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

Great Australians Party

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only two mentions in Crikey ([1], [2]). toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic)

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

Contested PROD due to having incoming links. However, there is no evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor party, fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Lee Flores

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much can be written about the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the available information is his role for taking over the Kamuning Bakery. No information on the works that made him awarded the Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature.

See article's state (diff) prior to significant addition by a conflict of interest user Pandesalforum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment

The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Solomon Islands protests

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Oceania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the event is referenced years later, so I don't think it could be called ordinary. Wikipedia already has a WP:BIAS against events outside of Europe and North America and deleting this would exacerbate it.--User:Namiba 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY bc of User:Moondragon21, and I agree with user:Namiba's reasoning. Further, upon cursory examination it seems like a decently important event for politics in the Solomon Islands.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Albanian protests

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Bar dismissal attempt

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

Reasons:

Ronen Bar has resigned, and the question became theoretic.
At least two articles cover the topic: Ronen Bar, Qatari connection affair.
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTEMP. _Dgw|Talk 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ronen Bar. The dismissal itself is notable, but there is no need for a separate page, as opposed to a subsection of his biographical article. Per WP:NOPAGE, the information about the dismissal attempt, the resignation, and the other life information about Ronen Bar are "best collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. The sequence of events described in the article is highly unusual in Israel. Such a dismissal is a one-time occurrence. Even if he ultimately chose to resign, the chain of events remains exceptional and warrants a separate entry.Hila Livne (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something being unusual or a one-time occurrence is not a policy-based grounds for making something its own page. Lots of unusual things happen to people on a one-time basis. Even if those unusual events are notable, the question is whether having all of the information in one place would create readability, WP:UNDUE, or other similar types of concerns. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ronen Bar: This happened just over a month ago, notability hasn't been shown outside of the individual. This can be discussed in Bar's article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ronen Bar. Unnecessary fragmentation. If the Ronen Bar article would have been very long, there could have been justification for this article. It isn't long at all. gidonb (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Hila Livne (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Comer

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

I am unable to find significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Article subject appears to be a candidate in an election currently being tallied for Australian Parliament. Only source on the page as of nomination is a link to election results in progress. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article yesterday. There are now multiple sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC has declared her elected. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC currently says for me "72.6% counted, updated 17h ago. Emma Comer leads by 2,858 votes." While it's probable she will win, media houses have been wrong before. We lose nothing by waiting a few hours until the count is over. Valenciano (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes though the vote count is not complete most the new members of parliament have been confirmed elected. A number of seats are still outstanding as they are too close to call but Petrie is not one of them. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a projection by a media organisation until the count is over, so falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Valenciano (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC declares most MPs in the 2025 Australian federal election elected. The unconfirmed seats are on that page. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple organisations have now declared this candidate elected, including all major news organisations in Australia. There is a small chance that the incumbent may retain the seat, however this looks increasingly unlikely. I don't see any reason to delete the article as it will just need to be recreated next week. Activerbon (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that there are now Wikipedia pages for all candidates that have been projected as elected by the ABC, none of whom are facing deletion. See: Zhi Soon, Jess Teesdale, Madonna Jarrett and others. Activerbon (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested a redirect, per WP:PRESERVED, as that can be quickly "unredirected" when the result is confirmed. The other cases you mention fall under that too per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is heading for keep and Comer will very likely be elected, so the point is moot. Valenciano (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Division of Petrie per WP:TOOSOON, with no prejudice against recreation if the candidate's election is confirmed. This seems to be a case of jumping the gun as Comer has a narrow lead of 3% with 72% counted. @Moondragon21 while your work on these is appreciated, it's better just to wait until their election is definitively confirmed before creating the articles. Valenciano (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media calling of a race is generally good enough to determine a winner, we don't have to wait for certification. I'm pretty sure they'll be done counting by the time this closes anyway in case others want to redirect it, and we can reevaluate then if there's a suprise in the official count... Reywas92^Talk 23:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the community has not formalised at the exact moment when a candidate passes WP:NPOL by leading the vote count in an election to an office that passes WP:NPOL, there is recognition a precedent that candidates pass WP:NPOL prior to taking office, and even before the official certification of the vote. While the creation of this page may be a bit premature, we should know (as Reywas92 suggests), the final results by the time this AFD closes. Alternatively, we could send the artcle to draft space. --Enos733 (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733, for my own understanding in future, the wording of WP:NPOL states that politicians who have held international, national, or state/province-wide office are presumed to be notable. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV for this individual. Is anyone else able to find coverage or is presuming notability under this criterion enough? The note on NPOL says holding these office positions is a secondary criterion for notability. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had a note in WP:POLOUTCOMES, but in general, there is both precedent and real-world considerations to consider that a candidate that has been elected (or at-least declared the winner), meets WP:NPOL prior to taking the oath of office. I remember an AFD of a candidate who died before taking office and the community consensus was to keep the article. The real-world consideration is that readers show increased interest in electoral winners (and there is usually a flurry of articles about the winner of an election - Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie, I appreciate it, thank you! Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ABC has called it and it is never wrong about these calls.--Grahame (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The AEC website shows that Comer is the winner of the two candidate preferred vote count with 100.00% of ballot papers counted. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it doesn't say that 100% of papers have been counted. It says that 100% of the counted papers have been included in the Two Candidate Preferred (TCP) count. As of right now, no absent votes have been included, and not all of the provisional or postal votes. That said, if Antony Green (or Casey Briggs going forward) says she's elected, she probably is. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPOL, as Emma Comer has been elected to the Australian Parliament, a national legislative body. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has completed the vote count, confirming her election. Additionally, multiple independent and reliable sources have reported on her candidacy and election, satisfying the requirements of WP:GNG. Given the confirmed status and coverage, the article warrants retention. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Both the ABC and the AEC indicate that Comer is the winner of the seat of Petrie, as does every media outlet that I've seen. Even the postal votes, which might normally be expected to favour the incumbent, in this case are running in favour of Comer. Whilst it is true that the result has yet to be formally ratified, if we were to accept this methodology for Wikipedia articles, then technically there would be no Wikipedia reporting at all on the results of the 2025 election. Yes, the article is light on significant sources, although the relevant guideline emphasizes that this is an area where discretion needs to be exercised. Yes, biographical detail about Comer is also light, although this is an area where no doubt the article will be improved in time. Lismore287 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Alliance of Independent Citizens

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

Contested PROD due to being a political party. However, such organisations still have to meet WP:ORG, and there is no evidence that this one does. C 679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail organisation guidlines, not many signs of notability. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 West Sussex County Council election

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

It's too soon to know if there even will be County Council elections for West Sussex, since there's a massive reorganization going on. A draft exists if this election comes to pass. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and too soon. Lots of newly created 2026 council elections that would be better stored as drafts until coverage comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources available, and there isn't even certainty of the event going to happen. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely WP:TOOSOON. It lacks WP:SIGCOV and therefore it is not ripe enough for inclusion. I am sure that as we get closer, coverage will be done on this event but for now, there is not even one RS on the page to bolster inclusion at this point. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Nebraska gubernatorial election

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

This article doesn’t have enough reliable sources focusing on the subject and thus it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election also shows that other Wikipedians thing strong sourcing is needed for an election article. 2600:387:15:5111:0:0:0:9 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only because sources will exist, but current sources show some coverage of this election, beyond just WP:ROUTINE. Vermont is different, since that draft was declined as none of those sources relate to the actual election, just governor popularity. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because eventually there will be enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm wondering if the nominator did a WP:BEFORE search; I find it highly unlikely that there are zero sources in existence for an article about an election. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found [3] and [4]. Not THAT much but still non-routine coverage that seems significant Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found only this - granted it’s stronger then the coverage of the Vermont election, but it seems most sources aren’t talking about this election in depth yet. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am the same as the nominator IP, this dynamic IP stuff is annoying. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much doubt that this election will get coverage, even if it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that still seems like TOOSOON, doesn’t it? That’s why Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election got declined. Wikipedia can wait for their to be better sourcing. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of JTZegers. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of this article (and other similar ones), there are numerous articles specifically about this election. I won’t lie and say it’s strong, but unlike the one in Vermont (which keeps getting brought up), about half the articles focus on Nebraska. The references for the Vermont article only have a footnote about the Vermont elections. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage and sources. Notable enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this election has, much to my chagrin, already started, as shown by significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does seem to be sufficient coverage and sources to be considered notable RE WP:SIGCOV, the arguments about it being WP:TOOSOON would only be the case if there were no sources to show that it was notable which is not the case here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second presidency of Donald Trump, 2025, 2nd quarter

