Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 17: Line 17:
<!-- Don't list Politicians here -->
<!-- Don't list Politicians here -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_Falah_Party}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_Student_Movements_of_Greece}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_Student_Movements_of_Greece}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vish_Burra}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vish_Burra}}

Revision as of 19:02, 6 June 2024

Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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


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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has significant coverage on reliable sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK but can you provide that significant coverage that meets the GNG? It seems everyone (mostly fresh accounts) is just casting keep and saying there's significant coverage, but no one's backing up that claim in a way that meets WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:
Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:
-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.
- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.
- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).
- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.
- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)
- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.
- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.
- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.
I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”;  there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.
The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.
Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.
Regarding notability:
- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]
- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.
- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.
- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.
All of these articles were written in different years.
Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO
With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.
I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.
Regarding neutrality:
- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.
- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.
-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.
- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.
Regarding original research:
- The introduction relies on published research.
- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.
- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.
These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!
(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:
According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.
According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/
Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/
I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vish Burra

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

This person clearly does meet WP:Notability (people)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloern (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durie Kallahal

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

The Article does not have notability, according to WP:POLITICIAN, a politician is not notable when him/her position is lower than Congressman/Congresswoman, I don't see WP:GNG notability either. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Participants are basically evenly divided on the fate of this article based primarily on whether on not sourcing is sufficient for a stand-alone article. It is not my role to assess the sourcing myself so I must close this as No consensus based on the arguments presented here. I do see that the article would benefit from a thorough editing to remove any bias present in the article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.

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

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
    CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.
To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.
Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing++ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.
    The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.
    Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.
    Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.
    Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.
    Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.
    As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.
    The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.
    Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You literally made a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, please don't gaslight us. As for Wired, it is considered by editors here to be a perennial reliable source and is known for its fact-checking practices, so without countervailing evidence contradicting the Wired story (which no one has supplied), I believe we can take it as reliable on this topic. Anonymous sourcing is a legitimate journalistic practice and does not rule out an otherwise reliable source. Finally, I said nothing about NSUSTAINED (please read carefully), but that policy refers to a "sufficiently significant period of time," and the WP:SIRS coverage spans from 2020 to the present, which is more than sufficiently sustained to meet the policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Source 3 from Wired is the only one strictly about the Registered Agents company, the rest focus on Epik (that they bought) or some not so nice things the company is said to be involved with. I don't find much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and/or merge with Epik. These two companies don't appear to have separate notability. Even if Registered Agents, Inc. were to have marginal notability on its own, WP:NOPAGE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; I think that covering the two companies in one article would both provide the users with a better overall understanding and reduce maintenance required by avoiding unnecessary content duplication across two articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC) Striking in favor of keeping. Will expand on why later; I don't have the time at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though the editor who proposed this RfC framed it in relation to Epik, the bulk of the media coverage here is not about RAI's acquisition of Epik and good deal of it pre-dates the acquisition. There is sufficient WP:RS coverage for it to be a stand-alone article at this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Through probably what is one of the oddest coincidences I have experienced on Wikipedia, I encountered the 30 N Gould Street, Sheridan, WY address independently when I noticed that it was related to lots of fraudulent and/or generally sketchy activity. This activity is covered in a variety of reliable sources, including The Sheridan Press (1, 2, 3), Reuters (via KSL, via The Malaysian Star), Overdrive, Esquire, The Washington Post, and the Gillette News-Record. I began to wonder to myself is it possible for an address to be notable but not the physical building itself? And I concluded that it was, given all of the coverage of it and the various scams that run through it. I then began to look back through Wikipedia to see if this was covered anywhere and, lo and behold, it was covered here. For reasons entirely unrelated to the acquisition of Epik, the address (and the registration agent operating out of it) had received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events.
    The text of the current article puts a lot of weight on the acquisition of Epik. That's probably a mistake in terms of article content focus (at least in terms of covering the great variety of items associated with that address), but I now realize that the sourcing is quite clear: this article can exist as a standalone, and should exist as a standalone, due to substantial non-overlap with Epik in terms of what our coverage ought be. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to States of Guernsey#History. Not much to Merge but might be of interest Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral firsts in Guernsey

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERM

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

Notability concerns; no reliable sources; possible original research BoraVoro (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nom - will work on the article. (non-admin closure) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 05:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago

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

Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago may well be a thing, but I struggle to see where this article even addresses it. It is written like an essay and attempts to divine nationalism from an arbitrary selection of social and cultural issues, apparently with mostly irrelevant sourcing. For example source [3] is attached to the claim that calypso music is a form of Trinbagonian nationalism... the source, besides not really being an RS, says nothing of the sort. The dispute with Barbados should more properly be in Barbados-Trinidad and Tobago relations and the entire "Evolution" section, besides mostly being SYNTH, has content that should really be in LGBT rights in Trinidad and Tobago.

There is no RS that unifies these disparate topics - Trinbagonian culture, the dispute with Barbados, and LGBT rights - into a single topic about nationalism in the country. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 06:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify - It's pretty clear to me that the existence of books like https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Race_and_Nationalism_in_Trinidad_and_Tob.html?id=z2sKAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y (and plenty of other coverage I could find trivial) make this a notable subject. That said, the nom's critiques of the article are legitimate, it is certainly not acceptable to cite a stats database and from it draw conclusions about opportunity. There's a strong case to WP:TNT almost everything that's there at the moment. BrigadierG (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decisive keep - "Trinibagonian nationalism" obviously passes GNG from the first page of google results[1][2][3] and would likely have even more material across WPLibrary or other databases, nomination fails BEFORE and NOTCLEANUP. Even stubification seems extreme, the bit on the history of the country could easily stay if its just renamed to "Background" or something of the sort; Seeking independence from another country is going to involve some amount of nationalistic thinking no matter what, that just falls under SKYISBLUE. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history bit should only be retained if RSes talking about Trinbagonian nationalism in its history are added to the article. We have the Culture of Trinidad and Tobago and History of Trinidad and Tobago already. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 01:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of the subject can already be established through RS then whether an additional source specifically refers to the subject by name or not becomes a question of due weight, not verification. The point of a background section is to summarize plainly relevant information from parent topics, why shouldn't such information be present across multiple articles if it is relevant to all of them? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cquilt/article/download/38626/31517/110381
  2. ^ https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/55/1/128/151121/Race-and-Nationalism-in-Trinidad-and-Tobago-A
  3. ^ https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/626/chapter-abstract/128162/C-L-R-James-and-Trinidadian-Nationalism?redirectedFrom=fulltext
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Curzon Price

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. JFHJr (㊟) 03:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is the one Telegraph article, but everything else that I find is non-independent. I find only a few academic articles and the citation counts are low (barely double and often single digits, one at 166 cites). Lamona (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. As the delete !voters note, this lacks valid, reliable evidence of sustained notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Liberal

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

Years ago this term was circulated once on social media by right wing trolls, but there is no significant coverage of this non-notable term in any reliable sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a couple of sources that ensure the subject meets WP:GNG? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberales Institut

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [3] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [4]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr (㊟) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [5] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [6] Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree on both points.
    1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.
    2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''Wickster12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.

    "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

    there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

    The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

    Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.

    Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you Wickster12345 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [7], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).
Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader, I've found an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [8][9][10][11], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [12][13], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [14] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Constant de Rebecque

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2017 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt

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

Lack of Notability . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh bhakt is a word getting very popular nowadays. Lot of People know about it and some don't . Wikipedia is a online encyclopedia where people know information about lots for matter. And the popular trending matter should be in Wikipedia . Therealbey (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

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

Even though there's lots of sources, upon closer inspection most of them are low quality/unreliable (LADbible, National Today, SportsKeeda, Leaders.com, Market Realist, TeamBoma, Financhill), self-published like podcasts, YouTube videos or Bloomberg company profiles or books he has published, which are not independent. The Yahoo Finance articles are reprints of PRnewswire (a press-release service) and Moneywise (which looks like a low-quality source). Even most of the articles by reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, Toronto Sun, CBS News, Los Angeles Times) aren't really about Bet-David and thus don't count for significant coverage.

The Fortune article is an article that Bet-David wrote rather than a profile, so I don't think it counts for notability either. The Barron's and The Real Deal articles covers a house he purchased, which maybe counts for notability, but the focus of the article seems to be on the house sale price rather than David himself. There is no consensus on the reliability of Entrepreneur magazine (see WP:RSP) and concerns that the publication includes promotional content/undisclosed paid articles. The previous AfD from 2018 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumo Lulu-Briggs

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."
Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.
I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.
Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [17] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.
It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.
For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.
([18], [19], and even [20]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either Алексей Юрчак's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")
Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity#United_States_support, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.
I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory-ridden mess. The article is full of vague claims and suspicions, which start in the lead with the phrase "while some say..." and continue throughout. Toadspike [Talk] 00:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Crespo

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and all other notability metrics. Clear promotion and cruft (primary sources, Amazon...) JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep as meeting WP:BASIC. This is not an easy pass -- her books have a relatively low citation count but she has had an impact. Old London Churches seems to have been regarded as a significant work and has been cited quite a bit in the context of for conservation efforts received a number of reviews which are not available online. She got obituaries in the Independent and Telegraph which I think counts for a lot. Here are the sources I think taken together are sufficient:
  • this book review[21]
  • this obit in the Independent[22]
  • this obituary in the Telegraph [23]
  • minimal discussion about her in her husband's biography [24]
  • this obituary, albeit in a low-circulation paper[25]
  • this entry showing that her papers are now held under supervision of the UK national archives[26]
One note: immediately prior to bringing this AfD the nominator removed more than 4K of text from the article including removing her extensive biography. I'm not sure how that is justified - surely if the books exist they are sources, although whether they count for notability may be another matter. I wholly agree with @DaffodilOcean's decision to reinstate them, and to identify additional cites. Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FUCM

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

I wasn't able to find any coverage and the article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. The article was created by User:Bamatfucm, and one of the founders of FUCM is Bam. toweli (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only published independent sources I could find were: [27][28] [29], which don't establish notability.
Traumnovelle (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sweetser

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and has no particular claim to notability. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Ali Khamenei. Merger with additional or alternative targets can be discussed editorially. After discarding clearly canvassed votes and ones not based on P&G, there is a rough consensus to keep the content, but not as a standalone article. Concerns about the merged article size are valid, but are secondary to notability issues. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but article requires significant improvement.
Coverage that is at least potentially RS (not necessarily complete) which is not currently included in the article:
FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such interactions by the head of state of a theocracy to a significant section of Western society is quite rare. As a comment it would be nice to have this in Wikisource if applicable. Borgenland (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my proposal to merge about one sentence. The fact that an article is long is not a reason to disconnect it from the present. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the article proposed for deletion is 521 words currently. It makes no sense to bloat an article that (per WP:SIZERULE) must already have WP:SPINOUT articles.VR (Please ping on reply) 23:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. gidonb (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only cite above to indicate that there is expectation that this article too should have enduring notabilityVR (Please ping on reply) 23:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:NOPAGE. this article only makes sense of broader contexts and is better covered in the responses section of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses or in Ali Khamenei User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you may need to observe some of the recent sources [41]. --Mhhossein talk 06:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and several different Redirect/Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant articles, far too soon to have an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dozens of reliable sources covering it during a wide time span, too soon or merge does not seem applicable here since the subject passes GNG. --Mhhossein talk 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another source covering the topic, attesting the enduring notability. The work is published on 13 June 2024. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist League (2019)

International Socialist League (2019) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.

Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Giovanni Pellegrino. Owen× ☎ 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La guerra civile

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

This article is very odd. It started life as what appears to be a personal essay/content fork about Italian politics (entirely sourced to La guerra civile) under the title Terrorism in Italy since 1945, then at some point someone misinterpreted the content as about the book itself and content about that book introduced and the essay stuff removed, so for the past 13 years it's been about the book, but under the original title. I tried to find sources under that title, failed for 20 minutes, realized what happened, and moved the page.

Anyway, still can't find any reviews/analysis/sources. It's probable they may exist given the language barrier and very generic title, but I couldn't find any. If sufficient sources are presented I can withdraw. As an ATD if there are no sources redirect to the author Giovanni Pellegrino. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. The Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keep ones, but the proposed merger received enough support to get picked as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep
No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep, but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork that delves into far more detail than Wikipedia should go into for speculation on the next election. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not speculation for the next election- it's an estimate of the results of the past election, which has been reported on by several major news outlets. These results will be generally used by both news organizations and Wikipedia (reflecting that use within reliable sources), for purposes such as reporting swing from 2019 to 2024 results by constituency. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notional election results are not "speculation" as psephology is a precise science. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>precise results under the new boundaries usually cannot be known as election results are not usually reported for subdivisions of constituencies. However, it is possible to estimate what the election results would have been by extrapolating from local election results for which more granular data is known
Sounds like speculation to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our position to speculate on what is considered "speculation", only to follow the practice of reliable sources. Almost all reliable sources treat the Thrasher+Rallings estimates as authoritative election results, for example, a Labour win of Beckenham and Penge in the upcoming election would be reported by the media as "Labour hold" rather than "Labour gain" thanks to Thrasher and Rallings having determined it to be notionally Labour in 2019. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Ideally this data would be incorporated into the individual constituency articles, rather than be in a separate list, but as long as this has not been done, it is useful to have these numbers on Wikipedia. The argument that thisis speculation is not sufficient. These numbers are used by pretty much all reliable sources covering the election even if they are only estimates. Gust Justice (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a merge argument? If the information should be on those articles, a merge close would keep the article until the merge has been performed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ all. Any editor may recreate any of the pages as a redirect to Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections if they wish, but I saw no consensus here to do so as a closer. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections

1978 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1980 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1982 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo

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

this article can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the main Andrew Cuomo page could do with being shortened and cut up already. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress

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

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

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election

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

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

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

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [49] [50] [51] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus is that since this next election "is notable and almost certain to happen", there's sufficient coverage for this article to pass GNG at this time. Even the nominator is convinced and has changed their position during discussion. Any issues of naming can be resolved via normal requested move process. BusterD (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election

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

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

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

If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much original research here and the title is inappropriate. Whilst there may be sources for notability I don't believe the current article is viable it's pretty much complete OR without any sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the next election following a long series of notable elections, it should exist, to be a collection of reliable information on it as that information arises. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) If not kept, Draftify. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. There is consensus to keep the content. No prejudice against merging, if someone want to pursue that avenue and do the work. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus to delete; consensus to rename to Next Tasmanian state election‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Tasmanian state election

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Timothy O. E. Lang

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate reliable sources to support notability. Unsuccessful political candidate, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tajinder Bagga

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

This subject fails WP:NPOL , Bagga has never been elected to any legislative body. Additionally he also fails WP:NBIO as being a mere national secretary of a political party's youth wing does not make one notable. The sources cited here also do not provide WP:SIGCOV and those that do fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA as undisclosed press releases because they do not identify an individual author/reporter and have only generic bylines with promotional tone or are puff pieces. [56][57]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mrvan

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

procedural nomination on behalf of cx zoom, per this rfd discussion. as he says, he believes frank j. mrvan is the primary topic for the name, so i guess frank mrvan jr. could have a hatnote? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 01:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Marsden (Socialist)

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

Non-notable politician. All sources are from his party, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some sources related to him:
ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Flanagan

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

Non-notable local official. All news coverage I could find is from local outlets, and it all seems like the type of WP:ROTM coverage you'd expect to see for the mayor of the town. I don't think he meets GNG. I'd support a redirect to List of mayors of Fall River, Massachusetts. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, wouldn't this be an argument to have an article for the recall election itself, rather than Flanagan as a person? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, I'd expect us to have both coverage of the recall and a bio on the first person recalled. What we title the page and whether it is in two or one article I think is dependent on the amount and quality of sourcing. However, as it stands, there is no verification that he's even the first successfully recalled Massachusettsian. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Zerban

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

Delete or Redirect. The first is that he was a member of the Kenosha County Board of Commissioners. 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 notable activity in office (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell), the latter of which is probably more a WP:CRIME who was also a politician. The second is his candidacies for Congress. I simply do not see the "historic significance" test being passed here given the last election was over ten years ago at this point. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar AfDs resulted in a delete/redirect in Andy Anderson, Bill Proctor, Veron Parker, and Steve Sarvi. Mpen320 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Blamires

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

WP:BLP of a local journalist and politician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for journalists or politicians. The main attempt at a notability claim here is as a county councillor, which is not a level of office that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia -- she would have to pass WP:NPOL #2, where the test hinges on the depth and range and volume of third-party reliable source coverage in media that can be shown to establish her significance. But this is referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and the few acceptable reliable sources don't add up to enough to secure the notability of a county councillor all by themselves.
As for journalism, the article just calls her a journalist in the first sentence, sourced to a portfolio of her own writing on the self-published website of her own employer, and then never says another word about her journalism career after that -- but you don't make a journalist notable by citing sources where she was the author of coverage about other things, you make a journalist notable by citing sources where she was the subject of coverage written by other people, so there hasn't been any basis for notability as a journalist shown here at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Yu

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

Unnotable chinese politician. It cites 5 pubications from shady sites that are not adequate for notability. I found no significant coverage about him online. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Adding sources is not a difficult task. Given that the individual is a Chinese, it is advisable to conduct a direct search for Chinese profiles. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although TinaLees-Jones's comment above looks like WP:ILIKEIT, they have in fact expanded the article significantly since the nomination. Sources like [58] are far-and-away SIGCOV, and the subject's various positions mean they likely meet NPROF, NJOURNALIST, and NPOL (some more than others). Very clear Keep from me. Toadspike [Talk] 11:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheer Dara

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

I tried to fixed the page, but i failed to fix the notability. He is an ulelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Looking at WP:GNG, some articles including ABP News [59] looks like advertisement as it is published in Brand Wire section. Other article and citations also needs to be checked. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no bolded Keep but the article creator is arguing for it so I don't think this can close as a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects

Keep Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politics&oldid=1227604764"