Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for Politics AfDs

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

Related deletion sorting: Conservatism; Libertarianism

Politics

Political handicapping

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

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

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

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read" because they are not in alphabetical order instead they are listed by region. These pages are similar to those for Australian states as seen at Category:Electoral results in Australia which I presumed were comparable with the pages that exist for Ontario elections. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of India

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

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

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

Voter turnout in the European Parliament elections

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

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

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

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

Metropolis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghazi Shahzad

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

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

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

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

1874 Waitemata by-elections

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

Original BLAR was contested. All the sources in the article are primary and I cannot find any secondary sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean by the sources being "primary"? They are secondary sources in my eyes. ―Panamitsu (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSPRIMARY. News reports are primary sources in most cases. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggesting that by-elections to the New Zealand Parliament, or the House of Representatives as it was called back then, are not notable is time-wasting behaviour bordering on being disruptive. Schwede 66 23:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elections to the New Zealand Parliament are clearly notable. Paora (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and sufficiently sourced. Number 5 7 11:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no SNG for by-elections nor elections and the sources are all primary in contradiction to WP:PRIMARY Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a corollary to NPOL, electorates and elections will be notable, it would be illogical otherwise. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL doesn't apply to electorates and even if it did that wouldn't override that the article violates WP:OR which is a valid deletion reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding a source is not "original research!" Hugo999 (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:OR states: 'Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.' Traumnovelle (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalist political economy

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

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

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

Latino belt

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

While there is some small news coverage of a "Latino belt" in Pennsylvania, this coverage starts in February 2024 and there doesn't seem to be any indication that this WP:NPLACE is used other than as a shorthand in a handful of political news articles in the last cycle. It seems WP:TOOSOON to say whether this is actually a notable region - will there be coverage of it outside of the 2024 election? And if it is merely political, it hardly stands up to all the other pages in Category:Electoral geography of the United States. At very least, it should be draftified until it can be fleshed out to more than one sentence. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is virtually nothing in the article beyond This Place Exists. It is much shorter than the nomination! Athel cb (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nine words is not an article, do not do this. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Informationless stub sourced to a passing mention. The term was used by Steve Kornacki in a much-hyped commentary back in October: [5], but there are no sources that define precisely where the region is or its demographics or economic history or anything. Just a term that a pundit invented one day. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP on Politico's part; we don't need to elaborate on this when they certainly didn't. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This "article" just says "this exists" without elaborating on it. This does not give any other information about the so called "Latino belt." The one source did not elaborate on this at all and mentioned it in passing. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Jaffe

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, diplomats are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show that they would pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work in media and books. But this is "referenced" solely to a staff profile on the self-published website of a publication that the subject was the bylined author (not the subject) of a couple of pieces of writing for and a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a short blurb announcing the appointment of 16 new ambassadors -- meaning that the first is a directly affiliated primary source that isn't support for notability at all, while the second isn't detailed enough to get her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all the secondary sourcing she's got: we need to see substantive coverage about her work in diplomatic roles, not just cursory verification of the fact that she's been appointed to them. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency (party politics)

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

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

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

Independent Municipal Party of Ljusnarsberg

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

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

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

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

Jebamani Janata Party

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

Non notable political party. The leader of this party gained some notoriety for filing a false affidavit. Has never won an election (never even come close), is not a recognised party with a permanent symbol and therefore should not remain. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Tamil Nadu. Jupitus Smart 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Yeah, I guess you might be right... I'm not from India, so I'm not really familiar with India's political system, but I'm trying to do my best to figure things out. (e.g. I have now realized that I should probably link "unrecognized" to Politics of India § Registered Unrecognized Political Party (RUPP)) I have now done some mostly-thorough searching through various public and licensed resources that I have access to, and here are the statistics of what I found (though keep in mind that my criteria for what to list and what to merge vs keep separate have been a bit inconsistent):