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

A WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Second presidency of Donald Trump. There is no reason for a split into a quarter of a year of a presidency, especially since there is nothing particularly different or independent from any other quarter or year. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 04:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sophisticatedevening:, Second presidency of Donald Trump is already at 367 K. It’s time for chapter two. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per WP:SPLIT. 76.147.66.77 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason cited by nom. The "Tariffs" section is already written in great detail in the Tariffs in the second Trump administration article. Likewise, there's nothing in the "Cabinet changes" section that is not already covered in Second cabinet of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio#Tenure as secretary, and Mike Waltz#Signal app group chat leak. — Staniu lis ✿ 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for heavens sake, delete Wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow chronicle of the the Trump administration. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need a timeline this detailed Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. JTZegers (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others and nom. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Regional Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a region within a state and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:47, 3 May 2025 (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/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:41, 3 May 2025 (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/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ladakh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman and Nicobar Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:44, 3 May 2025 (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/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. I am also nominating the following related pages because [of same reason as above]:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:30, 3 May 2025 (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/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope

kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a great argument in AfD. Those conclaves could just as easily have a list created for them if the sourcing exists. RachelTensions (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.T v x1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteriashould be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no doubt a Pope will be elected before anything can be done about this article and when one is, the list becomes basically irrelevant. The article should not outlive the conclave itself.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. I'll also take a moment to note my opinion that some sort of actual list in the article is fine. I don't want my merge vote to be used as a cudgel against any editor with an interest in writing about papabile. Wikipedians with a greater interest in the subject can in fact come up with a guideline for inclusion that does not require original research. I believe Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is fine for names to be added to and fall off such a list over time.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge with 2025 papal conclave.) I understand the instinct that we shouldn't be mucking about in the weeds here making judgement calls about who gets on the list. On other elections pages these choices are commonplace: what states/seats do you characterize as 'swing', what prognosticator's election ratings are notable enough to include in a table, or, most relevant here, who are the main candidates in a future election. See: 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (Ugh, what an unwieldy list). We have to make judgement calls sometimes, and I think the seven source requirement is a decent measure of whether someone is considered a frontrunner. Side note: without this page existing, 2025 papal conclave and Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave will go right back to getting constant edits adding, removing, tweaking the papabili list. Having it here makes it more manageable. If it balloons at least it isn't harming the other two pages. The Savage Norwegian 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thriley (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not necessary and can be in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary. If the 2013 edition could be deleted, this should. The 2013 papabili was more notable in my opinion. João^hola 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unpredictable! Please wait with writing about this until after the conclave. Happytravels (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mere speculation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - literally dozens of reliable sources from around the world, showing significant coverage. It's non-stop coverage on all the networks, newspapers, and webs. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the sources list the same cardinals as frontrunners? If not, we can't curate our own list as this page does. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stand-alone article, merge key information. Like the list articles created for previous papal conclaves, this one is highly speculative, and fails multiple Wikipedia standards, as noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge This is way to much for just speculation to have a standalone article with this much detail. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. I think there is value (that passes WP:10YEARTEST) in tracking papabili, as it reflects divisions and issues within the church. It is similar to tracking discussed candidates for political elections. That said, a separate article is overkill, and likely incomplete given that so many of the electors are discussed as papabili. So why not merge this with the electors article, perhaps just by adding a column to the table of electors tracking references for papabili discussion? Mgruhn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Auburn, Maine

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

Seems to fail NLIST, and most of its subjects seem to fail NPOL. Auburn isn't so prominent that this article is necessary either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, United States of America, and Maine. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Auburn, Maine, perhaps as a collapsible table. - --Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Auburn, Maine per above, small city under 25,000 that does not need a separate list Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree this would be more useful as a merge. This is a small city and does not warrant its own page, but this information should not be deleted either. Perhaps it can have its own section under "Notable People" on the Auburn, Maine page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Why publish a stand-alone Wikipedia article for a local shopping mall but not for a list of city mayors? -- M2545 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that we should keep this one, plus, maybe we might not want to keep that shopping mall article either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bengali teacher recruitment movement

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

It is not a significant event, unlike other movements, this is not as significant and also similar protests happen every day, check West Bengali and East Bengali (Bangladeshi) newspapers and read them, such events happen everyday but not every movement deserves a article unless the movement is significant and remembered even after one month of the protest/riot/movement/uprising. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and West Bengal. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Show me how this is relevant and enough for a article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every sentence here is supported by a reliable source. 14 sources are enough for this short article. Somajyoti ✉ 12:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Explain properly how It's enough for a separate article, similar movements have occurred every day with even 40 sources and news channels mentioning them, what matters is relevance and then notability, check 2018 Bangladesh quota reform movement, it left a result and impact, did this movement leave a similar impact? Regular clashes and movements against type of teachers have also occurred 30 times in Bangladesh in only November 2024, give a proper explanation. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is undoubtedly a notable and meaningful event. Protests like this don’t happen every day. Incidents like this don’t occur daily in West Bengal. If they do happen and newspapers report them-that is, they can be cited from reliable sources-then separate articles will certainly be created from them. Here, the deaths of two people and mentions of many others being injured are included and for this short article, fourteen sources have been cited which is sufficient. If other editors add more text to the article, then they will surely add more sources as well. Somajyoti ✉ 12:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do, in such a massive area with previous incidents of unrest, protests can occur, please say how this left a impact, then I will be convinced after you show its impact and relevance. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Vandalism Somajyoti ✉ 20:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Politics, and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's difficult to fully ascertain whether this had a lasting impact in Bangladesh as I don't speak the language. That said, the articles cited and machine translated articles seem to point to in-depth coverage. Per WP:PRESERVE, this article should be kept and improved. @User:Somajyoti a more descriptive may be helpful for english wikipedia's audience which is likely not too familiar with protests in Bangladesh. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was in West Bengal, not Bangladesh, can you translate the sources? Plus if anyone shows how this movement was impactful, please say, I'll be convinced. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Somajyoti passes WP:GNG.Major event in West Bengal.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Danish acquisition of California

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

Delete or Redirect to American_expansionism_under_Donald_Trump#Danish_and_Greenlandic_reactions. This is a classic case of turning confusing existence with notability and goes against what Wikipedia is not (in this case not a newspaper). All the citations were published the same day. As such, this does not have lasting coverage. I also believe that this event fails WP:EVENT inclusion criteria #4 specifically as this is a viral phenomena. It is WP:TRUMPCRUFT-adjacent as much like not everything Trump says deserves an article, not every response to what he says deserves an article either. Mpen320 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 19 references in the article, are they genuinely not enough?🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. My nomination does not ding it for quantity of references. It is that the event does not meet WP:EVENT.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then I say that it should be converted to a redirect. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A facetious reponse, not anything serious. Obviously does not need a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reactionary article that does not demonstrate WP:LASTING notability Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Between WP:NOTNEWS and the inability of anyone here, apparently, to write a sentence where three paragraphs would do, this is a hugely WP:UNDUE prose dump about an extremely brief snark-back at Trump's assertion about Greenland. Heck the Gulf-of-Anything-But-Mexico snarkage had a longer span; they lasted maybe two weeks. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere close to a lasting impact, this didn't even get through a single news cycle. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Students Union

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

Non-notable organisation. No reliable sources. Fails WP:N and would seem unlikely to ever meet it. Cabrils (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - PSU, previously AIPSU, is active since 1950s, and has played a significant role in student politics in Kerala, West Bengal and, to some extent, Tripura. But it's an organization that is now well past its heydays, and its online footprint isn't great. I note this "RSP did not fail to cast its net wide enough to reach the student community . Its student wing is called PSU or Progressive Students ' Union . In pre - partition days , RSP student leaders who worked hand in hand with the All India Students Congress , took part in the struggles against the British Raj . They joined demonstrations for the release of INA prisoners , observed Rashid Ali Day , and campaigned against communal riots . But they had no alliance with the student cadres of the CPI . In post - independence period , All Bengal Students Congress adopted a policy of all out support to the Congress Govt . and the RSP found it increasingly difficult to support this rightwing leadership . Hence in 1956 , the PSU came into existence . The students belonging to the PSU upheld the cause of universal education , democratic management of schools and colleges , more budgetary allocation of funds for education etc. The PSU sent volunteers for the liberation of Goa , organised relief squads for the refugees , protested against the increase in school fees and undemocratic Bill for the Board of secondary Education . Sourindra Nath Bhattacharya , Bijan Biswas , Prof. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya were prominent student leaders of the RSP . Banin Ray , Kshiti Goswami were also in the limelight for many years . But the PSU was never considered a very strong force in West Bengal student movement ." (Marxist Parties of West Bengal in Opposition and in Government, 1947-2001 (p. 88))

Another ref is [https://ia601504.us.archive.org/4/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.131364/2015.131364.The-Politics-Of-Scarcity_text.pdf The Politics of Scarcity (p. 181) by Myron Weiner "Two other student movements claim national coverage, the Progressive Students Union, sponsored by the Marxist-left, and the Socialist-sponsored Socialist Student Organization. The PSU was started in 1954 and claims thousands of members in Calcutta and tens of thousands nationally. Like members of the Youth Congress and AISF, they arc active in attempting to gain control of the various college unions, and have succeeded in a few of the Calcutta colleges. They participated in the 1954 teachers’ movement for higher wages, sent volunteers to the Goa satyagraha campaign, and agitated against the attempt to merge the states of Bihar and West Bengal. In 1955 the PSU agitated against raising tuition fees, and in 1957 they participated in the protest against high food prices. The PSU is strongest in Calcutta, as arc the other student groups in Bengal, and is less active in the rural schools and colleges. Its most active workers, like those of the Marxist-left parties that give it support, have come from East Bengal."

I'd argue this is a case of WP:NEXIST, where it is clear that if we had access to regional print media from Kerala and Bengal from 1950s, 1960s, 1970s etc we'd have plenty of material to use as source. We do find some proxies of this online, such as [5], [6] The Telegraph (on conflict at a college in WB), The Telegraph (report on a 2 day district conf attended by state minister), [https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/rsp-sets-terms-for-election-alliance/cid/842288, a school gherao (2005). On participation is Bengal refugee movement, The Marginal Men: The Refugees and the Left Political Syndrome in West Bengal (p. 383). Per non-WP:RS source AIPSU won 1969 student elections in West Bengal in 5 colleges. AIPSU also produced many of the RSP national leaders, such as T. J. Chandrachoodan and Kshiti Goswami. --Soman (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2025 article in Ananda Bazar Patrika on the 23rd West Bengal PSU conference. 2022 article in Ananda Bazar Patrika on election of new West Bengal leadership of PSU. --Soman (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chhatra League's guest room practice

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

Violation of WP:NPOV, thousands of similar organizations but no similar articles, thus this can be deleted and the text should be attached with Bangladesh Chhatra League. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer "Macarius Ibne Mito" who comments below is actually the nominator, BangladeshiEditorInSylhet. They changed their signature for part of this discussion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Asia, and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current article quality isn't relevant for AfD. Cortador (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ double vote by nominator - Please explain properly just about the article and why it deserves to be a separate article, I don't see how it deserves to be a separate article. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my job. It is the job of the nominator to make a case why a given article doesn't have sufficient sourcing. Cortador (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is not a violation of WP:NPOV; the content cannot be merged to the Bangladesh Chhatra League because doing so would make that article excessively long. Somajyoti ✉ 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was i saying that you should add every drop of information as listed in the article? Merge some information, not all, merge the important parts. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Vandalism Somajyoti ✉ 19:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think nominator is misunderstanding what SIGCOV means. You have proposed the deletion of several articles, and almost all of them had SIGCOV.

If you check this references of this article, you will understand that it is not just about some incidents; rather than independent sources have analyzed the topic itself—explaining what the Chhatra League's guest room culture is, how it works, and the depth of the torture involved. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 18:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a violation of WP:NPOV and notable subject. Mehedi Abedin 12:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTABLE, does not seem to violate WP:NPOV Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat?
Keep: This nomination appears unnecessary. The article is already well-cited and clearly meets notability guidelines. Chronos.Zx (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a notable enough topic to keep and meets the criteria for SIGCOVGjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot PROD this since it has been deleted twice. Sources seem to all be same as those from prior discussions, nothing has changed to indicate more notability. Still falls under WP:TOOSOON Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Manipur. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: once we get closer to the election the page can be created at YEAR Manipur Legislative Assembly Election but there is no reason to create a vague page like this with no certain information. I could (but won't) create the page 2036 US Presidential Election because it will happen, but there is no content for it. And the fact that this has been deleted twice and recreated twice along with similar articles for other Next Indian elections is why salt. Moritoriko (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:G4. We AFD'd this 2 times already.Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a way of seeing what it looked like at the time of its previous deletions? How do we know that G4 applies? Moritoriko (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be the same, the second source was published after the previous discussion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, possible Salting so it can't be recreated yet again at the wrong time. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Majayjay local elections

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

Declined PROD with promise to improve refs. Added references do not indicate anything more than results or routine coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Bali gubernatorial election

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

Declined PROD with the reasoning that it has been scheduled for 2029. Does not show significant coverage and is WP:TOOSOON Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Everywiki as an article creator Indonesianinfo2 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting please see notice, now. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event that is TOOSOON, no coverage and any content about the current position holder is CRYSTALBALL speculation assuming they are running, so that part could be challenged as un-encyclopedic and not verfiied, and then we're left with an empty article describing the date about something happening in the future, which always fails TOOSOON. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Too soon for create this article where it is not yet certain whether the candidate will advance in the election (WP:V). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 02:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Central Java gubernatorial election

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

WP:TOOSOON, two opinion polls have been conducted and all potential candidates are WP:OR as far as i can tell Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No SIGCOV, TOOSOON.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Agree with assessments that it is WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Too soon for create this article where it is not yet certain whether the candidate will advance in the election (Fails WP:V). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 02:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's hard to define when something is too soon, but I know it when I see it. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Generally, its not good for us to carry articles for elections years in advance. It's often too soon and leads to some crystal-esque behavior.

-Samoht27 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 West Bengal Panchayat elections

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

WP:TOOSOON, no sources seem to focus on the election specifically. Could be re-created once election gets coverage later on Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not only too soon, but "it's" typos are too many to fix. Bearian (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 West Bengal Municipal election

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

WP:TOOSOON, nothing I can find covers this. Was previously moved to draft Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon and no reliable, significant coverage of the future election available. Good candidate for WP:PROD. Not sure why there would be a section about voter turnout in an election that is 2 years away. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. @Yoblyblob I think these types of pages are good candidates for WP:PROD or WP:MULTIAFD so AfD doesn't get too cluttered.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz I will tag these with PROD in the future Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. B-Factor (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Siliguri Municipal Corporation election

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON, no coverage about the actual election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree this is too soon and I can't find any reliable coverage about the election. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. B-Factor (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Indian general election in Pondicherry

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

Fails WP:gng , wp:n Jabba550 (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment noting that the page started with just a link and has had more info put on however I had put the non-AfD tag on the page (The one that removes the page after 7 days of the tag being there) and the page creator removed it Jabba550 (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No case has been made why the existing sources are insufficient. Cortador (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you can't just state a rule and then provide no justification. I'm willing to change me vote if evidence is presented. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on a technical basis: I'm not sure what reason is given for deletion. A single election can be notable. The sources aren't great, but appear to barely show notable results. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Marilao local elections

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

Cannot find anything through searches for Marilao 2025 elections, lots of social media posts and that is about it. Found page while going through NPP backlog Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Trinidad and Tobago general election

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

WP:TOOSOON. The election won't take place for another 5 years; we don't even know who the candidates are. Obviously can't find any sources talking about this upcoming election. ApexParagon (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage at all. Definitely too soon Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Trinidad and Tobago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definately WP:TOOSOON, and absolutely no sources or WP:SIGCOV as of now. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be WP:TOOSOON, there are no links at all, it is a sentence long and that one sentence states that the election will not be in another five years. Maybe once there are sources to support it to bolster its notability it can be put on but this would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election a page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election

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

Article consists of local news outlets and social media posts exclusively. No sort of state-wide coverage sources that would make this notable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Marlborough is too small for its mayor to be presumptively notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Individual mayoral elections fall well below the bar. Ravenswing 04:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small-city elections are almost never notable. Unless there are truly unusual events, they don't receive substantial coverage, just run-of-the-mill coverage in local sources. They also don't tend to have sustained coverage. This election does not seem to be an exception from these general rules. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to fall short of notability. If every single mayor election from every town is included, this will create page bloat. Unless there is something particularly special or notable about this election, it shouldn't be included. Also, there are not a lot of prominent RSes talking about this election either. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete 2+ years have passed and this was not even notable when it first was possible of becoming notable. There is nothing new that is going to be reported on related to this small town election, not now, and not down the road. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Mapandan local elections

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

Non-notable local election for municipality of under 40,000. Sources are primary and no significant coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage about this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 01:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mapandan local elections

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

No cited sources cover the election at much length, and was not able to find much through searching. Election for small municipality of under 40,000, and relies on social media sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page author has placed a comment on this discussion talk page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Wigtown District Council election

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

Taking to AfD over PROD because hard to find sources. I could not find anything from searches in this seemingly small district area. Rationale is a non-notable election in a local area Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hard to find sources," such is the way with Scottish local elections. https://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Scottish-District-Elections-1977.pdf contains the results to the election. As with the 1980 page, I guess ward results, or a newspaper article from the time could also be included. These elections, although small in electors, are very important to Scotland's political story, especially in rural areas. Scotland's rural areas have a history of voting for non-partisan local independents, that is only now being challenged. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should note I am willing to improve these pages, if that is what you are getting at... SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpeysideWikipedian sources should indicate significant and lasting coverage, which is important with local elections more than anything. Not every small election necessarily deserves a page. Feel free to improve the article with coverage that shows that, but primary sources with only results would not count towards that. This applies to your comment on the other AfD too Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I do not think that is a valid reason to delete this page. Leave the page up and myself and others can improve them. Leave it with a needs sources tag and people such as @Stevie fae Scotland will help improve them I'm sure. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to improve every pre 1995 local election page with a similar structure + ward results + newspaper/article as 1974 Tweeddale District Council election would that be sufficient? SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that page shows significant coverage meeting GNG in my opinion Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, work needs done for every page is what I am saying, this is a large project. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my argument is not every one of these small elections deserves a page. They could also be merged into a wider local election page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. Where would you draw the line though? Does each Glaswegian council election deserve its own page just because more people happen to live in Glasgow? How would such a move to a single page be implemented? SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a precedent for this elsewhere? If the only way these results can be preserved on the wiki is for a mass merger to happen then surely there is an example from another country perhaps? SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps also a wider discussion amongst other local election editors is needed too. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure of other precedent, but it is a solution since these small elections are seemingly not notable on their own. Going on WP:NOTDATABASE, just because there are results available for something, does not mean that it deserves a page of it's own. A merge to a page for elections, in this case to a 1977 Scottish local elections in Dumfries and Galloway page would potentially establish notability for all these elections as a whole Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would need more input from others before deciding. If that is the way to establish notability I am happy to merge lesser notable pages into a regional district results page. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. I unfortunately don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive any more but a simple search without even looking at any pages shows the importance of the district elections at the time - it was front page news. The results for individual district councils were carried in national newspapers. Unfortunately, the BNA doesn't have any papers from Dumfries and Galloway in May 1977 to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 164 district councils at 2024 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. It should probably be kept. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Wigtown District Council election

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

Seemingly completely uncontested election that I could not find substantitive info on through searches, only vague references. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Seemingly completely uncontested election"? Some of the wards were contested, just not by members of a formal political party, only by independents. Having only independents standing was pretty common in rural areas in Scotland throughout this time period. Perhaps ward results could be added to indicate that some wards were contested.

I understand there is limited sources available, but https://www.electionscentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Scottish-District-Elections-1980.pdfcontains the results to the election. Probably also included in regional/national newspapers of the time but, alas, most archives are locked behind a paywall.

Therefore, I think it should be kept, unless you want to also delete most other Scottish local election pages, for rural areas, from after the reorganisation to ~1995. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not presumed coverage for local elections of small municipality areas, especially uncontested ones Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regional newspapers would have something if not result coverage from the time. I managed to find coverage about Moray Council results from 1984, albeit Moray is larger. Obviously would take time to do this every page but would be possible. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. I unfortunately don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive any more but a simple search without even looking at any pages shows the importance of the district elections at the time - it was front page news. The results for individual district councils were carried in national newspapers. Unfortunately, the BNA doesn't have any papers from Dumfries and Galloway in May 1980 to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 164 district councils at 2024 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. It should probably be kept. SpeysideWikipedian (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Japan)

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous discussion outlines the reasons for this well. It is not an official position in Japan and is not viewed as one in Japan either. No Japanese page similarly drives this point well Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete no refs that define the term. I checked a several refs, and they are fake or non-RS or broken. At best, they say "Yamada Gombei is the leader of the main oppo party", but it does not say he is an opposition leader. --Altenmann >talk 00:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the page itself says, this is not a legal position in Japan. Given the paucity of sources, the rationale from the previous AfD still applies. JMWt (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drawing on the prior history of the AfD and the rationale that there is no such term or related page in Japanese Wikipedia then why do we have one on English Wikipedia?Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Sri Lankan presidential election

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

WP:TOOSOON, election will probably take place in ~5 years, cannot find anything on the next election specifically. Not a language I speak so if someone who knows much about the language could see what they can find. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete; as you mentioned, there aren't many sources about the election itself as it's just too far away, much WP:CRYSTAL vibes, but let's see what other editors think. Not Wlwtn (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was originally titled "2029 Sri Lankan presidential election", but was renamed "Next Sri Lankan presidential election" following a discussion on the article's talk page. I wish to draw attention to the following deletion discussion and the comments made therein, for reference. The same principles apply to this article. Sri Lanka has held regular elections since gaining independence and regular presidential elections since the first in 1982. In this context, the application of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL is somewhat ambiguous. The current president is eligible to seek a second term and under the Constitution of Sri Lanka, is authorised to call an election after completing four years of his current and first term. Regardless of whether this takes place, the next presidential election must be held no earlier than one month and no later than two months before the expiry of the incumbent's five-year term. At present, this article and several others are maintained as future elections, i.e., Next United Kingdom general election and Next Indian general election. The following categories are maintained for this pupose: Category:Future elections in Asia, Category:Future elections, etc. Therefore, this article should be treated in the same manner. It could be redirected to List of Sri Lankan presidential elections, but it would not be a fair position as references/sources have been provided to support maintaining this article and also provide historical context. QEnigma talk 04:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is standard practice to create articles for next elections as soon as the current election is over, even if the date isn't known e.g. Next United Kingdom general election was created on the day of the 2024 United Kingdom general election and survived an Afd with an avalanche of Keep votes. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Delete per WP:TOOSOON, though this could obviously change if the sources are published that solidify notability. Though that will not likely happen for at least several more years, which is also exactly why WP:TOOSOON applies. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, case of WP:TOOSOON. Dan arndt (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public Citizen Texas

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

Subject does not appear notable as a standalone article, just because it is a branch of a notable organization. I would recommend delete or redirect to Public Citizen. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO, I do think there is also a COI issue by usernames TruthTexan and OP CitizenDC, which have names obviously in favor of Public Citizen Texas ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptree Residents Association

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

I see no evidence that this organizations meets WP:NCORP, which is the applicable threshold for organizations. The coverage is fleeting and hyper-local. We don't even have an article for the council on which the only successful candidates from this group served. The only source currently in the article is from a different political party, and offers nothing more than a passing mention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How and why was this page made? Notablen't. Moritoriko (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the least notable pages I have seen. There are no RSes and if every single group/association ever was given its own page, it would cause a page glut. If we can find more sources for it, that is a different story but for now, this is not worth keeping. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Frank Ken (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they basically did one thing 43 years ago. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Tiptree Residents Association lacks sufficient independent, reliable coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards for organizations. While it has participated in local elections. This involvement alone does not establish notability without significant coverage in reliable sources. The existing references are limited and do not provide detailed information about the organization's activities or impact. The article's content is minimal and does not offer substantial information beyond basic election participation. Without more comprehensive sources detailing the organization's history and achievements, it does not meet the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia article. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2025 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election

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

No evidence of notability, all I can find on this are old sources from 2023 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small-city elections are almost never notable. Unless there are truly unusual events, they don't receive substantial coverage, just run-of-the-mill coverage in local sources. They also don't tend to have sustained coverage. This election does not seem to be an exception from these general rules. I would also support deletion of 2023 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election for the same reason - nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to fall short of notability. If every single mayor election from every town is included, this will create page bloat. Unless there is something particularly special or notable about this election, it shouldn't be included. Also, there are not a lot of prominent RSes talking about this election either. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Sol Foundation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [7] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [8], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [9], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [10]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References

I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:

* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [11] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [12] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."

How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.

The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.

Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [13] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?

Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733

Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [14].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:

I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:

EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.

EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap

https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348

https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/

https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928

https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/

https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed

https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484

https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[15]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
"I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...
Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.
WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.
Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.
Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”
Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.
Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.
Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.
Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.
Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.
Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [16], etc.) and on X (e.g. [17], [18], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.

Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|^✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [24] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [25]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:

PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.

As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding them later:

Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [26] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).

In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodel Jayme

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

The person representing in this article gained attention only due to the Bikoy videos. I cannot find other significant events related to this person outside the Bikoy videos which will make him notable to have an article. The sources in this article do not deep dive into who the person is, only his involvement to the controversy. Outside the controversy section of the article, other sections detailing his background are unsourced (I cannot even find reliable sources to support those info). Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Centcom08 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found past 2019, this doesn't appear to have much of an impact. I don't see lasting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Johnson (conspiracy theorist)

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

Coverage is simple fact-check sources and routine coverage. No lasting notability that I can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and United States of America. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Conspiracy theories, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching is tough due to his common name, but a targeted search in conjunction with some of his theories reveals that he is only present in his own online manifestos and occasionally mentioned by similarly-inclined kooks. I suggest that he formulate a new theory on how he does not qualify for a Wikipedia article because the lamestream media conspired to never report on his theories because they can't handle the truth. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 United States presidential election#Campaign issues – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a viable ATD if he is mentioned at the target article, and he isn't. Just one of thousands who contributed to that tomfoolery, and even less notable than most. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. Not notable enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ende Gelände 2020

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

Not special enough to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Poland

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless you clean up all small chapters of Volt, in fact being active registered associations, by your arbitrary argument of being unrecognized by wider public, you cannot clean up solely Volt Poland. Daeheung (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Side note: article also being currently discussed in deletion context on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:04:25:Volt Polska). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you, although from my standpoint this creates a pattern of arbitral inconsistency since there's other national chapters of Volt also operating as associations and not yet parties with their own Wiki pages. The article is going to be recreated anyway once the association registers as a party. "Other stuff exists" refers to comparisons understood in a wider sense than literal corresponding chapters of the same multinational organization. Daeheung (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be deleted again if there is no WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources. Not all entities registered as parties are notable. Only the "important" ones. As for inconsistency, sure. Folks spam articles on Wikipedia trying to promote niche concepts, we keep deleting them, but it takes time to clean up spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Volt Europa. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Condi movement

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

Im getting WP:NOPAGE, could be easily summarized at the article of the subject. Searches find no sustained coverage, with most sources cited either being unrelated to the event, very few actually cover the movement. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Condoleezza Rice#Speculation on political future. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Any update of 9 years' delay makes this WP:TNT-able. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests

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

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion here, but deletion seems unnecessary, better to merge to 2022 Montenegrin crisis. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Montenegrin crisis: The infobox on that page is even titled pro-government protests so these seem to be more or less the same events. The page is also desperately in need of being updated so I might take that up. (or at least updating the language) Moritoriko (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, probably shouldn't be deleted but notable enough for mention in parent article. GoldRomean (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have more look into the ATDs suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Reconstruction Front

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

not notable, no sources, this is a dictionary entry, not a wikipedia article Yilku1 (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article would benefit from an expansion, but in regard to notability specifically, it had coverage in local press because it was the product of a failed coup and won seats in the 2006 Haitian general election. Example source in French. Yue🌙 08:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article could, and should be expanded much more than it is now, but seeing that it has won seats in the Haitian chamber of deputies, I would argue it meets notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Samoht27 and @Eddie891-- AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough. I also found RS. The article in French Wikipedia has more sources too. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Chris Wilkinson-Smith

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

Clearly promotional BLP filled with puffery. The only indication of notability is the article's assertion that the subject was appointed to a quasi-governmental office of "crown solicitor". The position is of so little notability that we don't have an article on it; and regardless, the cited source only states that the article's subject was briefly acting in the role and did not formally hold it. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Zealand. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie-Ann Seon

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. I did make an attempt at locating additional secondary sources and was unsuccessful. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This is a ridiculous nomination. Seon is the president of the senate of a country for cry out loud. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per WP:NPOL. --hroest 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:POLITICIAN as president and member of a national legislature as mentioned here. Being namechecked in a national address by the Prime Minister also points to this person being a notable figure in Grenadian politics, as do other things like being deputy chair of a Covid investigation committee. Article needs expanded. Valenciano (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Grenada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. according to reliable sources cited in the article, this person is the "president of the senate" for Grenada. This passes WP:NPOL. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As President of the Senate, meets WP:NPOL -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Islam Bulbul

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN. No significant coverage found in reliable, independent sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 08:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Rokas

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

it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. The content is minimal and promotional in nature, offering little encyclopedic value. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Michalis Rokas meets Wikipedia’s WP:NBIO and WP:NPOL criteria. He is a senior career diplomat within the European External Action Service, having held multiple head-of-mission roles representing the EU in Malaysia, New Zealand (as Chargé d’Affaires), and currently in North Macedonia. His appointments were publicly announced by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, indicating high-level political relevance. He has been regularly cited in independent and reliable media sources across Europe and Asia (e.g. Bernama, Free Malaysia Today, MIA, European Newsroom), and his role has direct bearing on EU enlargement and trade negotiations (e.g. EU–Malaysia FTA). Furthermore, the article is well-sourced with references from EEAS and major news outlets. The subject is notable as a top-ranking EU official shaping external relations. InfoWanderer (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial, not deepening, nothing notable. Α diplomat just doing his job. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the nomination and your assessment were based on a very early draft of the article, created just hours before substantial improvements were made. Since then, the article has been significantly expanded with independent, reliable sources and verifiable content. I would appreciate it if you could revisit the current version before drawing a final conclusion.InfoWanderer (talk) InfoWanderer (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Francis Schenck

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

This subject fails WP:NPOL as a local elected official; local mayors must meet WP:GNG, which is also not met. The sources are all trivial and passing mentions: [27] (a more accessible version of the Graves source), [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. No reliable source is provided for Schenck's dates/places of birth and death but they appear to be generated from Find a Grave (with the wrong month/date order in the infobox), which is a WP:USERGENERATED source. My WP:BEFORE search turned up no WP:SIGCOV for the necessary GNG pass. Draftification was contested, so here we are at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Death Certificate was used to source the Birth/Death dates, I have included that as a reference (please fix my citation if formatted incorrectly), I have also fixed the formatting of the dates in the infobox. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That death certificate is a primary source via WP:FAMILYSEARCH. It certainly can't contribute to the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it contributed notability, you claimed my information came from Find a grave, it is from the official death certificate. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, an online search for those dates did not turn up privately accessed documents on Family Search, only Findagrave. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the certificate on Family Search just for reference: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9Y1M-3T4N?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AK394-7YM&action=view&cc=1983324&lang=en&groupId=TH-1942-25170-55505-85 Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Comer

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

I am unable to find significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Article subject appears to be a candidate in an election currently being tallied for Australian Parliament. Only source on the page as of nomination is a link to election results in progress. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article yesterday. There are now multiple sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC has declared her elected. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC currently says for me "72.6% counted, updated 17h ago. Emma Comer leads by 2,858 votes." While it's probable she will win, media houses have been wrong before. We lose nothing by waiting a few hours until the count is over. Valenciano (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes though the vote count is not complete most the new members of parliament have been confirmed elected. A number of seats are still outstanding as they are too close to call but Petrie is not one of them. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a projection by a media organisation until the count is over, so falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Valenciano (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC declares most MPs in the 2025 Australian federal election elected. The unconfirmed seats are on that page. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple organisations have now declared this candidate elected, including all major news organisations in Australia. There is a small chance that the incumbent may retain the seat, however this looks increasingly unlikely. I don't see any reason to delete the article as it will just need to be recreated next week. Activerbon (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that there are now Wikipedia pages for all candidates that have been projected as elected by the ABC, none of whom are facing deletion. See: Zhi Soon, Jess Teesdale, Madonna Jarrett and others. Activerbon (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested a redirect, per WP:PRESERVED, as that can be quickly "unredirected" when the result is confirmed. The other cases you mention fall under that too per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is heading for keep and Comer will very likely be elected, so the point is moot. Valenciano (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Division of Petrie per WP:TOOSOON, with no prejudice against recreation if the candidate's election is confirmed. This seems to be a case of jumping the gun as Comer has a narrow lead of 3% with 72% counted. @Moondragon21 while your work on these is appreciated, it's better just to wait until their election is definitively confirmed before creating the articles. Valenciano (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media calling of a race is generally good enough to determine a winner, we don't have to wait for certification. I'm pretty sure they'll be done counting by the time this closes anyway in case others want to redirect it, and we can reevaluate then if there's a suprise in the official count... Reywas92^Talk 23:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the community has not formalised at the exact moment when a candidate passes WP:NPOL by leading the vote count in an election to an office that passes WP:NPOL, there is recognition a precedent that candidates pass WP:NPOL prior to taking office, and even before the official certification of the vote. While the creation of this page may be a bit premature, we should know (as Reywas92 suggests), the final results by the time this AFD closes. Alternatively, we could send the artcle to draft space. --Enos733 (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733, for my own understanding in future, the wording of WP:NPOL states that politicians who have held international, national, or state/province-wide office are presumed to be notable. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV for this individual. Is anyone else able to find coverage or is presuming notability under this criterion enough? The note on NPOL says holding these office positions is a secondary criterion for notability. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had a note in WP:POLOUTCOMES, but in general, there is both precedent and real-world considerations to consider that a candidate that has been elected (or at-least declared the winner), meets WP:NPOL prior to taking the oath of office. I remember an AFD of a candidate who died before taking office and the community consensus was to keep the article. The real-world consideration is that readers show increased interest in electoral winners (and there is usually a flurry of articles about the winner of an election - Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okie dokie, I appreciate it, thank you! Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ABC has called it and it is never wrong about these calls.--Grahame (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The AEC website shows that Comer is the winner of the two candidate preferred vote count with 100.00% of ballot papers counted. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it doesn't say that 100% of papers have been counted. It says that 100% of the counted papers have been included in the Two Candidate Preferred (TCP) count. As of right now, no absent votes have been included, and not all of the provisional or postal votes. That said, if Antony Green (or Casey Briggs going forward) says she's elected, she probably is. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPOL, as Emma Comer has been elected to the Australian Parliament, a national legislative body. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has completed the vote count, confirming her election. Additionally, multiple independent and reliable sources have reported on her candidacy and election, satisfying the requirements of WP:GNG. Given the confirmed status and coverage, the article warrants retention. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Both the ABC and the AEC indicate that Comer is the winner of the seat of Petrie, as does every media outlet that I've seen. Even the postal votes, which might normally be expected to favour the incumbent, in this case are running in favour of Comer. Whilst it is true that the result has yet to be formally ratified, if we were to accept this methodology for Wikipedia articles, then technically there would be no Wikipedia reporting at all on the results of the 2025 election. Yes, the article is light on significant sources, although the relevant guideline emphasizes that this is an area where discretion needs to be exercised. Yes, biographical detail about Comer is also light, although this is an area where no doubt the article will be improved in time. Lismore287 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole White

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria.
The attempted notability claim as a politician is that she was the first out LGBTQ candidate in a provincial election in her province, while the notability claim as an activist is that she was one of the several people who challenged Saskatchewan's marriage laws in the short time between Halpern and the Civil Marriage Act. But as always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to show that they were already notable for other reasons independently of the candidacy.
However, the "first LGBTQ candidate" thing is completely unreferenced and unverified (and note that we have seen more than one case in the past of people who were claimed as "first member of X minority group to do a thing" who turned out, upon investigation, to have been preceded by other people the article's creator just hadn't heard of, so we can't just take random internet users' word for it without sourcing), so that's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing — and it's questionable whether it would even be all that historically significant even if it were verifiable, given that her province had already elected at least two out LGBTQ municipal councillors (and one MLA who admittedly wasn't out at the time but came out later) before her.
Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage lawsuit is referenced solely to a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a magazine article about the overall case, rather than any significant coverage devoted specifically to her own personal role in it, and the rest of the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. And, for added bonus, none of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit have Wikipedia articles at all (not even the one who was also one of the city councillors whose time in office preceded White's campaign), and this article does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that White was somehow more individually notable than any of the others. And even on a WP:BEFORE search, about all I can find is a small blip of WP:BLP1E coverage upon her recent reception of an award that still isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant notability freebie in and of itself on a person who's otherwise poorly sourced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems this is the same person that got this award? It seems just this Governor General's Awards would make her pass GNG. It also seems like she is notable for In 2021, Nicole’s tireless advocacy during her pregnancy resulted in the removal of the requirement for parents to be biologically related to be listed on their child’s birth certificate, aptly named “Alice’s Law” in honour of her daughter. I also think the profile in Sasktoday is enough for WP:RS. --hroest 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source, and the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case is not the same thing as the high-level Governor General's Awards in literature or the performing arts. It would be a valid notability claim if the article were well-sourced, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this is the same person [33], but it alone isn't enough for notability. Rest of the sources now in the article aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did some further analysis on this subject and the main news stories over the last few years: [34] [35][36] [37] [38] [39] [40][41][42][43] and of these I believe the following have WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS:

three in-depth profiles, one of which is the subject (CBC)

in depth profile in CKOM

In-depth profile in Sasktoday

-- overall I see 10 news articles in RS that quote her / interview her of which there are three which contain in-depth profiles of her specifically. Together with the awards, three good sources and a bunch of other mentions/interviews should be more than enough for GNG. --hroest 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people can show enough local human interest coverage in their own hometown media to claim that they passed WP:GNG, without actually having any meaningful notability claim that would be expected to enshrine them in an international encyclopedia for posterity — so GNG doesn't just count the number of media hits you can find on a person, and also takes into account the context of what that coverage is being given for. Sources that quote or interview her, for example, are not support for notability, per WP:INTERVIEWS, so most of those links aren't doing anything to help — and of the three you identified as the most substantive, they amount to local human interest coverage in Saskatoon, and aren't supporting anything that would constitute a nationalized or internationalized notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branny Schepanovich

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim.
As always, unsuccessful candidates for political office are not notable on that basis per se, and get articles only if they can be properly demonstrated to have established notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway -- but this basically just says that he had a law career without saying anything about it that would constitute a meaningful notability claim as a lawyer, and is "referenced" solely to his paid-inclusion obituary in the local newspaper rather than any meaningful reliable source coverage about him and his work.
A prior deletion discussion in 2011 landed "keep" on the grounds of claims that he had sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the sources brought to bear in that discussion consisted entirely of sources that namechecked him, mostly as a party spokesman providing soundbites to the media in articles about the party, rather than being about him in any meaningful sense -- but we've long since deprecated that type of sourcing as not contributing to notability, and none of it ever actually found its way into the article at all anyway.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but we need to see sources in which he's the subject of the coverage, not just sources that quote him as a spokesman, to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:NPOL and lacks WP:V. Svartner (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment he is described as a prominent Alberta Liberal and he was on the board (?) of Air Canada, however I could not find an obituary in regional newspapers as one would expect for such a "prominent" figure. It seems he was never elected in the party or party leader, but head of many internal committees. --hroest 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Hanly

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

Article about a smalltown (pop. 6K) municipal councillor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local/municipal level of office are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to show a substantial volume and depth of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to demonstrate a reason why they should be considered special cases of more nationalized significance than most other municipal councillors -- but this essentially just states that he exists, and is referenced almost entirely to sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of the town council and his own campaign, and a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about the municipal budget vote.
The only source that's actually both independent and about Mike Hanly is a single profile in a minor community newspaper, which isn't enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only substantive source he's got.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass NPOL #2 on a lot more substance and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am in agreement with the nomination and will note that I checked the newspapers in Category:Newspapers published in Edmonton and found no coverage that would meet WP:GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Rettig

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

Non notable politician, never elected to office, somewhat known as part of a TV show but not notable as a result. Bedivere (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Have enough WP:SIGCOV (see es.wiki). Svartner (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Rettig passes WP:GNG by receiving enough press coverage for the criminal cases in which he has been a plaintiff or analyst. A clear example of this, although in a different legal field, is the case of attorney Camille Vasquez, who has also represented television personalities like Johnny Depp. Carigval.97 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously what does Vasquez have to do with Rettig? Bedivere (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasquez and Rettig passes WP:GNG by receiving press coverage about their professions and public cases. That is their argumentative relationship (specifically, enough notability). Carigval.97 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be WP:SIGCOV here from a multitude of sources. There seems to be sufficient RSes here and the content is notable. All of this should warrant inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kunce

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

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Candidate for office but has never been elected. Not notable outside of the campaign. All coverage is related to his unsuccessful campaigns. Unless his military service is notable, this is individual has dubious notability. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I don't think failing to win the plebiscites a person has stood as candidate in makes their participation meaningless or unnoteworthy; WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are really some lousy policies, and I'm going to argue here from WP:FLEXIBILITY instead. Democracy is a conversation at heart, and while the chatter mostly occurs in the electorate, it's the candidates that do the driving. It's important that our collective memory retain a record of the people who have the courage to participate in the system and do that driving. Let the Secretary of State for the jurisdictions do the gatekeeping, but here I think we should give a pass on WP:N to people that satisfy whatever that official administering the race enforces, especially on the statewide offices in the U.S. I hardly watch television/streaming video, but I actually remember seeing a short clip by this guy last year and what he said led me to believe he was a serious person trying to positively impact lives in his area. If he can manage to win a national party's nomination for statewide office and be both seen and remembered by a guy from California with zero connection to Missouri ~6 months into my steadfast effort to forget that the entire election cycle even took place, that's notable enough for me. Furthermore, it's obvious that some number of our editing brethren put real work into making this a solid and informative article, and I won't be a party to treating their work as unworthy when it clearly isn't. RogueScholar (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it was asked by the nom, this person's military service is not notable. LtCol isn't an especially high rank, and JAG officers enter as captains in any case (so he was promoted twice).Intothat darkness 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable per WP:GNG through multiple political campaigns. WP:NPOL establishes notability but doesnt mean failing NPOL automatically means that a person is non-notable, the person can still be notable per WP:GNG. --hroest 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. He technically fails NPOL, but there is significant coverage of his ongoing efforts in the political discourse and his antics. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Afzal Abbas

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

Biography of an Indianpolitical operative; fails WP:NPOL since he appears to have held only party offices, not public offices. Fails WP:GNG since there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent, reliable sources. This article is exclusively sourced to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (government documents, file photos, Twitter posts, etc.) and thus violates WP:NOR. Has been in and out of draftspace and had a PROD contested, so here were at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Dube

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

As a city councilor in a midsize Zimbabwean city, this subject does not qualify under WP:NPOL. I do not believe he qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO either, since the only substantial news coverage he received during his life (see VOA from my BEFORE search) is related to his 2013 assault, making it a case of WP:BIO1E. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE brief mentions in the context of his local elected office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Zimbabwe. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Auburn, Maine

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

Seems to fail NLIST, and most of its subjects seem to fail NPOL. Auburn isn't so prominent that this article is necessary either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, United States of America, and Maine. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Auburn, Maine, perhaps as a collapsible table. - --Enos733 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Auburn, Maine per above, small city under 25,000 that does not need a separate list Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree this would be more useful as a merge. This is a small city and does not warrant its own page, but this information should not be deleted either. Perhaps it can have its own section under "Notable People" on the Auburn, Maine page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question: Why publish a stand-alone Wikipedia article for a local shopping mall but not for a list of city mayors? -- M2545 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles exist doesn't mean that we should keep this one, plus, maybe we might not want to keep that shopping mall article either. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Singh Rajput

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

The subject fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Acting roles are minor—brief appearances in Toilet: Ek Prem Katha, Mirzapur, and Aashram and do not meet WP:NACTOR. The "world record" lacks notability, and relation to a politician is irrelevant. Most sources, like ANI press releases and Nai Dunia, are unreliable or do not mention the subject. The article also shows WP:COI issues and feels like WP:TOOSOON.

The article's credibility is further undermined by the page creator uploading an image with false copyright claims, which was deleted twice for violations despite being claimed as their own work. Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Politicians, Music, India, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. Zuck28 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page meets the both criteria.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject's acting roles are minor and insignificant.
The claimed "world record" for a book is not a notable award, and being the son of a politician does not confer notability, as it is not inherited per Wikipedia standards.
The article relies heavily on unreliable or inadequate sources:
- Source #2 (ANI press release) is self-published.
- Source #3 (Nai Dunia) is non-reliable.
- Source #5 is a forum, not a credible source.
- Source #7 is non-reliable.
- Source #8 does not mention the subject.
- Source #9 is a duplicate.
- Source #10 and Source #11 do not mention the subject.
Most remaining sources fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which typically lack the depth required for significant coverage.
Zuck28 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Significant sources are available.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page meet the criteria under both WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. The article is supported by many significant coverage.
Delete As per nominator, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Filmibeat, Naidunia, IndiaForums, OneIndia, MPBreaking are not reliable. Almandavi (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be more careful when editing Wikipedia. It’s unacceptable that you fail to recognize one of the top media portals like OneIndia. Your edits seem really suspicious to me. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OneIndia is listed as unreliable here per WP:ICTFSOURCES Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! kindly review more listed sources, as there are many reliable available including TOI, NDTV, and The Print etc. Additionally, his father Govind Singh Rajput is also a Cabinet Minister. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S-Aura Being someone's son doesn't makes the personality notable for wikipedia. Almandavi (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almandavi, The context was different. I hope you will understand as you start editing. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Miminity for clearing it. @S-Aura Better to research and fix rather than pointing other editors. Almandavi (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almandavi, Thanks for your advice! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Mile

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

No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and any WP:LASTINGEFFECT. Feels like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and even WP:BIO1E Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, Events, and Africa. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Magcalas

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

All of the sources are WP:PASSINGMENTION, Data bases or unreliable. Before search yield nothing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES - the subject was mayor of a state capital of over 100,000 residents, and so is likely to be notable. This is comparable with a mayor of Albany, New York. By comparison, we recently deleted the article of the mayor of Schenectady, New York, a smaller city that is not the state capital, but is still the 9th largest city in my state. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Auguste

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

This article was created for an assumed victor of an MP race in the 2025 Canadian federal election. A recount later confirmed that this candidate in fact lost the seat to the incumbent, and since Canadian MP articles are only created for actual race winners, this article no longer meets the wikipedia notability standard. The simple fact that this person was initially assumed to have won the race for three days does not change this. This info can be reflected on the incumbent's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSD does this fall under? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It will go to an automatic recount - this first flip was from an initial validation for obvious errors - and there's a possibility of it flipping again. Better to have this in the drafts than outright deleting. @ArchMonth and Rushtheeditor: If we have agreement on this can be out of mainspace now instead of waiting for the AFD to close. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be what happened to Draft:Honveer Singh Randhawa when Surrey-Guildford was initially called by some outlets then flipped after all the votes came in. WP:G13 would apply eventually if nothing happens. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The judicial recount in question hasn't yet taken place. What happened was the pre-recount numbers being updated during an Elections Canada validation process, so it could end up being reversed again once the recount occurs. I'm not sure offhand if there is a precedent for pending situations like this. If the recount confirms Sinclair-Desgagné's victory, I would be fully in support. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see @Patar knight's comments while writing mine, I agree with draftify. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: seems fine, if this person wins, the article goes live; if not, we don't quite have enough for notability. Could be a brief mention in the riding article if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Canada, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft It is appropriate to send to draft space if the discussion closes prior to knowledge of the official result. --Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is perhaps the best choice for now, and a final decision can be made next week! --ArchMonth
Draft per above. The initial count showed a very narrow LPC victory, whereas the recount yielded a Bloc win of 44 votes. As another recount is under way, it remains possible that the LPC might take back this riding. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 12:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until the judicial recount. The results that flipped the riding are "validated" results, which means counted by the district's returning officer. The election night live count is "preliminary" results (counts submitted by poll workers), then each district's returning officer submits an official validated count, which often change vote counts slightly and also include the rejected ballot count. Every riding eventually posts validated results, but it takes a while (about a third are reporting now). Next, any district where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of the votes cast automatically goes to a judicial recount, which is what will happen with this district but has not happened yet, so we don't actually know what the final numbers will be. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft No notability, but the judge hasn't stuck a fork in it yet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now, so that we can restore it if she wins the recount and delete it from draftspace if she loses. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Normally I would not go with the draftspace as an option, as a reviewer on AfC. However, this is an example of where it works. I agree with Bearcat, move the article to draftspace until after the judicial recount, and then if she loses, delete from draftspace per NPOL. I think that also gives opportunity to editors to find additional sources for Auguste while in Draft. Bkissin (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and wait for the recount. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think we should use Draftify more often as an option. This is a good example for it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaida_Poilievre

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anaida Poilievre

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

I do not believe this page meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a biographical entry. It should also be noted that spouses of Canadian opposition leaders who did not become prime minister do not generally have articles by virtue of that status alone. The-Canadian-Historian (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre There's just nothing here that justifies a full BLP, a regular political wife doing regular political wife things. Nathannah • 📮 17:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre, not independently notable. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre. Notability is not inherited just because their husband is leader of the opposition. On her own merits, political operatives rarely meet notability requirements, though there are exceptions. The sources cited do appear to provide SIGCOV, but it doesn't appear to be independent of her role as a wife to Pierre. Bkissin (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. This page does not meet notability guidelines for a biographical entry. Subject was not a politician, and page seems to exist by virtue of her husband. It should be deleted. Husskeyy (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaida Poilievre was a notable person at all rallies, often answering questions so this article should remain 76.64.106.255 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Sounds pretty gay to be crying about someone you don’t like not meeting your subjective popularity metrics. 2600:1014:B009:AF76:8C5:16D8:2609:5245 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)~~ m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was previously a discussion on this article here. Pinging interested editors, @Bearcat: @Moxy: @Darryl Kerrigan: @CT55555: -- MediaKyle (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre Poilievre. Subject is not notable independently, and WP:NOTINHERITED. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 20:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pierre's page per WP:NOTINHERITED, while her husband is extremely notable, and maybe should would have become so had he been elected, he was not and so this is unlikely to change any time soon too. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - we do the same with the wives of deposed German dukes, too. Bearian (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:NOTINHERITED, there isnt anything independently notable about her. --hroest 18:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Anaida's background and both their families were brought up at every rally. This description was part of his platform as it was used to introduce various conservative initiatives. She also responded to reporters. I do not recall any other spouse actually taking the stage and being part of every single rally.Therefore Anaida is obviously part of the election process for Pierre Poilievre. 76.9.206.98 (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Geoană 2024 presidential campaign

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

Campaign page for a candidate who got just over 5%, does not indicate standalone notability. Also covered more in-depth at his own article Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mircea_Geoană#2024_presidential_election. ApexParagon (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Papis

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

Niche Polish politician. Never held any office or won any election. He did declare himself as a candidate for a presidential election, but it's just a publicity stunt, with no serious coverage. No pl wiki interwiki, no sources in the article that meet WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can even defend this article, haha. The only thing that it's useful for is Joanna Senyszyn having her Nonpartisans endorsement link here. Polish kurd (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriyar Majidzade

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

Not a notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Yousiphh (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the following information refers to reliable, independent sources such as local media, as well as international media outlets such as the Voice of America, Radio Liberty, Germany's Frankfurter Rundschau, and reports from international foundations such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, this person fully and comprehensively meets the criteria for an encyclopedic person. As is also stated in Wikipedia's notability criteria:

“When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the search results and linked webpages.”

Wikipedia's criteria for not being notable state that if a person is notable because of their role in one event, it is uncertain whether they are an encyclopedic figure or not:

“When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”

However, Shahriyar Majidzade has been active in many social and political fields since 2011 and continues his activities today. The following criteria confirm the notability of his journalistic work:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)

Wikipedia's goal is to benefit readers by providing information on all branches of knowledge. An “encyclopedic person” is not a title. Treating it as a title can be considered an expression of a one-sided and biased position. Wikipedia's rules and principles clearly indicate that it is a "knowledge-sharing" platform, not a "title-granting" one. Being included in the encyclopedia means collecting information about that person's notable public and political activities in one place and making this information, along with citations, easily and comprehensively accessible to anyone who wants to access information. This is also in line with the principle of "Free content that anyone can use", which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

No detailed search was conducted, no correction was suggested, no justification was requested, and no specific criteria for deletion were specified in the request for deletion of this article. Wikipedia's criteria for a candidate for a request for deletion and speedy deletion are as follows:

If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered.

Shahriyar Majidzade's social and political activities are as follows:

In 2011, he founded the newspaper “Etatist” and is the author of many research articles published in this newspaper: (REFERENCE 1 - MUSAVAT.COM )
In 2012, he founded the online newspaper “Etatist” and served as its editor-in-chief. The Etatist online newspaper operated until 2020.
In 2012, he founded the youth organization National Idea Center and served as its chairman until 2018. (REFERENCE 1 - QAFQAZINFO.AZ) (REFERENCE 2 - YOUTUBE)
During its active years, the organization held over 60 open seminars, various events, and youth discussions with the participation of local socio-political figures, poets and writers, professors, and historians. It also organized open seminars featuring members of the diplomatic corps and heads of local offices of transnational companies, as well as training programs for young people. (REFERENCE 1 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 2 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - ETATIST.COM) (REFERENCE 4 - RADIO LIBERTY) (REFERENCE 5 - RADIO LIBERTY)
In the parliamentary elections of the Republic of Azerbaijan held in November 2015, Shahriyar Majidzade ran as an independent candidate from the 95th Tartar electoral district. During his meetings with voters, he faced restrictions, and his father and representative, Sardar Hamidov, was detained by the police. At the time, media outlets nominated the 95th Tartar electoral district as one of the three most active districts in the country. (REFERENCE 1 - MUSAVAT.COM) (REFERENCE 2 - RADIO LIBERTY)
Shahriyar Majidzade is the co-founder and the director of Kitabistan Publishing House, which was established in 2016. He is the publisher of famous books published in Azerbaijani such as "Finland: The Country of White Lilies", "The Jewish State", "The Story of an Idealist", "The Genius Dictator", etc. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - QAYNARINFO.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 4 - KULIS.AZ) (REFERENCE 5 - RADIO LIBERTY) (REFERENCE 6 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 7 - VOICE OF AMERICA )
Kitabistan is currently a member of the international organization EURead. (REFERENCE 1 - EUREAD)
In 2018, Shahriyar Majidzade organized organized a presentation event for the Azerbaijani translation of Sandra Roelofs’ autobiographical book.Sandra Roelofs is the wife of Mikheil Saakashvili and the former First Lady of Georgia. She was presented with an honorary award in the event by Shahriyar Majidzade. (REFERENCE 1 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 2 - AZVISION.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - ETATIST.COM) (REFERENCE 4 - AXAR.az)
In 2018, the National Idea Center ceased its activities due to pressure, and Shahriyar Majidzade continued his work at Kitabistan. Since then, Kitabistan began operating as a research center, not only publishing books but also organizing conferences for foreign experts in Azerbaijan and conducting interviews with foreign experts and ambassadors in the country. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 3 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 4 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 5 - GUNUNSESI.INFO) (REFERENCE 6 - YOUTUBE ) (REFERENCE 7 - VOICE OF AMERICA )
In 2019, Shahriyar Majidzade organized the book presentation of "The Genius Dictator" by one of Turkey's most renowned scholars, Professor Celal Şengör, and also organized the professor’s meeting with young people in Baku. (REFERENCE 1 - VOICE OF AMERICA )
On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Azerbaijan and Finland in 2022, Shahriyar Majidzade organized a conference by Henrik Meinander, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland, and Professor at the University of Helsinki, on "The Role of Education in Finnish History. Education and Life in Finland." (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - YOUTUBE ) (REFERENCE 3 - GUNUNSESI.INFO )
A few months later, a conference on "Education in Switzerland and Swiss Neutrality" was held with featuring Wolf Linder, a member of the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Science Council, a professor of political science, and Sean Muller, a professor at the University of Bern and head of the "Eccellenza" project at the University of Lausanne. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2- GUNUNSESI.INFO )
In 2024, he organized the first conference in Azerbaijan on "Freedom to Publish and Censorship", featuring as lecturer the Secretary General of the International Publishers Association (IPA), José Borghino, and presented him with an honorary award. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - RADIO LIBERTY)
In the same year, he organized a conference featuring Laurent Goetschel, director of the Swisspeace peace research institute and professor of political science at the University of Basel, on the topic "The Significance of Peacebuilding in Times of Geopolitical Changes". (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG)
He participated again as an independent candidate in the elections to the National Assembly of the Republic of Azerbaijan held on September 1, 2024, running for the 97th Tartar-Aghdara-Goranboy district. (REFERENCE 1 - KAS.DE) (REFERENCE 2 - KAS.DE) (REFERENCE 3 - YOUTUBE) (REFERENCE 4 - GUNDEMXEBER.AZ) (REFERENCE 5 - FR.DE) (REFERENCE 6 - RADIO LIBERTY ) (REFERENCE 7 - RADIO LIBERTY ) (REFERENCE 8 - RADIO LIBERTY )
He was the concept creator of the "Nordic Talks: Nordic Green Model" project, which began in June 2024 and continued until October. The conference held within the framework of the project featured 4 climate experts from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, and ambassadors and diplomats from these countries participated in the panel discussion. (REFERENCE 1 - NORDERNTALKS.COM) (REFERENCE 2 - REPORT.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - QAYNARINFO.AZ )

1amroff (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: None of a single reason for a notability. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations. Yousiphh (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough reliable sources for Majidzade to pass WP:GNG, in particular the coverage in Frankfurter Rundschau. That said, the article is in need of cleanup to keep only relevant facts supported by secundary sources and to achieve a balanced and neutral tone.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that I have been contacted via email and asked to vote Keep on this, a violation of our policies on Canvassing. I am likely not the only user who 1amroff reached out to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the creator of this article (@1amroff) will do such things, the activities and significance of the person of this article is and should be a subject of discussion. I totally disagree with @Ruud Buitelaar about enough reliable sources for Majidzade. Yousiphh (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was e-mailed by user 1amroff as well. Lefcentreright Discuss 17:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User @1amroff left a message on my talk page with a request to look into this AfD case. That is highly unusual. He did the same with half a dozen other editors. I did not receive an email and was not requested to vote either way. I do read German easily so I looked into it and found some articles in Frankfurter Rundschau, here and here. There is also coverage by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, for example here. Therefore I conclude that there is enough substantive, independent coverage to sustain the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also emailed by the user. Encoded Talk 💬 18:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have some views from people who WEREN'T off-wiki canvassed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes there are a lot of refs that someone included in this AfD. But none of those refs seem to be reliable secondary sources. Citing "YouTube" repeatedly will not help your case. Angryapathy (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Azerbaijani service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Azerbaijani service of the Voice of America, local media organizations, and the official websites of government agencies are all reliable secondary sources. I am adding some of them again for you. At the same time, I am also re-adding the link to the interview about the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan published on the German-language fr.de, and the link to the reports published by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Please feel free to check them.
Frankfurter Rundschau 1 - Germany/Media
Frankfurter Rundschau 2 - Germany/Media
Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation 1 - Germany
Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation 2 - Germany
EU-Azerbaijan Business Forum
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 1
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 3
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 4
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 5
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 6
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 7
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 8
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 9
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 10
Central Election Committee 1
Central Election Committee 2
Central Election Committee 3
Central Election Committee 4
Central Election Committee 5
Central Election Committee 6
Voice of America 1
Voice of America 2
Voice of America 3
Voice of America 4
Meydan TV
REPORT.AZ
APA.az 1
APA.az 2
Musavat.com 1
Musavat.com 2
Gununsesi.info
Qaynarinfo.az
Gundemxeber.az 1
Gundemxeber.az 2
Modern.az 1
Modern.az 2
Sherg.az
Azvision.az
Qafqazinfo.az Cafar Quluyev (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Warning @Cafar Quluyev is obviously a sockpuppeteer of @1amroff. Yousiphh (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of evaluating the issue on a personal basis, it is necessary to rely on the objective facts I have presented from reliable secondary sources, as has been clearly presented multiple times up to this point. I believe that the opposing side should be allowed to present facts, and the discussion should focus solely on completely objective, transparent, reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia allows everyone to substantiate their arguments. Cafar Quluyev (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cafar Quluyev Yes, everyone who edits and makes a significant contribution to Wikipedia, not you who registered yesterday and is editing this discussion today. Yousiphh (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a place to discuss whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, neutral, independent, secondary sources that establish the subject as a notable living person suitable for Wikipedia. If you have an argument on this specific matter, please provide it. Let's stay on topic and not deviate to things like when and which account was created. Deviating from the core issue implies a lack of argument. If you find anything unreliable, non-neutral or primary in the sources I've provided, please state which source and why you suppose so. And please justify this based on the “reliability” and “sources” clauses of WP:NOTE guidelines, as well as the WP:RS guidelines. Cafar Quluyev (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Politics

2025 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects