Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Politicians. 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|Politicians|~~~~}} 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politicians.

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics for a general list of deletion debates on related issues.

Politicians

Ben Obese-Jecty

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass
WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles Beaudoin

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

Biography of a former mayor, not

run of the mill local coverage upon his death that isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Trois-Rivières is a significant enough city that a mayor would certainly be eligible to keep an article that was written substantially and sourced properly, so I'd be happy to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to the necessary resources than I've got can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more substance and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Here's a decent French newspaper account of him being on the job for 10 years [1] and a Radio Canada piece about him, 50 years after he was elected [2]. I think we have enough for basic sourcing, with sustained coverage over the past half century or more. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Verma

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

Case of BLP1E. Fails

WP:NPOL and GNG as BLP is contesting in the 2024 Indian general election and has not been elected to any office positions yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know how these people create an article about a politician without reading Guidelines. Clearly fails
WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart

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

Fails

WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics. His successor Jake Dan-Azumi also has a Wikipedia article. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:GNG which this one and the one you have pointed me to utterly fails. Even the COS page is AfD-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I recall accepting the COS page a while back on the generous side due to its notable role in Nigerian politics. I didn't nessesarily imagine the individual people getting their own articles unless they were notable for something else, though. TheBritinator (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pujan Malvankar

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

Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape")

primary source, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article that doesn't even mention his name at all, and appears to be here just to tangentially verify that the political party he works for exists, none of which is support for his standalone notability as an individual at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual doesn't meet the
WP:NPOL since he hasn't been elected as an MLA or MP yet. Grabup (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: PROMO with the typical flowery wording we see, boils down to "nice guy runs for functionary position in the youth wing of a political party". Very not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the leader is of a 'state level poltical party'.This is just to inform you,its not a state party Aam Aadmi party is a national paty (AAP). a Link for your reference https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/story/aap-national-party-status-how-to-get-the-tag-2358592-2023-04-11

If needed i shall add more references. Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/aap-requests-cm-to-postpone-exams/articleshow/88819441.cms Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it matters, he's a functionary regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's the leader of the youth division (not the entire party) of a state-level chapter of a national party, not of the youth division of the entire national party. So I said nothing incorrect at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for clarifying, the leader of the youth division of a state-level chapter is not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Hamza

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

Fails

WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 (talk

) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 11:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [3] Did not win his election so no
WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Avijit

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

Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails

WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being nominated for the general election in 2024 doesn't automatically confer notability as per
WP:NPOL. However, if the individual wins and is elected as a Member of Parliament, they would then meet the notability criteria. Currently, there's a lack of in-depth coverage on the subject, with the cited sources being primarily press releases. Grabup (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: he is national spokesperson of Indian National Congress and we have article like Nupur Sharma. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject starting from his grandmother Sumitra Devi (politician) to his mother Meira Kumar.-Admantine123 (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen O'Donnell

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

I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per

WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was red linked through Forum for Peace and Reconciliation long before candidacy for DEM, this being the major jumping off point for a page. That with work with the Safefood advisory board, founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement, seemed like valid notability. ChocoElephant (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rabbitt

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

Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per

WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom,
WP:ATD. Or draftification or other forms of ATD. Hence the only action I can support is deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom and per
WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass
WP:GNG-worthy referencing shown at all, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Heights and weights of US presidents

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

Per

WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that

US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

How are

Redundant Fork. Samoht27 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Epple

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

The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for

ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and California. Classicwiki (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is
not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate)

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

Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per

WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92^Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. Geotubemedia (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails
WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per
WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Clouston

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

As noted in

WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider district or parish councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. He has written for and been interviewed by some notable media, but those are WP:PRIMARY sources, and his written work doesn't yet meet WP:NAUTHOR. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, unless he wins a parliamentary seat in the upcoming general election. Restoring the redirect would be fine as an alternative to deletion, but I've brought it here for discussion rather than WP:BOLDly redirecting. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, United Kingdom, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of his activities demonstrate much notability, from leading a minor party to serving as a councillor. Sourcing is not great, mostly primary sources, such as election results and his own tweets. Can't find much better. AusLondonder (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)#Leaders if notability cannot be established at this point in time. May pick up coverage in the forthcoming general election. Rupples (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't held office at any level that would confer "inherent" notability under NPOL, but the article is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources and thus fails to get him over
WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just being a candidate is not enough to already get him an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Zlatko Radić

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

Can't see how this passes

WP:GNG. Most of the references in the article are to primary sources, and seem to largely be cursory mentions. Joy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Serbia. Joy (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Radić was a member of the Serbian parliament. Politicians elected to national assemblies are automatically notable per
WP:POLITICIAN. CJCurrie (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
He's still failing
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I can fathom that this backbencher is worthy of an article in the Serbian Wikipedia, but English? --Joy (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This strikes me as a misreading of the policy.
WP:GNG
is immaterial.

Also, I'm inclined to think that an individual being notable on the Serbian Wiki (or the Croatian Wiki, or the Hungarian, or any other Wiki one could name) would generally make them notable on the English Wiki as well. CJCurrie (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can I say... I continue to be saddened by arguments apparently based on pure technicalities. --Joy (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Being a member of parliament of a sovereign state automatically passes
WP:NPOL. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:GNG, please? --Joy (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

What is there to reflect on? He was a member of a national parliament. Slam dunk. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind of some of these fine linked guidelines: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fundamentally, how does the average English reader benefit from being told so many details about this person, when e.g. a redirect to List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2003–2007 would suffice. Oh, wait, we don't even have a list of all of them in there. The stated goal of the guideline on politicians is to ensure that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete. Having this standalone article adds excessive detail while we are clearly lacking the basic general coverage, which is incongruent. --Joy (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate something I wrote above:

WP:GNG is immaterial. CJCurrie (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong keep - Blatantly obvious that it passes
WP:NPOL, this should be discussed outside an AFD. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Some really odd comments by the nom showing complete misunderstanding for how Wikipedia works. I assumed the nom was a new editor, then I see they've been here 22 years and is an admin! Nom says the subject fails
WP:GEOBIAS? AusLondonder (talk) 09:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@AusLondonder what is extraordinary about wanting a politician's coverage to be commensurate to the person's significance? On the Serbian Wikipedia, there's probably a lot more content about Lapovo, so if they go into an appropriate amount of detail about whatever other local features, characteristics, people, ... they can go into the same amount of detail about the local politicians. Likewise, the English Wikipedia will contain an amount of information relevant to English readers that wouldn't necessarily be seen exactly the same on the other language Wikipedias. This is perfectly normal because it caters to the readers.

I'm still not sure in what universe an average English reader would be interested in how some guy spent four years in the Serbian Parliament after getting in as a substitute, apparently did not do anything worth mentioning other than get into a bar fight back home (!), and then was later candidate number 189 or 229 and didn't get elected there ever again. The fact he later finished third in a mayoral election with 600-odd votes, but did serve on the municipal council, is likewise largely meaningless. This is like a compendium of useless factoids about a person. Does nobody have any qualms that this violates
WP:NOTWHOSWHO
?

At this point I am genuinely perplexed why y'all care so much for keeping this largely trivial information in a standalone article and don't even want to bother coming up with a rationale on who are these readers who we would be serving by keeping this as is. --Joy (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree this will likely never be a Featured Article on the English Wiki, it still passes the threshold for notability. And while this is a separate issue, the information included in the article pertains to the subject's time in public life and is not just a random collection of facts. CJCurrie (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not random, but it is just that - information. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, not just information. We can summarize the relevant knowledge about this person's public life in a single list caption as it is now, perhaps referencing it to a couple of those primary sources and to the paragraph in that WP:POTENTIAL), then they can still get a standalone article. --Joy (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I'd like to see this article buffed out a bit more with stuff he did in office, but the subject clearly passes
WP:NOPAGE, then it can be redirected to a list of legislators; this article clearly does pass that threshold. Curbon7 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Curbon7 would love to see 99.5% of these testcases, esp. in relation to Serbia where the political scene is generally well documented. --Joy (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: to my knowledge, no post-1900
WP:NPOL-passing politician has ever been deleted at AfD in the past 15 years on notability grounds. To repeat myself, that is not merely for no reason; a member of parliament will literally always have coverage of their activities, even if that coverage is not easily accessible on Google, whether that be in newspapers that have not yet been digitized or those that are in inaccessible or paywalled archives. Curbon7 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Article should certainly be flagged for improvement, but members of national legislatures are inherently notable per
WP:NPOL #1. The argument here isn't actually that politicians are exempted from GNG — national legislators virtually always pass GNG, and the real issue is that we haven't always invested sufficient effort into finding all of the best GNG-worthy sourcing to write the most substantial article with, and that's especially going to be a problem for politicians who served in countries where the strongest sourcing would be written in foreign languages that many contributors to the English Wikipedia can't read. But again, it's not that better sourcing doesn't exist, it's that Wikipedians haven't put enough work into finding it, which isn't the same thing — and that's precisely why we have SNGs alongside GNG, because the current state of an article is not always the end of the story in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bearcat that's the thing. I couldn't find anything substantial about this person online, let alone proper secondary sources. For a 21st century Serbian politician, that's just not great. --Joy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what specific resources you actually checked? Do you have access to a proper database of archived Serbian media coverage from 15 to 20 years ago, or did you just do a simple Google search? A politician who was in office from 2004 to 2007 obviously isn't going to have a lot of recent coverage that would still Google well in 2024, but that doesn't constitute proof that at-the-time coverage didn't exist in 2004 and 2005 and 2006 — so you need to be more specific about where you searched, because stuff can fall through the cracks if we don't completely exhaust every possible resource. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, a general Google Search failed to produce much of anything about this Zlatko Radić. It found some others, but apparently not this one. I also tried with site:rs specifically, and in Cyrillic as well. If our readers have to have the skills of a private investigator to verify our article about something, then that's not really in the realm of general notability. --Joy (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The realm of general notability does not require all or even most of our sources to be recent news coverage that googles, and does permit older news coverage that has to be found in archives. So since Google is not a place where media coverage from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up, did you actually check any databases of archived Serbian media coverage where articles from 20 years ago would have been expected to turn up? That doesn't require the skills of a private investigator to do, it just requires the skills of a marginally competent researcher. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar

Ramgopal Suthar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As noted in
WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

Ossanda Liber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Ojala

Anton Ojala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails
WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, New Zealand, and Barbados. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails
WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep; sources exists; I've added 4 of them from local or regional newspapers where his work is the primary focus or prominent; reaches
WP:BIO. 12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Klbrain (talk
)

Delete I don't think any of the sources in the article, including the recently added ones, show
WP:GNG, as they do not really specifically cover him directly apart from the fact he had a job. SportingFlyer T·C 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing SIGCOV of this individual. Yilloslime (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Braxton

Patrick Braxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls clearly within
WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a
WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly willing to accept we may be
WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [4] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [5] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamako Noble

Shamako Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.

The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes
ISBN 9781446202562. All together, this clearly passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-
KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything which actually passes GNG here and I'm not sure the profiles above necessarily get there - perhaps a merge might work as an ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim

Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination)

Saira Shah Halim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failed
WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article.
WP:BIO
. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.

In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main
WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click
.

But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in

India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess.
WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply
]

Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails
WP:NPOL
.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?

There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes
WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or
NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.

Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.

It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Politicians&oldid=1220977096"~~