83 articles/books/documents total
- 12 were about Nellai R. Jebamani in the Janata Party
- 25 were just lists of election candidates or results or similar
- 37 were just about Mohanraj, the party leader
- 9 actually have information about the party beyond Mohanraj and election participation and performance:
  1. A Hindi?-English bilingual government document: मजूमदार, ए. के. (July 12, 2002). "भारत निर्वाचन आयो, अधिसूचना, आ.अ. 82( अ )". भारत को राजपत्र. असाधारण : भाग II—खण्ड ३—उप-खण्ड (iii) (in Hindi). No. 61. नई दिल्ली. रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल०-33004/99 : सं. 56/2002( iv )/न्यायिक-III. निर्वाचन प्रतीक ( आरक्षण और आबंटन ) आदेश, 1968 के पैरा 17 के उप पैरा ( 2 ) के अनुसरण में, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग समय-समय पर यथा संशोधित तारीख 10 जनवरी, 2002 की अपनी अधिसूचना संख्या 56/2002/न्यायिक-III, में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन और करता है अर्थात् :— [...] II. उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न सारणी III ( रजिस्ट्रीकृत अमान्यता प्राप्त दलों ) में— (1) क्रम सं. 584 पर विधमान प्रविष्टियों के पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों स्तम्भ 1, 2 और 3 के नीचे क्रमश: रखी जाएं :— [...] 592.; जेबामणि जनता; नं. 33, सैंकड़ स्ट्रीट, पूर्व अबिरामपुरम, माइलापोर, चेन्नई-600004 तमिलनाडु । = MAJUMDAR, A. K (July 12, 2002). "ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NOTIFICATION, O.N. 82(E)". The Gazette of India. EXTRAORDINARY : PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii). No. 61. New Delhi. REGD. NO. D. L -33004/99 : No. 56/2002(iv)/Jud. III. In pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 17 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the Election Commission ot India hereby makes the following further amendments to its Notification No. 56/2002/Jud-III, dated 10th January, 2002, as amended from time to time, namely :— [...] II. In Table III (Registered unrecognised parties), appended to the said Notification— (i) After the existing entries at serial number 584, the following entries shall be inserted under columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively column . [...] 592.; Jebamani Janata; No. 33, Second Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600004. (Tamil Nadu). @ Internet Archive in.gazette.central.e.2002-07-12.114616, in.gazette.e.2002.241.
  2. That announcement is repeated in the following English-language document: MAJUMDAR, A. K. (1 August 2002). Pal, R. P. (ed.). "GOVERNMENT OF GOA, Department of Elections, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer; from ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA: Notification, No. 56/2002/Jud.III". OFFICIAL GAZETTE, GOVERNMENT OF GOA. SERIES I. No. 18. pp. 375–376. Internet Archive in.goa.egaz.0203-18.SI.
    - These indicate that the party's name in Devanagari script is "जेबामणि जनता". I didn't find anything obviously useful from a quick Google search, but I don't speak/read Hindi (I've been relying on Google Translate, OCR, and visual clues), and I'm not sure what search engines might work best for Indian webpages in Hindi.
    - Internet Archive has 107 results for "Jebamani Janata"; I haven't bothered to go through all of them yet, just the couple of oldest ones, and then skimmed through and saw that they all looked kinda similar.
  3. Political Parties and Election Symbols. New Delhi: Publication Division, Election Commission of India. 2004. p. 47. HathiTrust mdp.39015061276674. Google Books vI-KAAAAMAAJ.
    - I don't seem to have access to this, but I did find another version online, and on p. 24, 47 it says: "TABLE — III: REGISTERED UNRECOGNISED PARTIES [...] S.No.: 323.; Name of the Registered Unrecognised Political Party: Jebamani Janata; Headquarters Address: No. 33, Second Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600004, (Tamil Nadu)"
  4. Ahuja, M. L. (2005). "Appendices". General Elections in India: Electoral Politics, Electoral Reforms, and Political Parties. p. 429. Google Books vI-KAAAAMAAJ. HathiTrust inu.30000101132953. Abbreviation: JJ; Party: Jebamani Janata
  5. "'Richest' in fray faked it". New Indian Express. 11 May 2009. Factiva NIEXPR0020090512e55b00053. Mohanraj is the son of late freedom fighter and a close associate of late leader K Kamaraj, R Jebamani. Mohanraj is heading the Jebamani Janata, a registered, but non-recognised political party.
  6. Mohan, Gopu (6 October 2011). "'Spare 3 on death row': officer who probed Rajiv case is no longer angry". national. Indian Express. Factiva AIWINE0020111006e7a60000z. Gale A268839491. NewsBank 8C87EBB2DB104CEAB04405DA52DA75FE / 2F14960F1FB68CD030. Nexis Uni 53YK-7GF1-JB35-147X-00000-00. PressReader 281805690679459. ProQuest 896368566. He floated the Jebamani Janata Party, named after his father, and has contested 15 elections to Parliament, the Assembly and the local body.
  7. "Health plagues Gandhian fasting against booze". New Indian Express. Express News Servcie. 25–26 February 2013. Factiva NIEXPR0020130228e92p0008k. Gale A320322825. Nexis Uni 57V4-SJT1-F12F-F3FK-00000-00. ProQuest 1312350565. The health condition of the 57-year-old Gandhian from Salem, Sasi Perumal, who had been on fast for the past 27 days demanding total prohibition in the State, began deteriorating on Monday. [...] Social service organisations working towards prohibition in the State — [...] and Jebamani Janata Party — expressed their solidarity with the Gandhian.
  8. "TN candidate declares Rs 1.76 lakh cr cash, Rs 4 lakh cr loan". India. Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) English. 4 April 2019. Factiva HNIANS0020190404ef44003ju. Gale A581195420. The Tribune (India) 753246. ProQuest 2202720901. Candidate for the by-election to the Perambur assembly seat in Tamil Nadu, J. Mohanraj of the Jebamani Janata party, has declared loan dues to the World Bank of Rs 4 lakh crore and cash in hand of Rs 1. 76 lakh crore. Interestingly, the Election Commission has accepted Mohanraj's affidavit and has allotted him the 'Green Chilli' symbol. [...] Sixty seven-year old, Mohanraj is the son of late Nellai R. Jebamani who was elected to the Tamil Nadu assembly from the Sattankulam constituency in 1977 as a Janata Party candidate. Mohanraj also said the upcoming one will be his 13th election contest, and that he has unsuccessfully contested the Lok Sabha and Tamil Nadu assembly elections earlier.
  9. Subramanian, Lakshmi (April 4, 2019). "Tamil Nadu's "richest" candidate dares EC to prove him wrong". The Week. Meet Mohanraj Jebamani, a retired police inspector and son of former MLA and freedom fighter Jebamani. [...] Mohanraj's father Jebamani was an MLA from the Sathankulam constituency in 1976, the election held immediately after the emergency was lifted. His father Jebamani was one of the detainees under the MISA during the emergency and was part of Morarji Desai's Janata party then. "I got voluntary retirement from the police service, because of corruption." He has named his party as Jebamani Janata Party after his father.

The sources about Nellai R. Jebamani are not directly relevant. The lists and election results are routine coverage, if that doctrine applies to this kind of article. The sources about Mohanraj clearly do not have significant coverage of the party if their only mention is something like '[...] Mohanraj of the Jebamani Janata Party [...]'. These last nine sources have some coverage of the party, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of being Significant Coverage... #1-4 are still routine coverage, and #5-9 have only very small amounts of information about the party. However, there are still some unexplored avenues for finding sources: in particular, I have not exhausted the Google Search or Internet Archive results, and I have not really tried searching in Devanagari script, just Latin script...

However, given how much I found about Mohanraj / Mohan Raj, do you think would might be notable enough? If so, I might try to pivot this article into an article about him? The sources I've found are mostly about various litigation he's filed, the false affidavits you mentioned, and a little bit of biographical information. The article I cited from The Week gives the impression of being a short biography of him.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

This seems to be the sequence of events:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

I.I.M.U.N.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maoist Communist Party (France)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found multiple sources in French which discuss the party, especially in relation to the Gilets jaunes: "Morts aux porcs": de violents tags anti-police en plein Paris, "De Rugy Escroc on te fera payer": qui est le Parti Communiste Maoïste qui revendique ce tag?, Nantes. Tags sur son mur de résidence : qui menace François de Rugy?, Vice interview with a PCM member, Montpellier: le préfet accuse des groupes révolutionnaires communistes d'infiltrer les manifestations des gilets jaunes, Droite identitaire, gauche radicale : quand les extrêmes gonflent les rangs des Gilets jaunes. Need to look at this further, but "zero" reliable sources appears incorrect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

English Young Liberals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Ottoman Hearths seems like a middle ground here. Geschichte (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Aatral Ashok Kumar

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable politician, fails WP:NPOL. also does not satisfy WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Considerably removed the unwanted section and added the Citations from the respectable source. Improved the page and kindly check it. Thanks Kandhan selvaraj (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim

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

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

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

Living Prime Ministers of India

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

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

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

Ghazi Shahzad

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [6] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [7], [8], [9], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maya Kornberg

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

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

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

Mavis Ma

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

This article seems to be written in a highly NPOV style, it almost reads like a political attack ad. I'm also not so sure this person even meets GNG and should not be considered notable through their brother(Although it is possible that I'm missing articles not in English). GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the nom that the article currently documents too many "controversies" which potentially violates NPOV. Some minor incidents, such as the subject being scolded by her father in public or her endorsements of candidates, are totally UNDUE and can certainly be removed. However, I believe most content can stay, as much of the subject's political career involved dirty work, supported by numerous sources and opinion pieces like the one from Apple Daily by Neil Peng (source 33). Although NPOV is a serious concern, AFD is not cleanup, and I do not think notability is an issue for the subject. Currently, there are more than 30 sources listed in the article, with even more in the zhwiki one. I scanned through the first 10 sources, and sources 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 all provided SIGCOV on the subject and are certainly enough to pass GNG. Not to mention a simple Google News search can already yield many full articles about the subject, such as these articles from Central News Agency[10] and ETtoday[11]. I also think that her case regarding the violation of conflict of interest should be sufficient to meet WP:PERP. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. The sources listed by Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs) and those already in the article.
2. Li, Hsin-i 李心怡 (2008-02-20). "馬以南作風大膽拆掉馬英九包裝" [[Ma Yinan's Bold Style: Unveiling the True Image of Ma Ying-jeou]. New Taiwan Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). No. 622. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "原來，馬以南一九六二年考上台大外文系之後曾轉到植病學系，因此延畢一年；原來，馬以南在一九六六年曾替一考生代考大學聯考擔任「槍手」；原來，「槍手案」爆發後，檢方以陳姓考生未考取大學為由，未起訴馬以南，連罪證確鑿的偽造文書罪都沒有，也沒有被台大退學；原來，馬以南在案子起訴前已早一步前往美國求學、申請綠卡、當美國公民；原來，中央日報刊登所有涉案人詳細資料時，可以獨漏馬以南的犯罪事實、代價金額與知情家長姓名等資料；原來，馬英九一家享盡特權，媒體、司法遇到他們都沒轍；原來，所謂家教甚嚴的家庭，竟是教出說謊、詐欺、涉嫌貪污的子女。"
  From Google Translate: "It turns out that Ma Yin-nan, after being admitted to the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan University in 1962, later transferred to the Department of Plant Pathology, which caused him to delay his graduation by one year. It turns out that in 1966, Ma Yin-nan acted as a "gunman" (substitute test-taker) for a student during the university entrance exams. It turns out that after the "gunman case" broke, the prosecutor did not indict Ma Yin-nan, citing that the student (Chen) did not get into a university, and even though there was solid evidence of forgery, he was not charged with falsifying documents, nor was he expelled from National Taiwan University. It turns out that before the case was prosecuted, Ma Yin-nan had already gone to the United States to study, applied for a green card, and became a U.S. citizen. It turns out that when the Central Daily News published detailed information about all those involved in the case, they conveniently omitted Ma Yin-nan's criminal facts, the amount of money involved, and the names of the parents who were aware of the situation. It turns out that the Ma Ying-jeou family enjoyed special privileges, with the media and the judiciary unable to do anything in the face of their influence. It turns out that the so-called "strict family upbringing" actually produced children who lied, committed fraud, and were suspected of corruption."
3. Peng, Neil (2013-10-25). "【馮光遠專欄】馬英九的門神" [【Feng Kuan-yuan's Column】Ma Ying-jeou's Gatekeeper]]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2015-09-24. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "馬以南之所以又冒出來，因為她這個門神，事業做得還真大，除了增進身體健康的一堆藥廠請她守門，戕害身體健康的假油業者也找上她，可見外戚在今日台灣是同時受到健康跟不健康企業的愛戴。"
  From Google Translate: "The reason why Ma Yinan appears again is because she is a doorkeeper and has a really big career. In addition to a lot of pharmaceutical companies that improve health, she is hired to guard the door. She is also approached by fake oil companies that harm health. It can be seen that her relatives are in Today, Taiwan is loved by both healthy and unhealthy companies."
4. Tsai, Ching-hsuan 蔡靚萱 (2010-02-03). "超完美箭靶馬以南" [An Almost Perfect Target: Mavis Ma]. Yam [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "事實上，自從馬英九於二○○八年當選總統以後，過去在助選場合、黨務、生技製藥界相當活躍的馬以南，幾乎是被迫自縛雙手、低調過日子。不但辭去民間公司職務，曾高票當選國民黨中央委員的她，在國民黨擬定○九年中央委員候選名單時，因馬英九特別請黨主席吳伯雄「不要把我大姊放進去」，宣告正式退出黨務。"
  From Google Translate: "In fact, since Ma Ying-jeou was elected president in 2008, Ma Yinan, who used to be very active in campaign events, party affairs, and the biotech and pharmaceutical industry, has been almost forced to tie his hands and live a low-key life. Not only did she resign from a private company, but she was once elected as a member of the KMT Central Committee with a high vote. When the KMT was drawing up the candidate list for the 2009 Central Committee, Ma Ying-jeou specifically asked party chairman Wu Boxiong to "don't include my eldest sister in the list." She announced her official withdrawal from the party."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mavis Ma (traditional Chinese: 馬以南; simplified Chinese: 马以南) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my searches for sources, the coverage in reliable sources largely was negative about the various controversies she has been involved in. The Wikipedia article reflects that coverage. Issues with tone and undue weight can be addressed through editing. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mukoya

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

Autobiography falling below notability guidelines. Failed attempt for a parliamentary seat does not confer notability Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Entertainment, Africa, and Kenya. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:ANYBIO / WP:POLITICIAN) criteria. Available sources are mainly user generated content and social media pages. Lack material for WP:V. QEnigma talk 08:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this does not establish or properly source any credible evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons besides an unsuccessful election campaign. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Does not meet NPOL#1 and the sources does not meet NPOL#2 either nor the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL did not get elected and Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Contesting for electoral office without winning the post does not pass WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ifeanyi Hart

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

Serving as the Director-General of a non notable organisation and being a special adviser to the governor does not meet the criteria for a politician. The sources are either press releases like this, this, this and this or pass mentioned like this and this. Therefore, all the sources cannot count toward WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable lawyer. Working with the gov't isn't notable, nor is much else I see in the article. I can't find sourcing either. This reads as a CV, an attempt at PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working PR man, lawyer. Sources does not show that it they meet the general notability criteria nor is the criteria for politicians applicable here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Shakhawat

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

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

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

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!} 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhvi Prachi

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

Got little coverage for some controversies but fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet WP:NPOL. Furthermore, they are known primarily for their controversial tweets/statements. However, they do not satisfy the WP:GNG either. Baqi:) (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for mainspace. For now it fails WP:NPOL. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 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.

Malik Basintale

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

Fails all ramifications of WP:NPOL and a cursory search does not help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Africa, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This does not fail WP:NPOL subject is the Deputy Communications Officer of the largest opposition party in Ghana who have currently won elections in Ghana. And he played a critical role in his party getting into power. There are so many third party sources about him and his work. User:Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owula kpakpo being Deputy Communications Officer of the largest opposition party in Ghana who have currently won elections in Ghana. And he played a critical role in his party getting into power does not satisfy the criteria. WP:NPOL clearly stated that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are notable. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when they say has held National Office you think being elected deputy communication officer of the biggest opposition party in Ghana now the Party elect is not a national position? Or to you national should be government appointment? I don't think that is what satisfying notability is all about. Mind you we can survey 100 Ghanaian Wikipedia editors about this subjects notability in Ghana something you lack context about. Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owula kpakpo, NPOL is about elected politicians in government offices. You do not understand how NPOL works if you think otherwise. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans, I disagree with your assertion. WP:NPOL is not limited to only elected politicians in government offices as your statement suggests. I encourage you to review it for a better understanding. -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12, This political figure does not have significant coverage about themselves. Please read the note appended on WP:NPOL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your statement NPOL is about elected politicians in government offices which I disagree. Also significant coverage here , here, here and here, which you can look up -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo Thank you for that question. National position of the WP:NPOL means the office of the head of state or head of government, members of the national legislatures, cabinet ministers and other key national roles which included Supreme Court Justices. There is no need to carry out any survey in Ghana, no original research is needed for notability. You can read it up here. I firmly believe that a deputy communication officer, not even the president, vice president, secretary, or communication officer, but a deputy communication officer does not fall into the national position stipulated in WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, per WP:NPOL, major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are also presumed notable. It is not limited to heads of state, members of national legislatures, cabinet ministers, or Supreme Court justices. -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12, the subject doesn’t meet NPOL, so, we are left with just GNG—which the sources does not demonstrate here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which you definedWP:NPOL as NPOL is about elected politicians in government offices.? -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe strongly that the subject passes WP:GNG. A search on the subject shows that there are several sources on him. Ampimd (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ampimd Yes, there are sources but most of the sources are either interview of how ladies should leave him in peace because he is in a relationship, press releases about his party's election which can be seen here and here. A two independent news media with the same contents, word for word. The rest here, here and here are either interview or press release. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The !keep voters has not provided any source to backup their claim of GNG. The criteria for NPOL isn’t clearly met here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and it will be challenging to establish the reliability of the sources included in the article per WP:BURDEN.FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources or references used can the reliability cannot be established name them so we can respond appropriately to it. Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
let's start with Graphic Online, Adam Online, GhanaWeb, and joy Online FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma, the sources you’ve mentioned—Graphic Online, Adom Online, GhanaWeb, and Joy Online—are some of the most trusted and widely recognized media outlets in Ghana. They are frequently cited as reliable sources. Could you clarify why you believe these sources are not reliable? -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Robertjamal12 ~🔔 19:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but a soft delete. A high ranking party official of the party in power may be notable even if they don't meet WP:NPOL, but I don't think the current article is quiet there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We would judge the article using GNG but it the subject does not meet the criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to the WP:NPOL, major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are presumed notable, even if they do not hold national office. Also the subject passes WP:GNG with some significant coverage here , here, here and here-- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After going through the sources in the article, and a WP:BEFORE, I'm not convinced that this article meets WP:GNG or even WP:NPOL Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Deputy communications officer is an office job, not an elected position. I'm not seeing notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b It is not accurate that a Deputy Communications Officer position is an office job here is an article stating that and the votes he won by in that national election by the National Democratic Party. Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owula kpakpo Do you even know the difference between a party election or party primary, so to say, and an actual election where a candidate from all contesting party is elected to a notable position, like a governor, senator or a president? Being elected as a “deputy” communications officer is nothing close to being NPOL-worthy. This subject is far, I mean, very far, from reaching NPOL or even GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderwaalforces, I don't know what you are referring to because I responded to a specific comment and mind you this parties primaries are national in nature consisting of thousands of voters. So if the person says its an office job no the facts don't support that. Owula kpakpo (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no idea what NPOL is about then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects