is torres a wikipedia editor? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lowkey, rereading these questions, they sound rhetorical and sarcastic. I did not mean that, actually was curious.

I've been in a situation where the subject of an article has posted about their AfD, I dont think i saw torres or gebru post about AfD, but if they did, we can use {{Not a ballot}} template to inform voters about the policy and to help inform closer that AfD was unnecessarily publicized. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their Twitter might matter as an appropriate primary source and as a hint of what the future may bring for the term "TESCREAL". It doesn't have to be Twitter, or only Twitter 🙂 — Jruderman (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLOSEAFD has info about withdrawing an afd tho apparently it only works if all voters are keep? i think merge votes prevents that? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not looking to withdraw the AfD at this time. More like recuse myself. Thanks, though: you're helping me clarify my stance. Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty slippery slope. Also, bringing in Twitter here should be grounds for withdrawal alone here. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think coi means editors dont have access to the processes including afd, as long as they disclose coi should be fine?

withdrawal apparently only works if everyone voted keep so far.?

i have no clue about twitter, but im of understanding it cant help determine notability or content of article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting at elements of Wikipedia:Canvassing, not at COI. Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jruderman: Can you elaborate on what you mean here, and also perhaps about the "new COI" that led you to modify your nomination? It gives the impression that something is happening off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, GW. I am trying to negotiate a compromise with Torres that might include their support for deletion of the TESCREAL article.

Please treat my new stance in this AfD as "procedurally neutral". Please take into account my initial opening arguments only to the extent that the arguments speak to you.

— Jruderman (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jruderman: An attempt to "negotiate a compromise" with Torres regarding this article is baffling to me, given that Torres did not write this article (nor do they edit Wikipedia at all, as far as I'm aware). While some weight is given to the opinion of an article subject in deletion discussions regarding BLPs about them (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE), I don't see how their opinion on this article would be relevant at all, or why anyone should be attempting to "negotiate a compromise". What would Torres even be compromising on? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm avoiding sharing details at this time. Sorry. Continue the deletion discussion if you want. Jruderman (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has to be a joke. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a joke, but it falls afoul of the proscription against "secret" canvassing. This entire Afd should be closed as keep at this point due to the enormity of evidence pointing to a bad faith nomination. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
… i mean it’ll close in 4 days anyways.

Whoever closes this, it’ll be a hornet’s nest to watch whatever the heck happens? TBH tho, it’ll be a hornet’s nest the next time someone tries to do AfD on this again too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this run 7 days. There are editors arguing Keep but a not insignificant number who think the article should be Merged and the closer has to take their arguments into account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense whatsoever. We do not message people on Twitter to "reach a compromise". I have no idea what you are attempting to do here. I am trying to assume good faith, but nominating an article at AfD and then hitting up the subject on Twitter to "reach a compromise" where you offer them a bargain where you withdraw the AfD looks unbelievably sleazy to me. What on God's green earth are you doing? jp×g 🗯️ 06:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Moestrup

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD almost 7 years ago was no consensus. I don't think she meets WP:BIO or WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and Denmark. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'll make some edits, and you'll see if it still should be deleted. Sophia 71.191.12.87 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion from 7 years ago remains valid today: for someone whose most prominent activity is book editing, we'd need a lot more evidence for notability as a book editor such as heavily reviewed books with reviews discussing her role as editor rather than the scattering of reviews of co-edited volumes that I found ([15] [16] [17]). Nothing else stands out as likely to provide notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person doesn't meet WP:NPROF and I agree with David Eppstein that there's not enough to substantiate notability as an editor. Qflib (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Liberal Club

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mention in the media in connection with other people or events, but lacking the in-depth coverage necessary. Seems to have been created largely for advertising. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is what I'd expect from any university club, the majority of which do not pass notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 00:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Coverage in Google news rather routine. LibStar (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Together Under One Sun

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

Both the slogan and the event lack notability. There are barely any sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it would probably be better to have the article moved to '20th anniversary celebrations of the independence of the Republic of Macedonia'. The event seems notable in its own right. --Soman (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kabiri

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

Not seeing how they satisfy WP:NPOL. He only served as a "deputy of cooperative affairs in the Ministry of Cooperation, Labor and Social Welfare". Does not meet WP:GNG at best. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Iran. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the correct title would be Deputy Minister. This is backed up by Farsi sources, that his title was 'معاون وزیر'. Deputy Ministers of national govts are notable, and in this case also member of Steering Council of national govt. --Soman (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is an NPOL pass - generally, presumed notability would be for cabinet-level posts, but as far as I know deputy ministers in Iran do not serve at cabinet level. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taharror

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lebanon. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BioSense

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

Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The East Is Blue

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

This is an article on an essay in a book which itself does not have an article. In all fairness the book itself is notable but no one bothered to write an article on it where I would typically suggest something like this be merged. The essay has a few newspaper articles taking note of it (still mostly in the context of the book, and largely before the book released, but outside of the times piece they mostly read as press release adjacent and are very short. I think the times piece is fine but it's the only thing), and nothing else except passing non-sigcov mentions, not enough for gng. Redirect to Salman Rushdie? Unless someone wants to write an article on the book? I probably would if this was about any other topic. I'm not particularly strong on delete but I feel this is a strange situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, Asia, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Salman Rushdie#Essays and nonfiction, where the vast majority of his essays don't have articles. fa:شرق_غمگین_است doesn't demonstrate notability either. It's been 20 years since article creation. It's not like WP is losing anything by removing this two-sentence this-essay-exists stub. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://www.rediff.com/news/2004/aug/09porn.htm (https://www.news24.com/news24/rushdie-praises-porn-20040808) https://reason.com/2004/08/10/the-salacious-verses/ ; mentioned in https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ed-porn01sep01-story.html, https://wwd.com/feature/exposing-the-exposed-701043-1930810/ ; at the very least redirect to Salman_Rushdie#Essays_and_nonfiction -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources provide SIGCOV of the essay itself. Rediff, News24, Reason, and LA Times have a quote from the essay and some information about Rushdie and/or the book. WWD only provides a sentence about the essay. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW there was a source on... newspapers.com I think, that I thought looked like sigcov, so that would make two, but this is an essay in a book and not the actual book so I don't think NBOOK rules apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, there's really nothing to say in this article besides the fact it exists, which is not useful to anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hadjnix 12:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Future Party

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

Non-notable protest/vanity political party. Was formerly a redirect to its founder/leader, Dominic Cardy, a former New Brunswick New Democrat who was elected to the provincial legislature as a Conservative and later expelled from the Conservative caucus. In 2023 after the federal Conservative Party elected Pierre Poilievre its new leader, Cardy and a small number of disgruntled party members split off and formed their own party, at one time called "Centre Ice Conservatives", later "Centre Ice Canadians", and now ~~registered~~ eligible to register as the Canadian Future Party. This party got a blip of coverage when it was formed last September, including a hit piece used as a reference here which opines in its first paragraph, "this tiny group of disgruntled politicos has no political future in Canada". It has had not a single bit of coverage since, other than very brief passing mentions in routine coverage of federal politics. The article as it stands is a promotional coat rack leaning on the prestige of a few notable political figures who were associated with the party's predecessor groups before splitting from the CPC, but are not evidently currently involved with it at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the party has just met Elections Canada eligibility requirements which means they have passed the notability threshold and as of July 22, 2024 are listed as an "eligible party" on the Elections Canada website [18]. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington Bay, WP:NORG is very clear that political parties are not awarded "inherent notability" simply for existing, and must meet WP:GNG (WP:ORGCRIT). Curbon7 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at List of political parties in Canada our practice has been that recognition by Elections Canada or a provincial equivalent establishes inherent notability. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such thing as inherent notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that they have managed to pass Elections Canada's criteria, vanity project or not, they will be as notable as any other minor party soon if they aren't already. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When they actually get someone elected, which likely won't happen, then we can have an article about them; "pie in the sky" hopes aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." Also per WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this fails that test, and political parties are not exempt. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Quote; if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject

1. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/from-centre-ice-conservatives-to-canadian-future-a-new-federal-party-takes-shape-1.6570315

2. https://jacobin.com/2023/10/canada-new-future-party-centrism-dominic-cardy-politics

3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-federal-centrist-party-canada-1.6972891

4. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-canadian-future-a-party-for-losers

5. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/20/news/upstart-federal-political-party-wants-provide-centrist-alternative

This is not including the coverage of 'Centre Ice Canadians' which the party emerged out of. Wilson (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, given that the party has announced it will be running candidates in the upcoming byelections and general election it is likely that it will be receiving more independent, verifiable coverage this year and next, so I ask that if the decision is to not keep the the article, that it be replaced with a redirect to Dominic Cardy so that future editors don't have to start from scratch once there are more sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasoning as yours. Black roses124 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. FYI, a subject isn't judged to be notable by potential future coverage. What sources exist today?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are, as far as I can find 8-9 news articles that mention the party. The wiki page itself has 10 (2 internal, 8 news). Most minor parties have more sources but have also been around longer (except the Centrist Party which only has 4 sources). The Animal Protection Party of Canada has been around since 2005 but if you exclude links to Elections Canada results it has less sourcing than this wiki page. Looking at formerly active political parties gives a mixed bag with some parties having more references and some having fewer (including, oddly, the Progressive Conservative Party). Wilson (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a burst of coverage in Fall 2023 when the party first came along [19], but nothing since... Non-notable party that no one has talked about in almost a year now. The next election in Canada likely isn't until this time next year, so if there's been no coverage, I'm not sure what else will pop up. I've not heard of them in the year since these were published. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cardy was apparently arrested in Toronto on August 2nd; I've only learned this by visiting their facebook page. You'd expect the leader of a political party getting arrested to make some sort of news, but nothing was reported. This is very much a non-notable party at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really true at all. There was a national post article about it. Here's the article. It also appeared on a Global News TV report. Saying that it got no coverage at all is not at all fair. 199.243.125.91 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it is debatably on the same level of notability for Canada, as small vanity parties like the Forward Party and others are for the United States, there are much less notable US and European Political parties that have been given articles as well. This wouldn't be a conversation if it was an American vanity party that came up, why should it be for a Canadian party of the same level? And given that the party is likely to make a notable impact in upcoming by-elections or the next general it is something that has been notable recently and will get even more attention as time goes on as well. Unova Yellow (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dominic Cardy. I don't see enough coverage separate from him. If this is more than a vanity party, there probably will be coverage during the next election. But that isn't reason to have an article now. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Allentown mayoral election

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

Okay, this will be thorough on this one, since lots of these mayoral election deletions have ended as trainwrecks for me. This article is a vialation of WP:NEVENT, as it fails to have significant lasting coverage that fails to qualify. THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC NOTABILITY FOR MAYORAL ELECTIONS, as shown here, here, here, here, and here of articles of similar size or larger to Allentown.

A quick WP:BEFORE fails to find any significant lasting coverage as well on Google or ProQuest.

Now, it looks like the article is long, so it must have good sources? Not to establish notability. Let's see if any of these sources match the description of "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." per WP:EVENT.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:1ctinus
https://www.mcall.com/2016/10/14/frank-fischl-decorated-air-force-pilot-and-former-allentown-mayor-dies-at-89/	~		Local obituary, mentions the election for a single sentence	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/284052961/	~		WP:ROUTINE mill coverage about a TV program/debate	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/280057542/	~	?	WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/08/12/Political-contribution-from-the-grave/1905366436800/			No coverage at all? The citation says "Daddona's unsuccessful 1969 campaign", not 1977. Either way, its barely lasting coverage, just an offhand sentence in a UPI article.	✘ No
https://www.mcall.com/2004/12/12/whatever-became-of-former-allentown-mayor-frank-fischl/			Scope of the coverage of the election in the article is "Fischl beat out incumbent Joe Daddona. Daddona later succeeded Fischl, who didn’t seek a second term.". While it is lasting, this is not significant.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/283995190/			NOT ABOUT THE ELECTION, BUT ABOUT FISCH DECLINING TO RERUN	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

If deletion seems too much, I propose two alternatives:

Merge all the Allentown mayoral election articles for future maintainability and navigability
(which is better in my opinion). Redirect to Frank Fischl, which most of the coverage seems to be on.

Before I end, a quick note to administrators and voters: please remember to use actual Wikipedia policy instead of using or endorsing arguments like "I like Pennsylvania history, so this must be important" or "this is useful information". These are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Wikipedia is not a database, or an indiscriminate collection of information. I am limiting this to one article at a time to avoid a trainwreck nomination. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on precedent you can't just delete one of the Allentown elections. you'd have to delete all of them. Scu ba (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m trying to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK and a procedural close. This happened previously -1ctinus📝🗨 04:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't change the fact that as an Allentown election, it is notable enough to warrant a page. You'd have to challenge Allentown, the third largest city in Pennsylvania, as not being notable enough to have it's election pages exist. Scu ba (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scu ba: I don't agree with that at all. It is appropriate to evaluate each election article on its own merits. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
regardless of it's current citations, Allentown is the third largest city in Pennslyvania and as due to this it's elections are notable enough to warrant a page. should we go and delete the 2009, 1997, 1993 or really any pre 21st century buffalo election pages? Deleting election pages for major municipalities breaks precedent. Scu ba (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I listed articles that clearly show that there is no precedent for municipal elections to be inherently notable in the top. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The elections you listed where for minor cities, such as Fontana, California, which is the 21st largest city in California. Allentown is the 3rd largest city in Pennslyvania. There is no consensus that minor towns elections are notable enough, however, major cities warrant their elections having pages. Scu ba (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fontana CA is still a larger town than Allentown by over 90,000 residents. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(and the answer for the Buffalo elections is they probably aren’t notable if they lack significant coverage.) -1ctinus📝🗨 00:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. they're notable because they're elections in Buffalo, the 2nd largest city in NY. Scu ba (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy states that an election is notable automatically because it’s a large city? There is none to my knowledge. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No jurisdiction gets a free pass from notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Conservatives

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

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Conservatives; as an AtD and a not implausible search term. Precedent for this, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Young Labour plus other subnational jurisdictions (Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Canada, South Australia, Virginia, USA). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotland is not a subnational jurisdiction. The Scottish Conservatives function as a separate party. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Scotland not being a sovereign state means it is a subnational jurisdiction. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Insufficient notability for standalone article. Relevant text could be merged in Scottish Conservatives. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Plenty of sourcing available. Youth wings of major political parties are generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No type of organisation is inherently notable. Please provide sources to satisfy WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied, WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a clearer consensus that Scottish Conservatives is an appropriate redirect/merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016

Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements (2nd nomination)

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

Sub- and sub-sub-pages of List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements, which was tied up with the 2017 deletion discussion. These pages stand out among Presidential candidate endorsement articles as excessively forked, hugely reliant on WP:SOCIALMEDIA sources (WP:PSTS) and thus not establishing notability (WP:TRIVIA). I am also nominating the following related pages:

U-Mos (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid page split. The other lists would be too big if this verifiable information were added there. --Enos733 (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting a merger; very little of these pages meets notability through their reliance on WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, and what's left would take considerable effort to extricate. U-Mos (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said this in 2017 I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably as part of the main campaign page). Is AfD the proper place to hold this discussion, though? I still feel that AFD is not the right forum to determine whether we should retain all endorsements. That said, the main topic Clinton 2016 endorsements is notable, and it can be assumed that a page split (based on size) can inherit the notability from the primary topic. - Enos733 (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Keep - 2002crash1 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's come to my attention that there is a content guideline at Wikipedia:Political endorsements, with endemic violations of points 2 and 3 of the inclusion criteria for individual endorsements apparent on the pages here proposed for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements. U-Mos (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content can be fixed through normal editing. - Enos733 (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easier to WP:BLOWITUP in my opinion. U-Mos (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it violates Wikipedia:Political endorsements. If such a ridiculous result can be somehow justified based on the current text of the guidelines, then the guideline text needs to be revised. I cannot find any list of endorsements in WP:RS that even remotely resemble this one in scope. Therefore, most (99%?) of mentions in these lists are WP:UNDUE. --Викидим (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements, the same sub-list thing is happening with both Biden and Trump 2020. The guideline is from 2020 based on an RFC, but the guideline either doesn't really get enacted, or there are simply too many wiki-notable people expressing clear endorsement. A general discussion should take place at guideline level, not at AfD, how to deal with such prominent presidential campaigns. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you agree that the endorsement guidelines are either ignored or defective. If so, why keep the article until the guidelines are fixed? The deletion of these lists and discussion of the WP:ENDORSED can peacefully coexist IMHO. Викидим (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an example of WP:RECENTISM, is not notable as is 8 years later. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also seems like it would fail Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Notability. I don't know if it is particularly notable to know all non-political endorsers of Hillary Clinton as a group Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this is a valid page split (for size) WP:SPINOUT. I think it is. I also think it is unnecessary to start over from scratch on content. - Enos733 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Shreveport mayoral election

AfDs for this article:

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

More electioncruft articles, except all of these are in a town that is not even in the top 100 largest towns in the United States. Not notable for the usual reasons, Wikipedia is a political database. Fails the general notability guideline, as all sources are WP:MILL in local news stations or papers. Additionally, no coverage is sustaining, failing WP:NEVENT. I am nominating the following articles as well:

2022 Shreveport mayoral election
2018 Shreveport mayoral election
2014 Shreveport mayoral election
2010 Shreveport mayoral election
2006 Shreveport mayoral election
2002 Shreveport mayoral election
1998 Shreveport mayoral election
1994 Shreveport mayoral election
1990 Shreveport mayoral election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1ctinus (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm struggling with this one. I am mostly persuaded by your argument, however, I am a sucker for well done election articles with good sources, images, graphics, etc. It may be better served at ballotpedia. I think it's worth keeping as a source of accurate information with pretty graphics. My city is a little larger than Shreveport and our mayoral election is on Wikipedia with far less information. I would't want it deleted. Perhaps a faulty reason I'm giving to keep, but I think that it just scrapes by as a source of general encyclopedia information. Bluefist^talk 02:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against deletion seems to emphasize its inherent importance (WP:ITSIMPORTANT). However, on Wikipedia, importance is determined by significant, independent coverage, and unfortunately, there isn't a rule that makes municipal elections automatically notable.

If you want to merge these all into a list (mayoral elections in Green Bay, Wisconsin), I would be fine with that, but for now, we have an unmaintainable mess of hundreds of these mayoral elections without explaining their significance. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana. Other than the 2022 article, the articles are only sourced to primary sources and mostly about candidates without stand-alone articles. The additional coverage of Adrian Perkins and the 2022 election is likely because of editor interest rather than availability of sourcing. And the sources for 2022 are just WP:MILL coverage of candidate entries, endorsements, and results. List of mayors of Shreveport, Louisiana is the only plausible redirect target; it seems reasonable enough as an alternative to deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep per bluefist, articles have a decent amount of coverage Microplastic Consumer (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frustratingly newspapers.com is offline for the Wikilibrary, so I cannot clip articles, but simple searching shows extensive coverage of the elections from the 1990s and early 2000s in The Times (Shreveport, Louisiana). NB: WP:NEXIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election

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

Same as usual mayoral election results. Easily fails WP:NEVENT, Lancaster only has a population of ~60,000. Last mayoral election I will be doing for a while, as I don't want to overbear everything with more articles. Allentown will be next. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEVENT. Sal2100 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to its failure to meet the standards set by WP:NEVENT. The city in question is small, with less than 60,000 souls. Thus, we need to find sources beyond routine reports before we even start writing. This election, lacking concrete, lasting effects on the people living in the city, and receiving little media attention, likely does not need its own article.--AstridMitch (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - add to Pennsylvania's state political history. The article's inclusion is a positive, not a negative. Scanlan (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise that you read WP:ITSUSEFUL.

"Stating that something is useful in a vacuum does not help assess its encyclopedic value. You need to say why something is useful or useless. This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. Arguments of something's usefulness, uselessness, or value devoid of further context are not valid or persuasive."

Articles like these lead to hundreds of unmaintainable mayoral election stubs without claims to notability that clog up the site. -1ctinus📝🗨 17:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable city, notable election. Scu ba (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the "keep" opinions makes an argument as to why this election is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster is a major city, the center of South Central Pennsylvania, is the center of the Pennsylvania Dutch Country, and it has it's own Metropolitan statistical area. The article has existed with no problems since 2009 (Personal attack removed) Scu ba (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, please take into account arguments based on Wikipedias guidelines for notability when weighing arguments, especially the part of WP:NEVENT that states that "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable." -1ctinus📝🗨 20:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch yakjehti committee

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that this appears to be a rewrite of a declined draft about the same organization by the same author: Draft:Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same issues regarding formal tone appropriate for an encyclopedia noted as problematic in the declined draft seem to afflict this version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NORG, though the article should be rewritten. Significant coverage in this Asian News International article, this Dawn article, this Times of India article, this The Wire article, etc. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Mahrang Baloch~~~~: or Baloch Long March. This organization itself may not satisfy SIGCOV~~ — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Baloch Long March was a past and single event, so it cannot represent the whole BYC. See my comment and the VoA and Al Jazeera sources as justification below. Balochpal (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Fails WP:GNG as many sources listed are from unreliable news sites (some of which I've removed) and also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Would also support content worth merging to Baloch Long March Axedd (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It does meet GNG; the sources just aren't in the article.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
https://www.dawn.com/news/1845830/baloch-yakjehti-committee-postpones-sit-in-after-agreement-with-govt	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://theprint.in/world/pakistan-baloch-yakjehti-committee-establishes-central-organising-body-mahrang-baloch-chosen-central-organiser/2131286/	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://m.thewire.in/article/south-asia/a-baloch-national-gathering-against-enforced-disappearances-and-human-rights-abuses/amp	Listed on WP:NPPSG as generally reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.geo.tv/latest/556473-baloch-yakjehti-committee-sit-in-enters-third-day	~ Listed on WP:NPPSG as "leaning towards reliable"	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.newsx.com/world/baloch-yakjehti-committee-to-run-endbalochgenocide-campaign-against-pakistan-atrocities/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/byc-urges-rights-body-to-intervene-amid-escalating-abuses-in-balochistan20240724190635	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/baloch-yakjehti-committee-criticises-pakistan-for-atrocities-against-people-of-balochistan/articleshow/111632036.cms	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.lokmattimes.com/international/baloch-yakjehti-committee-steps-up-efforts-for-national-gathering/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

That is a source assessment based on significant coverage by major news outlets. Even if we discount the non-listed or no-consensus sources, there are still three reliable sources that offer significant coverage. They just need to be added to the article when it is rewritten. C F A 💬 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like ANI and Times of India are not reliable for the topic. WP:RSPANI Look here for further information. Any India related news site is unreliable when it comes to political topics about Pakistan as the govt has vested interest involved. Other sources do exist but they fail to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV as of now. Axedd (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I marked them as "No consensus" on the chart above. There are still at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of the organization, which shows that it meets WP:NORG. We can't say something fails GNG just because other unreliable sources happen to have also covered the topic. C F A 💬 00:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:CFA. Plus, also check other sources like VoA, Al Jazeera, ABC News, etc as they also mention the BYC. Additionally, please fix the capitalization in the article title (with B, Y and C in capital letters).Balochpal (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC) — Balochpal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello user:CFA. Can you add the above recent sources, plus Amnesty International, Arab News and The Diplomat, to your table as well? They need to be added to the article also. Balochpal (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom as the article fails WP:GNG and is already covered in the Baloch Long March. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: as per the Voice of America, a reliable and authentic source, the Baloch Long March was a past event, not a present event, that happened months ago. (The Al Jazeera news doesn't event mention the long march when discussing the BYC). How would you use it to cover the broader topic of the whole BYC? VoA: Late last year, BYC led a 1,600-kilometer march to Islamabad with families awaiting the return of their loved ones gone missing in the fight between the state and Baloch separatists. Protesters faced severe police action as they tried to enter the capital. Demonstrators, braving the cold for days, eventually left after authorities warned of an imminent security threat. Balochpal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage provided by CFA is sufficiently convincing to meet the GNG, so I propose that we keep this article. At the very least, it should be merged with Mahrang Baloch rather than being deleted entirely. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not agree with merging as the BYC is a significant political movement and the article on BYC has room for expansion using the existent reliable sources. Yes, Mahrang Baloch is one main leader, but the BYC also has other well-known leaders, like Sammi Deen Baloch, as well as many male leaders. Balochpal (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Balochpal, You don't need to respond to every comment. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a conflict of interest due to the name of the deletion subject and the word before pal in their name Felicia (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Felicia, I have no conflict of interest. My involvement is purely to ensure accurate representation of the BYC, based on verifiable sources (e.g., Dawn, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, The Diplomat, Amnesty International, etc). Balochpal (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinions offered for Keep, Merge and Deletion closures. But I haven't seen a good response to the results in the source analysis table that indicate that GNG is established by a sufficient number of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table doesn't include the recent sources like Al Jazeera, Voice of America, etc.; also it's missing Urdu language reliable sources. All of of these will make the topic even more notable. Do you think we can update the table? Balochpal (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balochpal, Feel free to create a new table below to mention any coverage that you think could support establishing GNG and add this one to the table, as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks I will try to create a table. If anyone else wants to make one they're also welcome. Balochpal (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Although some of the sources maybe reliable but the status of BYC as a notable group or a party is not established. It would be best to merge it with Mahrang Baloch while one of its significant activity is already mentioned in detail in Baloch Long March. Muneebll (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Pandit Pawan

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Haryana. Youknow? (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Naikwadi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and India. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOLITICIAN; subject does not appear to be a politician or judge who has held "international, national, or state/province–wide office", nor has he been a member of a legislative body at that level. Fails secondary criteria of receiving significant coverage as a local politician as well; searching his name yields almost nothing except a few articles merely stating he was elected (and later expelled from his own party), but nothing remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV.

On top of this, article appears to have been created by the subject and is nothing more than an (unreferenced) list of his positions and awards, as well as an external links section of dubious quality and significance. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 05:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rudoy

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Shacham

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, Israel, United States of America, and Florida. Longhornsg (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be pedantic, a piece of coverage cannot fail BLPCRIME, but the article topic sure seems to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A number of G-hits, but I don't see anything else that would help establish notability. Donald Albury 12:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom & above. FloridaMan21 23:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Oliver

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage includes academic books about the role of third parties in American politics (like this 2012 volume published by University of South Carolina Press). Over her 30+ year career in politics, she has been referenced a lot in national newspapers, not just local. Given the volume of coverage involving Oliver, this will take some time to sort through but definitely worth keeping. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. A. Firoze Noon

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrali Gasimov

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of electoral firsts in New Zealand

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Closest thing I can find is this: [20]. Ultimately this is WP:LISTCRUFT with no reliable source dictating which 'firsts' are notable and worthy of inclusion. All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:OSE and what Wikipedia writes isn't relevant here. WP:NLIST is which states: 'Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been'. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you explain your logic with All MPs are presumed notable so having them be notable by other characteristics typically involves original research.? I don't follow at all, and your point here seems to be adding 2 and 2 to get 7. Turnagra (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these entries involve original research, for example Iriaka Ratana's source here: [21] does not say she is the first. Instead someone has come to that conclusion via their own research. Stating that these MPs are notable for their 'firsts' is also typically original research, as without a source that states it it's an assumption that their 'first' made them notable rather than the fact that being an MP makes one notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having sourcing issues doesn't necessarily mean that it's original research, though. A cursory google search of that specific example found this within about 20 seconds. I also still fail to see how their inclusion of a first leads to the assumption you're stating at the end, or how that somehow diminishes the notability of the list. I think at the moment I'm leaning heavily towards keep. Turnagra (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't state she was the first MP to give birth. NLIST requires it to have been discussed as a group by a set of independent reliable sources and I do not see any group discussing it. I see no evidence of notability of a list of 'firsts'. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, tag it with Template:Citation needed. MPs are discussed as a group and first things are notable to mention - not to mention there are dozens of other "lists of firsts". I'm tapping out of this one now, so no need to continue responding to try and push your point further. Turnagra (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing to delete all "Lists of Firsts?" Hugo999 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Any list (and especially lists of "firsts") should be discussed in reliable sources as a topic AND the criteria must not be indiscriminate. (see this recent discussion). So, this fails NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Togbe Abutia Kodzo Gidi V

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ghana. toweli (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Louisiana, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and reasons given in first AfD--Mpen320 (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venkataramane Gowda

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. None of the positions occupied is NPOL-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Political candidate, not showing much notability beyond that. This is typical [22] coverage of any candidate in an election, to inform the electors, but nothing notable about standing for office. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as businessman and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sarvi

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

Redirect to 2008 United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota. This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This person is a former congressional candidate and former mayor. The election itself was particularly unnoteworthy and has had no lasting signficance. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Clint Eastwood was Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California in the late 1980s.

While this article does not mention it, he has since continued his career as a city administrator in other Minnesota municipalities, but the coverage there is run of the mill coverage of any city administrator. There is nothing so unique about it that it warrants the city administrator himself having an article. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts it goes into his professional history in a lot of detail, but that is a mask for a lack of GNG. Mpen320 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and does not have enough non-campaign related WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers

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

Think this fails WP:NLIST, tried to add sources for everything but found that difficult. Most of these I've just sourced to photos of the graves. Only mentions in news media are usually passing mentions in obits. Couldn't find any sources talking about them as a group. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Lists. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This does not seem like something that's discussed as a group. However, there are a few Special:Allpages/List of burial places of. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is a pretty common list article type but i don't think the existence of those other examples makes this list inherently notable, especially since no one's ever talked about it, to the point the sourcing is terrible. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bangladeshi military coup

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

There was no military coup in Bangladesh in 2024. The article's central claim is factually incorrect, which misleads readers and distorts the historical record. The resignation of Sheikh Hasina was a direct result of widespread student movements, not a military intervention. The student protests demanded her resignation, leading to her decision to step down. Sheikh Hasina was given a 45-minute window to safely exit the country, a measure taken to protect her from the potentially angry crowd. This critical context is missing from the article, which portrays the events inaccurately. For more information please see: https://www.prothomalo.com/politics/jvacuciaoy —MdsShakil (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be ~~merged with Resignation of Sheikh Hasina~~ —MdsShakil (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my comment from merge to delete as already proved that there are no military coup, civilian government has take control the power. This article is a WP:HOAX. Some organisation trying to spread propaganda, we should follow WP:NEWSORGINDIA —MdsShakil (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should not delete right now, instead you can add the word "alleged" BlackRider90 (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not right information as Bangladesh Army haven't take control, rather they are passing it to interim govt. So this article should be deleted immediately. Afshana.diya (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the reason showed. Also I wonder if the creator of this article really care about writing article in the neutral and correct way. Because please look at the edit. The editor wants to indicate that Non-cooperation movement (2024) is the result of this coup. But in reality, Hasina's resignation started days after the movement. This is not only hoax, but also original research. Mehedi Abedin 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Infobox element mentions related events. Apologies. Reverted. Waonderer (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete, Rename Article: There are articles that have used the term "coup". Please refer google search results. The 45-minute window is the main reason for such claims in most of them (Examples: 1, 2 3). If that is not enough to justify, I would suggest to rename the Article and move it to another more appropriate title, instead of deletion. Waonderer (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Waonderer You misunderstood. The intelligence agency told her that angry protesters was coming to her residence and would arrive in 45 minutes. To leave the country safely, she had to resign within that time. Please read the Prothom Alo article. This article may now be considered a WP:HOAX and it might have been merged with the related article. —MdsShakil (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undestood. Due to the language barrier issues, I hadn't referred it first. Just read the translation now. The sources I have referred say "The Army gave the ultimatum". Can't comment on reliability of all the sources. Even in that case, this should be merged with another article or renamed, not deleted. As this article contains information that is not present in other articles.. Waonderer (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal impression is it is largely certain sections of the Indian media which are referring to this as a "coup", and international media tend to avoid the term. Probably in part that reflects geopolitical calculations–Sheikh Hasina was generally perceived as friendly by India, and there is concern in India about whether a new government will be as friendly. I think it would be reasonable for whatever article to cover the debate about whether it constitutes a "coup", but there is presently insufficient consensus in reliable sources to describe it as one in Wikipedia's own voice. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't the rationale for calling it a coup is that it's the military that took control after the resignation over some other political organ such as the president or the parliament? I mean I've found a bunch of sources calling it or at least suggesting that it looks like a coup. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]. I can't really say anything about the reliability of those sources other than the NYT and Reuters but it's what I found. Yvan Part (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
State power is not vested in the army or armed forces; they still function under the President. An interim government is being formed to run the country and may be sworn in tomorrow. The army is assisting in forming this government. —MdsShakil (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of like the coup in Niger in 2023, where its military listened to anti-France and pro-Russian protesters. This can easily be considered a coup. Block345 (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this likely technically counts as a coup – but the reality is most RS aren't calling it one (at least not yet), and Wikipedia has to go by what RS are calling it, not the technical definition of the term. Personally I think the term "coup" may well become more accepted by RS over the time – but we'll have to wait and see whether that happens, and if so how long it takes. If, a few years down the track, the term "coup" becomes well-established, we could always consider resurrecting this article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new government has just been sworn in, so the rumors of a military coup or military rule are not true. —MdsShakil (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the military forces out one civilian government and installs a new one, that still technically counts as a coup. Also, it is still very early days, and we'll have to see how much influence the military exerts on the new government behind the scenes. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete. Add important information to Non-cooperation movement (2024) and then delete the article (I share the same opinion as আফতাবুজ্জামান). The current article mischaracterizes the situation and uses extensive amounts of original research.

The military did not force Sheikh Hasina to resign but rather the situation forced her to resign and flee, even told before that the military was running out of ammunition (according to her son, she considered resignation as early as Aug 3 but he now denies that Hasina ever resigned on her own). Furthermore, a junta was not established following the coup, and several government members maintained power, including the president. Hence, there was no military coup but rather a situation similar to the 2022 Sri Lankan protests.

An article solely focusing on the resignation can be created later. INFIYNJTE (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Speedy merge to Non-cooperation movement (2024); there was no "military coup"; even if the title was changed an article specifically about the action of Hasina resigning is not necessary at all, and any content related to the situation is already sufficiently covered at Non-cooperation movement (2024). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I believe there are points mentioned in this article that can be a part of Non-cooperation movement (2024). Hence, we can merge this article to that. I'm Here to Help You (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree this isn't an actual coup. But the information in it is relevant enough. So it should be merged into 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement. Linkin Prankster (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete per nomination: while Bangladesh is not a stranger to coups in the past, it seems this time that the anger of the general public ultimately lead to Sheikh Hasina resigning, so it feels more like a revolution than a coup. Therefore the current title appears misleading, even though the protesters don't want the army involved (source: BBC News). --Minoa (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete due to Muhammad Yunus (a civilian) now leading an interim government. So therefore the article nominated for discussion here is a combination of WP:HOAX and WP:POVPUSH. --Minoa (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Resignation of Sheikh Hasina. Some sources are already calling this a coup, but most are not. I think it is really going to be determined by how the military acts in the coming days/weeks/months. If they decide to remain in power for an extended period of military rule, then it is likely the "coup" term will eventually become mainstream. Conversely, if they quickly step aside in favour of a return to civilian rule, it will probably remain a matter of controversy whether it counts as one. In other words, WP:TOOSOON. If reliable sources start to consistently call it a "coup", we can always resurrect this as an article. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is now a redirect to Non-cooperation movement (2024). -- Beland (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources are calling this a coup. Keep it for for now. It was the top defence officials that gave her the ultimatum. The very same officials are forming the interim government. If a new government is democratically elected soon the article should be deleted. Parth.297 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a report. There's no confirmation she was given an ultimatum. Many sources state she resigned due to the protests. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS VERY MUCH AN HONEST ARTICLE. IT'S ACTUALLY RATHER A MILITARY COUP SUPPORTED BY US. SO KEEP IT. 106.66.41.81 (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article 106.66.41.81 (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please strike this comment? POV isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's entitled to their opinions on editorial questions; they are not articles. It's unlikely, though, anyone will particularly act on those that aren't grounded in reliable sources or Wikipedia policies. -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor attempted to add a propaganda source according to this edit, before settling on a BBC source, so I can understand why Linkin Prankster was quite cautious about the context of said comments. --Minoa (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information to Non-cooperation movement (2024) and then delete. There was no coup (some foreign media may reported that way, most likely they misunderstood, as Afd nominator explained above), the article title is simply incorrect and misleading. President Mohammed Shahabuddin still in power and everything including military still function under the president. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS reported a coup in Bangladesh, this is WP:OR terminology. Dilbaggg (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No military coup happended in Bangladesh. Army didn't take over nor any emergency was called. The informations here are not supported by Bangladeshi and international media. Don't merge or redirect as it's informations are wrong. Some non-Bangladeshi media may use the term coup but it is misconception. Wiki N Islam (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The event in question was a people's revolution that lasted 36 days. It is important to differentiate between a people's revolution and a military coup. An interim civilian government was established during this period, led by a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete there was no coup. X (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; then delete There was a regime-change but not a coup. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Non-cooperation movement (2024). The articles cover the same topic, that article is much more complete, and "military coup" is misleading. I don't see anything to merge; but I don't think this needs to be deleted and content could be merged later. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to Non-cooperation movement (2024) and then delete. There are some relevant details that can be merged to relevant section https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Non-cooperation_movement_(2024)#Violence_against_Hindus RogerYg (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurij Viditsch

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

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

Here are all existing sources I could find about him:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Slovenia was not an independent country at the time and Ljubljana not a capital. This weakens the case for NPOL. The first source mentioned above is very obviously a Wikipedia collection. Several other mayor articles are in the same dire state, including Horacij Carminelli and other successors. Many of these only duplicate List of mayors of Ljubljana and can be redirected there. In that list, a few other details such as birth and death year can also be added whereever known. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed. Fringe, Suspect The (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [25]; just not enough sourcing for our needs here. Sourcing now in the article is a list of mayors from the city, not helping notability (and a primary source). Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Curbon7 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The cited source [2] names A) his reelection B) German name: Under "Georg Viditsch" you will find him several listings in google books plus a secondary literature that states that he was judge at Laibach afterwards. Axisstroke (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more information here than is already given at List of mayors of Ljubljana, which is true of a number of other mayors in that list with similar stub articles that should also go. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we should avoid having contemporary notability standards for historical figures for earlier epochs. Just because a person isn't highlighted by contemporary historians doesn't mean he wasn't notable during his time period. The name has different variations, Georg or Jurij, Vidic or Viditsch, probably some other variants in Latin. A mayor of a mayor city in this period wasn't a 'local politician' as we understand it today, that person would have been a person of significant notability. He also served as 'Stadtrichter' of the city. Here we see his heraldic shield. He is mentioned here across story of several pages, but I can't make sense of the Fraktur script, not sure if journalistic account or prose. ([26] mentions a Georg Vidic born around 1540 in Blečji Vrh, as the first known in a genealogical line of Vidic... but DOB doesn't really match our Georg Vidic) --Soman (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Soman

Nvss132 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[1] ttps://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/bangladeshs-history-upheaval-coups-2024-08-05/

[2] ttps://www.msn.com/en-in/news/India/what-led-to-violent-protests-in-bangladesh-army-coup-against-sheikh-hasina/ar-AA1ohSrO

[3] ttps://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/05/world/bangladesh-protests

[4] ttps://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/live-coup-in-bangladesh-pm-sheikh-hasina-resigns-lands-in-india-after-fleeing-dhaka/ar-AA1ofyJT

[5] ttps://www.livemint.com/global/bangladesh-protest-coup-sheikh-hasina-flee-india-golden-era-relations-stable-neighbour-china-threat-11722873822431.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects