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

National Solidarity Party of Balochistan

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

No WP:SIGCOV coverage found in sources political party seems non-notable due to no mention in sources in depth and political history. [2] source itself written by the founder Habibullah Sarbazi and [3] source is also based on the statement of Habibullah Sarbazi. M S T L (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. M S T L (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Historical Sovereignty over the Tunbs and BuMusa Islands

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

Does not meet notability Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsure of the quality of the sources used now in the article, I don't find any sourcing that even talks about this concept, let alone a book about it. Lack of any kind of sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m old enough to remember that rejecting Iran’s claim to the Tumbs and BuMusa was one of the reasons Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 with support from the UAE, so the underlying question of sovereignty is certainly notable and we even have an article, Seizure of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Whether this book is notable or not I’m not sure, but will search in Farsi. Mccapra (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Farsi Wikipedia article has three sources that I think demonstrate notability, 1, 2 and 3. In addition I’ve found 4 and 5. It looks to me as though the book is cited in journal articles but I’m not up to searching to verify that in Farsi. Searching is fairly hard because the sovereignty over these islands appears to be a constant obsession of the Iranian regime, and there is so much written about it. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Fulnecky essay controversy

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)

WP:NOTNEWS - no indicaiton of sustained covereage in a whole load on manufactured outrage from both sides. ~2025-38159-71 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completed nomination for TA, no opinion at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree this is a dumb thing to be outraged over, but that doesn't determine if we keep or delete an article. For better or worse, there is a lot of national and international coverage, enough to indicate the topic is notable. If it dies down without any additional coverage, I think the decision to keep or possibly merge could be considered, but I don't see a good merge target. If Fulnecky can parlay this "controversy" into a career on the right-wing outrage circuit, I think it would end up getting merged into her bio, but that is speculation. (t · c) buIdhe 15:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies, Education, Religion, and Oklahoma. jolielover♥talk 16:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Discrimination. jolielover♥talk 16:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability per coverage is clearly sustained. Additionally, I’d like to note that this user has been povpushing and edit warring (four reverts against two editors) on Girlguiding based on a stated belief that allowing trans girls to be girlscouts is not sensible,[1] while displaying a *very* thorough understanding of wiki policies, procedures, and informal etiquette entirely inconsistent with a temp account.[2] Snokalok (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too early to conclude that coverage is "clearly sustained"; the incident in question happened less than a week ago. Also, the nominator's activity on other articles is unrelated to whether this article is sufficiently notable. Andrew11374265 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, combined with the fact that they sockpuppeted this thread to increase the delete count, it suggests that this AfD was not filed in good faith. Snokalok (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the TA wasn't in good faith, but this didn't strike me as something that was going to have lasting notability, so I was willing to copy it over. I'm not convinced it's a delete, but neither am I sure it's worth keeping. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; clearly notable on its own. The fact that TPUSA is backing it will likely keep it relevant until at least the end of the year, and possibly beyond that. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 16:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is worth keeping, at least until coverage of the topic dies down. I know I found this article helpful enough when I learned of the topic today that I'm sure it will help others. Fognar777 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)— Fognar777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/wait, this seems to have plenty of coverage for this point in the WP:NEVENT cycle. If this ends up being falling off the face of the earth in a few weeks, it could feasibly be renominated. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even two weeks ago, that's the news cycle reporting on news. We'll need a bit more sustained coverage, over a longer time period. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS.~2025-38213-51 (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC) Sock strike, same small range as ~2025-38159-71. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as of the time I write this. Regardless of the ultimate result of this AfD, while it's ongoing the article is going to stay up for at least several days. During that time, coverage of the event could rise to a level where I'd be satisfied with calling it "sustained"; however, at the moment, I don't believe it meets the WP:NOTNEWS standard. (Politicians, even those at the highest levels of the US government, as well as groups like TPUSA complain about things all the time. Some publications, in turn, summarize and/or opine on those complaints. It is my view that in this day and age, that is not sufficient to warrant an entire article for every such instance.) Andrew11374265 (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and LGBTQ+ studies. Bridget (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget, we had those already, those pages now have two entries on this afd. It may not matter that much, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates have been removed. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! My bad. Bridget (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I feel like this will be NOTNEWS in six months. It's just people getting upset, with a transgender person involved. Had the instructor not been transgender, this wouldn't be news. Why is a student upset over getting zero on a paper newsworthy? This happens all the time in the world of education; we remove the "transgender", there isn't a story here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Radical left" isn't news-worthy. It's a dog whistle. Universities are by nature there to provoke thought and debate. This would be similar to a student claiming their black instructor was *insert words here* if this was earlier in the Century. This is even tagged under "transgender topics" here in Wiki; this would be more suitable under an "education in the USA" tag. The focus is on the transgender individual, not the essay. This is difficult to keep NPOV in the first place and this isn't really about a transgender individual, it's about a person's reaction to someone else who's different than they are and how they feel superior to them as a result. Frankly every time someone cries "radical left" or gets mad at a transgender person, that's the focus of the news. I don't think every time someone gets involved in a transphobia incident, that it gets an article. Perhaps TOOSOON at this point, we don't even know what the results are. The prof is "on leave" and the student gets their 15 minutes of fame. If there is some sort of lasting consequence, then we could have an article; does the prof get sued and it goes to the Supreme Court, is there some sort of physical violence involved and people get hurt/die, etc. Until then, this isn't really notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current delete rationales, which more or less boil down to I don't think this will be notable yet would seem like a clear instance of WP:RAPID, I don't see a compelling reason to entertain this right now. If this won't be notable in 6 months, the logical time to discuss this would be in 6 months, not now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, no, I've looked into my crystal ball and it tells me that we should discuss this in 6 months if anyone still wants to. If y'all want to create some more explicit rules on exactly what to do in the early months after an event, then feel free to go do that. On our current guidelines, keep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wait for now - this occurred only a week or so ago and that's not enough time (WP:RAPID) to develop any sustained coverage. It can be re-nominated in the future if there's no lasting/sustained coverage, but for now there's enough sources to work with and it's too soon to delete per WP:LASTING. HurricaneZeta^C 21:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite sad that stuff like this even reaches article status on Wikipedia nowadays- utter WP:NOTNEWS, and the majority of the sources are current-events commentary articles, which are not really representative of "sustained coverage". A university student writing a transphobic essay and proceeding to be angry over receiving a bad grade from her professor is not notable under any circumstance at all ever, period. Electricmemory (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify — as of now, this isn’t notable enough. It’s manufactured outrage from both sides, and it’s more than likely going to be forgotten within a week or two. Draft it for now, see if it has larger coverage, then publish it if it does. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) WP:NOTNEWS is for routine coverage, which this is not. When was the last time a US university TA was fired for what appears to have been blatant religious discrimination? 2) reverse-CRYSTAL problem, assuming that this won't be referenced in the future. It's impossible to plausibly say "no sustained coverage" when an event has just happened without assuming that something will die after a news cycle or two. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Blatant religious discrimination"? She assigned an essay reviewing recent reading, the student handed in an essay reviewing her views of the Bible. She didn't do the assignment, and another teacher backed the original grade up. Then they suspended the teacher anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as a valid alternative to deletion given that there is coverage, but it is too soon to determine any potential long-term significance. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The essay deserved a failing grade (maybe not a 0), but conservatives, including politicians are calling for terminations and investigations, [3] so WP:SUSTAINED will likely be met, especially since it has already made the NYT before all of that happened. WP:RAPID seems to apply and it would be best to revisit in a few weeks. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People's Democratic Movement (Guyana)

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

Not notable parties that never won a seat, got more than 1% of the vote, or participated in more than one election. Yilku1 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small party with no indication of notability, based on the small vote count the party received. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Progressive Party

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

Fails GNG. Results were muddy, but filtering out all of the results pertaining to Africa left none relating to this PPP. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 22:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are sources, they're buried in search results pertaining to a party of the same name in Guyana. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This party is in no way notable, I hope this is not an example of COI Atriskofmistake (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appeared as non notable party. M S T L (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Territory of the Congo River Alliance

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

Unnecessary fork of Congo River Alliance. Laun chba ller 13:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Alot of the information here isn't even mentioned on the Congo River Alliance page. JaxsonR (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind - Delete JaxsonR (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17th Sabah State Legislative Assembly

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

Disputed drafification; WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:V. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Malaysia. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the subject is notable but the sourcing is too scant for mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom. and Mccapra. Sal2100 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radical Socialists

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

A party that held one seat in municipal election, poorly referenced. Sourcing has one news article. That does not seem enough for WP:GNG... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Norway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Communist Party of Norway as an alternative to deletion and rewrite as something along the lines of "On 15 December 2004, the local party branch in Åsnes Municipality splintered off and founded the Radical Socialists group. It won one seat in the municipal council before its dissolution in 2018." Yue ✉ 02:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist League (Norway)

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

Unreferenced, search done by me, User:Soman and another editor who nominated it for deletion at pl wiki comes up with no sources. The topic may not be notable, is unreferenced and may be a hoax. Perhaps sources exist in Norwegian, but GS gives no hits for the Norwegian name as used on no wiki, either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Norway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources exist for this subject. Kvinnen (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- so far found this which may help in the discussion , the rest I found so far have yet to catch my attention enough for potential notability.Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)

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

This article is basically a WP:POVFORK of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. If there is any historically worthy material in here, it can go into either that page or the individidual district pages. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To address concerns raised above:

1. This article is not a POV fork.

Jammu Province is a historically distinct administrative division of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, consistently documented in reliable sources (Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883; Imperial Gazetteer 1909; Lawrence 1895).

It is not covered in depth under Azad Jammu and Kashmir, which describes a modern political entity, not the historic Jammu Province.

2. Title issues do not justify deletion.

Per WP:ATD and WP:MOVE, if the title is considered non-neutral, it should be moved.

Title disputes are not a deletion rationale.

3. The page is being actively improved.

I am revising wording for full neutrality and adding inline citations from established academic works already used on related Wikipedia pages.

4. Content is verifiable and non-original.

All statements are based on long-standing historical sources and existing district-level Wikipedia pages (Mirpur, Kotli, Bhimber).

This is not new analysis; it is a summary of published classifications of Jammu Province.

Given these points, the appropriate action is Keep (or, if needed, rename), not deletion. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10. Mccapra (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is notable, historically defined, and supported by multiple reliable, published sources. The article is not a POV fork; it documents a historically verifiable sub-region of the former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir whose distinct administrative, linguistic, and cultural identity is well-established in the literature.

1. Historically verifiable administrative unit (WP:RS / WP:V).

Multiple colonial administrative works explicitly classify Mirpur, Bhimber, and Kotli as part of the Jammu Province, not the Kashmir Valley:

Drew, The Jummoo and Kashmir Territories (1875)

Lawrence, The Valley of Kashmir (1895)

Imperial Gazetteer of India (1909)

These are widely used scholarly references across South Asian historical research. The article relies on these precise, verifiable sources.

2. Linguistic distinctiveness (WP:NOR and WP:RS).

G. A. Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 9, Part 4 classifies the vernacular spoken in Mirpur/Bhimber/Kotli within the Western Pahari/Lahnda group, not the Kashmiri (Dardic) group. This is a published, secondary source demonstrating that the region is linguistically distinct and historically treated as a separate cultural unit.

3. Contemporary academic usage (WP:V).

Modern scholarship on the British Pahari-speaking diaspora (e.g., Hussain 2015, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development) explicitly treats Mirpur/Bhimber/Kotli as a culturally and linguistically distinct Jammu-origin region. This shows continuing use of the distinction in peer-reviewed literature.

4. The article is not a POV fork (addressing WP:POVFORK).

A POV fork occurs when content is duplicated to advance a viewpoint. This article does not duplicate existing content. It covers:

A historically recognised administrative division (Jammu Province)

Districts currently administered by Pakistan

Their distinct linguistic, cultural, and historical identity

These topics are not covered in Azad Kashmir, which predominantly focuses on the political entity formed in 1947. Historical Jammu Province material would not be appropriate to insert there.

5. Consistency with Wikipedia’s existing naming conventions (WP:NPOV / WP:CONSISTENCY).

Wikipedia already includes neutrally documented titles such as:

Indian-occupied Kashmir

Pakistan-occupied Kashmir

Tibet (occupied by China)

Baltistan (occupied by Pakistan)

The title here follows the same descriptive pattern used for historically distinct territories under current administration. This is not more POV than existing occupation-based titles.

6. Improved sourcing directly addresses concerns.

The article has been updated with citations from:

Drew (1875)

Lawrence (1895, 1909)

Grierson (1916)

Imperial Gazetteer (1909)

Modern peer-reviewed diaspora research

This resolves the earlier concern of insufficient sourcing. The content relies on established historical geography and linguistics, not opinion.

7. Neutral and factual framing (WP:NPOV).

The article does not assert political claims about sovereignty. It describes:

historical province boundaries

linguistic classification

cultural identity

the fact of current administration by Pakistan

This matches the neutral, descriptive approach taken by comparable Wikipedia articles.

For these reasons, the article meets Wikipedia’s criteria for notability, verifiability, and historical neutrality, and therefore should be kept RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article Azad Jammu and Kashmir is a general encylopedic coverage of the region. Whereas a significant portion of this article is specifically about its socio-political functioning. My reasoning is per WP:CONSPLIT Kvinnen (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? A huge section called "Azad Jammu & Kashmir - a misnomer by Pakistan"? How is that better than the Azad Kashmir#Name section? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Azad Jammu Kashmir per nomination. This is clearly a POV fork, but it should be redirected rather than deleted so any sources or other encyclopedic material can be added to the target article, if there are any valuable contributions that can be saved. Katzrockso (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AJK or delete. POV fork. If anything worth inclusion is there it should be added to AJK. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose redirect. GPTZero states that the section "Azad Jammu & Kashmir - a misnomer by Pakistan" was AI generated with 98% probability. References "Proclamation of Azad Government Distributed in Western Jammu Districts" and "Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. 8: Indo-Aryan Family, North-Western Group" link to archive.org, but when I click on them, I get an "Item cannot be found" error. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link: https://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.2036/page/n995/mode/2up RYasmeen12 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Survey Of India Vol 9 Part 4 Pahari Languages RYasmeen12 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this effectively unsourced page to Azad Kashmir and use reliable sources to explain any issues there. It is unclear why editors above are proposing redirecting this page to pages that are themselves redirects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect. Wikipedia does not decide the ownership of any of the disputed territories, nor, therefore, who "occupies" any of it. This is a PoV title, supporting one side of the dispute, whereas we should remain strictly neutral. - Arjayay (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Arjayay: But Indian occupied Kashmir exists, as does Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Both are redirects. This redirect would not be any more POV than those. If we were to treat this redirect as absolutely unacceptable then those would be so as well. Courtesy ping @Kelob2678, UmbyUmbreon, and Athanelar: also. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is whether the term is used widely in reliable sources. Also, even that being the case, then the better redirect would be the more natural sounding "Pakistan-occupied Jammu" rather than "Jammu (occupied by Pakistan)", not least because the formwr implies "that part of Jammu which is part of Pakistan" and the latter implies that Jammu in its entirety is 'occupied by Pakistan' which is obviously not true Athanelar (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Athanelar - I've obviously heard of PoK and IoK quite frequently, but never Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan), moreover, that is an awkward phrase. If you want to reword it, I could agree to a redirect, provided we balance it with a similar redirect for a reworded Jammu (Occupied by India). WP:NPOV is the first of the three Wikipedia:Core content policies. Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. The reason the title uses “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)” rather than “Pakistan-occupied Jammu” is historical accuracy.

Before 1947, the districts of Mirpur, Kotli, Bhimber, and Poonch were part of the Jammu Province of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir under the Dogra (Singh) dynasty. These districts were historically identified as Jammu, not an entity called “Pakistan-occupied Jammu”.

The events of 25 November 1947 relate specifically to the entry of Pakistan-backed forces into the western Jammu districts. In historical writing, this is described as the occupation of the Jammu region’s western districts by Pakistan, not “Jammu created by Pakistan”.

Thus, the phrasing:

“Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)”

accurately reflects:

1. The pre-existing territorial unit (Jammu Province)

2. The direction of occupation (Pakistan entering Jammu territory)

3. The wording used in diaspora, human rights, and some academic discussions

This is consistent with how Wikipedia titles are constructed when the occupied entity existed prior to the occupation (e.g., Baltistan (occupied by Pakistan) in scholarly literature; Tibet (occupied by China) used commonly in academic discourse).

If the community prefers a different phrasing, I am open to a move discussion, but the historical basis for “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)” is clear and not an invention. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want AI-generated content to be preserved in any way. LLM bludgeoning by the creator in this thread convinces me further. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the concern raised about “AI-generated content”: the underlying ideas, sources, structure, and historical content were developed by me as a human editor. English is not my first language, and at times I use automated tools for assistance with grammar or phrasing. However, the content itself—including the sourcing, historical distinctions, administrative classifications, linguistic references, and diaspora research—is based entirely on verifiable publications and my own editorial work with those sources.

Using a tool to refine wording is not equivalent to generating content, nor does it undermine the validity of the sources cited. Wikipedia’s policies (e.g., WP:AGF and WP:V) evaluate the verifiability of information, not how polished a sentence appears. All citations provided in the article are drawn from reliable, published works (Drew 1875; Lawrence 1895; Grierson 1916; Gazetteer 1909; Hussain 2015, etc.), and every factual claim is grounded in these sources.

In short: grammar assistance does not create content; it only helps present content more clearly. The substance of the article is human-curated, fully sourced, and verifiable. RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POVFORK per nominator and Oppose redirect. As above, the title given to this article is not from a neutral POV, and should not be retained. When I first saw it in recent changes, I thought it was move vandalism to begin with. - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my intention here is to document the historical and linguistic classification of the Mirpur–Bhimber–Kotli region as described in long-standing reliable sources such as Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), Lawrence (1895), and the Imperial Gazetteer. These sources consistently treat the area as part of the Jammu Province, distinct from the Kashmir Valley. The article summarises this published scholarship and does not advocate a political position.

I recognise concerns about phrasing in the title and I am open to participating in a move discussion if the community feels a different wording would be more consistent with existing naming conventions. However, the underlying topic is verifiable and documented across the literature, and the article itself presents the material neutrally. RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect. I also thought this was move vandalism when I spotted it in RC. The title is blatantly partisan. Athanelar (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion.

This article summarises well-documented academic facts about the historic Jammu Province of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Multiple scholarly sources (Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883; Imperial Gazetteer 1909; Lawrence 1895; Snedden 2013) place Mirpur, Kotli and Bhimber within Jammu Province, not the Kashmir Valley. These districts later became part of Pakistan-administered territory after 1947, but their historical classification is consistent across over 150 years of published literature.

This topic is not original research. It is based on the following verifiable sources already used across Wikipedia:

– Mirpur District

– Kotli District

– Bhimber District

– Dogra dynasty

– Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)

This article simply summarises those existing facts in one place.

I am currently updating the language to ensure full neutrality and encyclopaedic tone, and adding additional citations from published academic sources.

For these reasons, the article meets Wikipedia’s verifiability and notability standards and should not be deleted. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First to the creator, please stop bludgeoning this AfD with LLM cruft. I see no original (non-LLM) comment or event a hint at understanding the issues raised. The same goes for the LLM content in the article. That it is a POVFORK can be gauged from the fact that the much more broader and neutrally titled Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a redirect per consensus. No strong opinions on whether this (and corollary for all sides) should exist as rds, contrary to comments above POV rds are well in line with enwiki guidelines. Gotitbro (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I would like to address the points raised with reference to Wikipedia policy.

1. “LLM cruft”

If there are specific diffs indicating non-human or non-compliant content, please identify them. Wikipedia requires evidence-based concerns (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BURDEN). No such evidence has been provided.

2. Neutrality / POVFORK

For an article to be a POV fork, it must duplicate existing content in order to promote a particular viewpoint (WP:POVFORK). This article does not duplicate Pakistan-administered Kashmir. That article covers Muzaffarabad, Neelum, Bagh, Haveli, etc., and does not describe the historical Jammu Province districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti) as a distinct pre-1947 administrative region.

This article addresses a different historical unit — the Jammu Province districts west of the LoC — as documented in reliable sources (Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883; Census of India; Gazetteers). Therefore, it is not a fork but a topic with verifiable historical boundaries.

3. Verifiability and Sources

All statements in the article are supported by published academic or historical sources (WP:RS). These include 19th-century surveyors, census records, and contemporary South Asian scholarship. If any statement requires further citation, I am happy to add it.

4. No personal or political agenda

My edits follow WP:NPOV and the purpose of the encyclopaedia — summarising reliably published knowledge. The pre-1947 administrative structure of the Jammu Province is a matter of historical record, not opinion.

In summary, no policy-based rationale for deletion has been demonstrated. I am continuing to improve the article’s tone and citation density to meet all Wikipedia content standards. RYasmeen12 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the pre-1947 administrative structure of the Jammu province is a historical fact. But its relevance to today's world is an opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I would like to summarise the key points that demonstrate why the article Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion:

1. The article covers a historically documented region

The “Jammu Province” existed as an administrative division of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir from 1846 until 1947. This is supported by multiple reliable, non-controversial sources including Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), the Census of India, and contemporary historical scholarship.

The article summarises these facts already verified in established literature.

2. It does not duplicate existing articles

Unlike “Pakistan-administered Kashmir” or “Azad Jammu and Kashmir,” which describe the modern political entity, this article documents the historical Jammu Province and its specific districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti).

These areas are ethnographically and linguistically distinct from the Kashmir Valley, and this distinction is repeatedly noted in reliable sources.

3. It is grounded in verifiable pre-1947 history, not political opinion

The content relies on published academic works, archival materials, and neutral historical accounts.

The focus is on factual mislabelling and the absence of a consolidated history of the western districts of old Jammu Province — not on any contemporary political claim.

4. The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) itself reinforces the article’s legitimacy

As participants have noted, the treaty formalises the creation of the Dogra-ruled princely state and demonstrates the administrative coherence of Jammu Province under the Dogra dynasty until 1947.

This directly supports the historical framing of the article.

5. No significant policy-based reason for deletion has been demonstrated

Notability is satisfied through multiple independent scholarly sources.

Verifiability is satisfied through citations already in the article.

Concerns raised so far relate to personal interpretation rather than policy.

For these reasons, the article aligns with Wikipedia’s requirements on verifiability, notability, neutrality, and scope, and should be retained. RYasmeen12 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2030 South Korean presidential election

AfDs for this article:

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

The article just contains stuff like polling (And polls for elections can happen way before election season, sometimes shortly after an election has finished), the and basic facts that are the same at every election such as whether the incumbent is eligible or not, and how the president is elected, and that he/she/they (Or whatever subject pronouns the elected president uses) is elected to serve a five-year term. Nothing on who will be running, the issues that are expected to be defining factors in the decisions of the voters. It is too soon. A good ATD would be draftify, but I am also concerned about the potential lack of encyclopaedic value from sources to add within a 6 month frame, that this could end up being deleted via G13. Anyways, what should be done with this article? Regardless, I firmly believe it is too soon for a stand alone article. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and South Korea. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't even see the discussion only 12 days prior. I didn't bother checking, and it honestly didn't even occur to me in the case I just assumed that this would be a first nomination, and that if there was a prior one, it would have been deleted. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per nom, can be undeleted if deleted per G13. Lee Jae Myung uses he/him pronouns. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 In regards to pronouns, I ment whoever is elected. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Opinion polling for the next South Korean presidential election, given that its almost entirely opinion polling. This is the format used for almost every single other country (See: UK, Germany, Australia, Poland, Japan etc.) aesurias (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the format used; in all the cases you mention, there is an article on the election (i.e. Next United Kingdom general election, Next German federal election, Next Australian federal election, Next Polish parliamentary election, Next Japanese general election), not just one on the opinion polls. Number 5 7 19:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure, but all of those are expected to be held 2026-2029. I think we should just hold off until next year when there will be more information for a standalone article aesurias (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UK article was created around a month after the 2024 election, so a similar period in advance that this South Korean one is for. The other ones have shorter terms, but in most cases were created shortly after the previous election. Number 5 7 23:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good argument. aesurias (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments in the AfD that closed as 'keep' less than two weeks ago (i.e. it's long established that articles on future elections are fine as long as there is information specific to the election in question, such as opinion polls). Number 5 7 19:24, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Indies National Party

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

not notable, only participated in one election and did not win a seat Yilku1 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Communist Party Member

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

From my removed prod: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE." One source is from CNKI which is deeply influenced and parent organization is owned by the Chinese government. Online is mostly biased sources.

For March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter similar to my prod from there: "Non-notable award. Most sources found online come directly from the organization itself - WP:Primary sources or come from Chinese government propaganda outlets which are Wikipedia:UNRELIABLE."

If independent and reliable sources are found, then these can be kept and have those reworked into the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Asia, and China. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into Chinese Communist Party Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep purely based off I do not believe this is an appropriate batch nom (the subjects are too different, first article is an award given more adhoc/generally, the second is an annual award ceremony), with no prejudice for re-nom unbundled. Jumpytoo Talk 23:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not a reason to argue for keep. You haven't addressed the concerns of the nomination. March 8th Red Banner Pacesetter is an actual award. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid keep reason on procedural grounds. As I said in my vote, there is no problem if the two articles were nominated separately. Jumpytoo Talk 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but both have the same issues. And it is still okay to nominate together for that reason alone. Same applies for Cfd, Tfd, Mfd if there are similar issues across the same arena. But nonetheless. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana State Akali Dal

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. 4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the same sources available when the article was created are no longer available online. However, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14] indicate that this was the state-level unit of Sarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal, and should be merged there. Some other potential refs [15], [16]. --Soman (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to Sarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal.4meter4 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Alliance Theory of Political Belief Systems

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

Article appears to mostly be a summary of a political theory journal article. Most of the references in the Wikipedia article are the references in the journal article supporting the same claim.

The journal article does not seem to be notable, and a search for it only shows a few other journal article referencing it but no coverage external to academia. It does not seem to be a mainstream political theory. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone put Ref. 1 into NotebookLM and asked for a summary and a list of related papers; this article is the result. LLM slop on a single paper (and a rebuttal to its critics), thoroughly refbombed to give the appearance of a notable topic. None of the other references I checked mentions this "theory". Delete per WP:ESSAY and WP:NOPAGE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another apparent LLM-generated page that has no solid basis in any sourcing. A check on the primary article the page is based on barely yields anything. The authors are based at UCLA, but as OP said the article itself is obscure in the field, with barely any citations. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war

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

This article appears to be a content fork. The material presented here is already fully covered in existing articles:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks

Gaza war hostage crisis

Gaza war hostage crisis#Treatment_of_hostages

The article does not present substantial new, independently notable information. Instead, it basically duplicates content that is already included in those pages, or that can be appropriately added to them alone, meaning it has issues meeting WP:NOTCONTENT, WP:UNDUE. Not only that but it seems to me to more specifically be a WP:POVFORK, functioning as a separate page for material that fits naturally within other, well-established articles, apparently for the purpose of emphasis. The presentation of the material as-is also does not, imo, adhere to WP:NPOV.

Because the article represents a redundant and non-notable fork, and because its content is more appropriately handled within the existing articles listed above, the article does not meet WP:GNG and I believe deletion is appropriate. Any verifiable, neutrally presented, policy-compliant information can of course be merged into the relevant parent articles where appropriate. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of off-wiki encouragement or social networks, 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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't much to show a fork is needed, testimonies are fine, but the majority of the article now is these testimonies. We can merge relevant content into the articles as shown. Might be too soon as this hasn't been studied much, but can be adequately explained in other articles. A testimonial section really only serves to shame the victims, something that can be briefly described in other articles without going into needless details. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear content fork Laura240406 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary fork of content already covered in existing articles - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles. ShoBDin (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023)
Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.

Wikipedia already treats the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war as distinct events (the latter initiated by the first), and each has its own standalone article. It is entirely consistent for the sexual-violence coverage to be divided the same way. A POV fork occurs when content is split to promote a particular viewpoint, but here, the split follows event boundaries and chronology, not POV. These are two distinct areas of documented abuse, even if the perpetrating groups are the same (Hamas/PIJ and so on, though on October 7 some of the sexual violence was carried out by civilian Gazan residents apparently). BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A content fork exists when a new article is created on a topic that is already handled, or can readily be handled, within existing articles. This is explicitly covered under WP:CFORK. In this case, every substantive point in the article is already covered or can be covered in established articles, as I've already shown in my nomination. RS treat sexual and gender-based abuse of hostages as part of the Gaza hostage crisis and sexual violence that began on October 7 and was then "ongoing", as per the UN reports. The October 7 article does not only cover events of that specific day for this reason, and imo it shouldn't. (We've had extensive discussions about this on the talk page for that article.)

If your point is that the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks article is too narrow in title or scope, the correct venue is a move request (to change the title) or a discussion on that article's talk page about its structure and framing.

Re: Wikipedia already treats the October 7 attacks and the Gaza war as distinct events (the latter initiated by the first), and each has its own standalone article. We already have an article specifically devoted to the hostages and their treatment during the Gaza war, where the content also naturally fits, and which along with the other article also already contains much of the content duplicated here. It is Gaza hostage crisis, and Gaza_war_hostage_crisis#Treatment_of_hostages. This is why I said it appears to be a WP:POVFORK, as it was made with duplicated materials from already existing articles and with a subject that fits naturally within other, well-established articles, apparently for the purpose of emphasis. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. I believe it does not meet WP:NPOV, also as this has been covered in other articles, it would be a content fork. Equine-man (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting this is an attempt to censor the horrific sexual violence committed by Hamas. You cannot just lump this together with the sexual violence of the October 7 massacre because they are two different topics. SteelersDiclonious (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a content fork. Skycloud86 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We're seeing one of those articles that should both be an independent article and a section in another article. I'm seeing significant coverage from 2023 to 2025, meaning this is independently notable. I also think it would serve our readers better if we separated any sexual violence committed on the day of the attack versus the long captivity afterwards into different articles, as these are two different events. Bremps... 22:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nomination, this is a clear WP:POVFORK. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it a *POV* fork in your opinion? BlookyNapsta (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is big enough and notable enough and is not really covered by any of the other topics mentioned. Nehushtani (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It definitely seems notable enough on its own - there are plenty of sources and the content is big enough to not be a stub (and big enough that giving it the amount of depth that Wikipedia could give it would make it too big to fit comfortably in the Gaza war hostage crisis section on treatment of hostages). I also can't say that I'm convinced by the argument that the material is already covered in the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks - I feel like the content in the "In captivity in Gaza" sub-section of the "Alleged acts by location" sub-section fits somewhat awkwardly there. The split into a separate article seems justified. NHCLS (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This material is already covered in the other articles mentioned which makes it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It becomes a problem and an unacceptable content fork when there are multiple articles with the same information. Dualpendel (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sexual violence committed against Israeli hostages is a distinct, well-documented subject that cannot be incorporated into another article without obscuring its scope, patterns, and gendered nature. Merging would collapse a unique set of facts into broader events, erasing critical information and contradicting established principles for documenting sexual and gender-based violence as a topic that requires independent analysis. Furthermore, sexual violence in a hostage situation is fundamentally different from sexual violence in a massacre context: these are distinct cases, each shaped by its own conditions of coercion, control, and abuse of power. Treating them as interchangeable diminishes the accuracy and integrity of the record. שלומית ליר (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an LLM-generated response as it is not replying to what the AfD is about. We already have two pages that contain the information that was recently spun out into this POV fork and that are about this very subject, yet the response you have posted here is replying to an AfD for a long-established page with unique content that has no other page where it can fit without erasure.

Why do we need to have a third page on this subject when we already have a long-established sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis page containing this content, and another one that is specifically devoted to the hostages which already includes their testimonies of sexual violence?

Please respond to the actual case instead of the one that was responded to here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I find these cases unique and deserving of an article of their own. When writing about those who undergo sexual violence, the issue of silencing is often present; the cost of such silencing is the repetition of offenses and a weakening of victims’ trust in the ability of public institutions to acknowledge and address their experiences.

Having a separate article ensures that these events are documented with the depth, clarity, and visibility they require. שלומית ליר (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE but packaged in ai slop User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Middle East. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surprised that this article has been nominated for deletion, as it clearly does not warrant such an extreme action. As observed above by several commenters, the sexual violence against hostages is a distinct and quite serious subject that is amply sources and certainly does not fit the criteria of a POV fork. Removing it would fail to do justice to the subject matter, and it would further enhance Wikipedia's growing reputation for non-neutrality and hostility to Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: shud be "amply sourced." Apologize for misspelling. Coretheapple (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how this is a content fork. This subject matter is significant and noteworthy enough to merit its own article, as it has been covered by many outlets. Sexual abuse of the hostages also should not be generalized as just "treatment of hostages" or merged into the "hostage crisis" - doing so would (unintentionally, I presume the nom was in good faith) diminish the impact of the abuse. TheInevitables (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BELONG and WP:ITSNOTABLE User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is quite obviously a content fork made by an editor for the purpose of emphasizing the topic despite the fact that we already have two pages wholly devoted to it, one for sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7, and one for the hostages and their treatment in captivity which includes the same content. This same editor keeps making what appear to be LLM-generated pages duplicating content to emphasize topics that already have pages covering them. No attempt has been made to argue for why we need a third separate page on the same topic grounded in any policy.

The only attempt at a policy argument I've seen, aside from saying that it shows "bias against Israel" to delete a clear content fork made for POV purposes, is that the general article we have on the sexual violence has a title that implies an overly narrow scope. Yet we already have the same content included on that page, and we do so because the sexual violence against hostages is always covered in the main RS we have on it as part of the sexual violence that began on October 7. Look at the UN, Human Rights and journalistic reports on it and they all cover it in this context.

However, if this is the main problem, as Smallangryplanet said the proper venue for that is an RM to change the title to something like "Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7". Moreover, we already have a page devoted to the hostages and their treatment in captivity specifically which already includes the testimonies and the sexual violence. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's a more specific look into what you provided, so not really a true fork imo. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bremps. We can have both, or even three, which are distinct crimes. Also, let's not give our critics any more to grind. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough evidence and sources for this page. Meets WP:GNG and has been widely covered in the press. Agnieszka653 (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide better arguments than WP:ITSNOTABLE User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: A WP:POVFORK which does not pass WP:GNG. The article is not neutral whatsoever and is clearly written with a narrative in mind. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear cut POVFORK that brings nothing new to Wikipedia. The subject has been already covered elsewhere. Lorstaking (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per issue of notability, WP:POVFORK and most importantly WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The "victims" and "perpetuators" are not public figures. Zalaraz (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already said this is clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles also this is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject:

Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023)

Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings. Wikitalovin1 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no need to create another article on the same subject. The article is a POVFORK of Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks. Orientls (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : per @TheInevitables and @NHCLS Rafi Chazon (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A procedural note for participants and the closer: the Keep !vote by @Wikitalovin1 is copy-pasted from @ShoBDin and @BlookyNapsta rather than an independent contribution.

Duplication examples

:The first part is identical to ShoBDin's comment:

Wikitalovin1:

...clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles.

ShoBDin:

... clearly a topic on its own. Anyone can see, that this topic needs an article of its own, as the issue it important enough, notable enough, as happens in many other articles on Wikipedia, where a segment of one article becomes an article on its own. That without stating the obvious, that the sexual abuse, doesn't truly fall under any of the topic names of the other articles.

then:

Wikitalovin1:

...this is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject: Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023) Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.

BlookyNapsta:

...This is not a POV fork under WP:CFORK (where exactly is the POV here?). The two topics are not the same subject: Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks deals with crimes committed during the attack itself (one day: October 7, 2023) Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war concerns abuse that occurred during months of captivity, which is a separate phase of the conflict, with different circumstances, timelines (October 8 2023 – October 2025), sources, and findings.

The only words that appear to be this editor's own are Keep: As already said this is... and "...also...." Per WP:NOTVOTE, !votes in formal discussions should be representative of individual views rather than simply an agreement with what has already been said, or indeed the text that has already been written. IMO, Wikitalovin1's comment should be discounted as a derivative restatement of existing arguments, not counted as a separate Keep !vote itself. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact i started my comment with alredy said Wikitalovin1 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't add any clear indication you were quoting, and you combined content from two separate comments in a way that could be taken to mean you were presenting it as your own. Please have a look at WP:DELAFD (and/or WP:REPEAT) - this is a discussion, not a counted vote, so repeating others' arguments (even or especially if you do not say you are quoting them) verbatim is not advised. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest collapsing your argumentation here, as it lengthy, insubstantive and interrupts the flow of discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, thought I had. Apologies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ynet and the Jerusalem Post should not be used by this article. These have a vested interested in creating propaganda for Israel. this bbc article which the article cites is the BBC saying that the Israeli 'experts' are saying that it occured, not BBC themselves. These 'experts' hold the WP:FRINGE belief that October 7 was a genocide, so they should not be paid. Thoes cited in the BBC report: Dinah Project, Ruth Halperin-Kaddar, Sharon Zagagi-Pinhas, and Nava Ben-Or are not independent from this topic. this middle east eye and the cnn report should be removed per WP:SYNTH, they do not mention sexual assault or violence. this apnews article is debunked (pbs ei (commentary on nyt)) so it should not be used for the same reason we don't include old studies that say cigarettes are good for you or that asbestos is safe for household use, WP:OUTDATED. Similarly, I think most of these articles can be disregarded because they have been exposed for lying since they were published before the pbs article (22 may 2024). Then, i think the remaining ones (2-3 citations actually on the topic) are based on the outdated reports, and mention the topic in passing, thus it does not meet WP:GNG User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see both sides, but after carefully reviewing the content, sourcing and arguments, I believe a deletion is in order. I shall explain why. The new page was copied vebatim from the section devoted to the subject on the main page. The amount of content there falls well short of justifying a standalone page.

This goes to the point of distinctiveness and notability cited by multiple editors. I believe this misunderstands the sourcing. There is news coverage of the now four hostages and their testimonies. However, the substantive, best quality secondary sourcing such as the United Nations and other reports, all uniformly present sexual violence against hostages as part of the broader pattern of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) that began on October 7 and continued afterward. The page itself relies on these reports. We ought to follow this model of presentation as per WP:RS and WP:V. Moreover, separating the topic from that broader pattern dilutes its significance by erroneously framing it as an separate, distinct phenomenon rather than an integral part and extension of said pattern.

Even if independent notability had been established, this alone does not require or justify a standalone page, and declining to create one does not diminish the gravity of the subject. Rather the opposite, as I explained. This case reflects exactly what is recommended in WP:NOPAGE, which notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page.

My final concern is that the page by its design consists largely on repeating individual testimonies from news reports. These are already covered proportionately, succinctly, and with proper context in the existing parent article, and as presented here raise issues of WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:VL. I agree with @Oaktree b who expressed worry about a page that by its topic-design is set to function as a mere repository of individual sexual violence testimonies quoted at great length, which also runs against WP:OVERQUOTING.

I do, however, believe the parent article should be renamed. I support Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis since October 7. This matches how we title the equivalent page concerning SGBV against Palestinians, where we specify both the victim group and the time period: Sexual and gender-based violence against Palestinians during the Gaza war. This should have been done long ago, and renders moot the claim that the main page is too narrow in scope. Lf8u2 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article is very important in terms of raising the awareness of these terrible actions by Hamas. The sources are very clear about the facts, which are also very different from the October 7th story. The Israeli hostages were kept in captivity - some of them for more than two years - and the conditions and the atmosphere changed completely in a way that makes maintaining a separate article a very justifiable decision. LidDahl (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This argument boils down to WP:BELONG. It does not counter the arguments about WP:NOPAGE but only says that the page should exist because Hamas is bad. That is not based on policy. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 23:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or the very least merge the Sexual and gender-based violence against Israeli hostages during the Gaza war article with the Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks page and then renamed the article as “Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis during the Gaza war”. Plus, I agree with some of the comments here, stating that the article is basically content fork. Qhairun (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks - I'm persuaded by Lf8u2's comment above. I support Qhairun's proposed title for the article though: "Sexual and gender-based violence against Israelis during the Gaza war". Samuelshraga (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, and this also goes to @Qhairun, this CFORK was copied directly from the already existing section on the main page, so there is no need to merge. There is nothing new here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I say merge, what I'm getting at is that the title of the target page should be changed to reflect the inclusion of this content. I don't know if/how it's possible to find consensus to move a page's title in the AfD discussion of a separate page, but that's what I wanted to convey. If however the main page remains as Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks, then my comment should be taken as an argument for (second choice) keep, and the material shouldn't be duplicated on the other page. I think we do better with a single page for this material though, hence my !vote. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a separate page to a different title is outside of the scope of AfD Katzrockso (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a POV fork, because the split is not based on a point of view but on facts. Sexual violence committed on the day of the attack and sexual violence committed during captivity are two different things, documented by different sources and investigated differently. Merging into a single article would hurt the subject and create confusion, which would likely harm neutrality rather than improve it. Keeping the topics separate allows a more balanced, proportional, and accurate presentation, in line with WP:NPOV and with the way reliable sources themselves present the material. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a LLM-generated response, and it does not engage with the content of the AfD. The user @Eliezer1987 has stated that they use LLMs for their edits in the past after other editors took notice of it. So you end up with a confused mangle of claims that have nothing to do with this AfD:

"This is not a POV fork, because the split is not based on a point of view but on facts." This is not what a POV Fork is, and the section the fork was copied directly from has the exact same RS-basis as it was a copy.

"documented by different sources and investigated differently" They are in fact documented by the exact same sources and investigated in the same way (first-hand testimonies), in the most comprehensive reports we have, which state explicitly that reliance on such testimonies is primary given the lack of physical evidence for various reasons (mistakes made by first responders, mismanagement, etc.).

"Merging into a single article would hurt the subject and create confusion, which would likely harm neutrality rather than improve it", this is not about a merger. The content for this CFORK was copied verbatim from the already existing page, and rather than creating confusion, it does precisely the opposite by placing it in context.

"Keeping the topics separate allows a more balanced, proportional, and accurate presentation, in line with WP:NPOV and with the way reliable sources themselves present the material." This is simply inaccurate as the RS do not present the material in this way at all, and the question of balance, proportionality and accuracy are entirely irrelevant as the content of the page was copied verbatim from the already existing section.

This is why I said to another editor who also appears to have used a LLM-generator to avoid doing so especially for AfDs because you end up generating responses that have no bearing on the actual content of the case. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't written by LLM!! and the claim that it was is not only insulting, but also contributes nothing to the discussion. The fact that I mentioned previously that I used LLM does not mean that this is what was done here and even the opposite. Eliezer1987 (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't read like LLM-generated text to me, did you use a tool on it that made you come to that conclusion? Nor is the argument confused, even though I disagree about the benefits of keeping the topic separate. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I used multiple LLM-checkers. Grammarly says 53% AI, ZeroGPT 100%, Scribrr 51%. However as they say they didn't use an LLM, I'll accept that. I still disagree regarding the quality of the arguments for reasons mentioned. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So we're now taking up space on an AfD page openly speculating that a user is utilizing artificial intelligence to craft their responses? And flinging some essay at them as if it is policy? I really wish editors would confine themselves to the merits and not clog AfD pages with this kind of thing. I request that you hat this. Thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As these are completely different topics. There is no POV fork. Each one is in a different category, one speaks of the day of the attacks, the other speaks of the time the hostages were in captivity. The relation between the two is cause and consequence, but again, each one is notable for itself. It like saying all Wikipedia articles are POV fork of The Big Bang. Denisaptr (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just blatantly false, none of the 'victims' whose claims are listed here have Wikipedia articles of their own and do not have enough coverage to pass notability. This is just talking about WP:GNG, not the more restrictive WP:NEVENT User:Easternsahara_{review this} 00:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks so editors can selectively merge any relevant content to that page with the possibility for a page move, per WP:NOPAGE. The issue here is that this topic is effectively a list of specific survivor testimonies of hostages captured during the 7 October attacks. This is obviously currently better covered in the greater context of the October 7 attacks and further coverage of the evolution of sexual violence during the conflict, which is already covered at the aforementioned page. Hostages were taken as a result of the 7 October attacks, so it makes sense to cover all of this at the same page rather than arbitrarily split based on whether the sexual violence took place on 7 October or later - the source material does not distinguish these categories explicitly. As other editors have noted, this article duplicates much of the material at Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 attacks#In captivity in Gaza, so the really the redirect should be targeted there.

I would probably support a move to change the destination pages article title to expand its scope, but that is not within the scope of this AfD.

If the material at the page becomes burdensome or further information emerges, the topic may be spunout again (something I believe will likely occur eventually) Katzrockso (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Fair Elections

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

Unsourced. Not clear this passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kyrgyzstan. 4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unsourced since 2009, irrelevant. Svartner (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's some coverage ([17], [18], [19]), so I'd hesitate outright deleting the article, perhaps it could be redirected somewhere. I might look for more coverage later. toweli (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the coalition only participated in the 2005 election, I reckon 2005 Kyrgyz parliamentary election might be a good redirect or merge target as an alternative to deletion. Yue ✉ 02:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue: I wouldn't support a merge because the content isn't sourced/verified. I wouldn't support a redirect as the topic is not mentioned at all at that article. That said, if you were to add content from the references you found to 2005 Kyrgyz parliamentary election I would support a redirect to that page once that has been done. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 4 December 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. ✗plicit 03:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Radicals in Sri Lanka

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:ORG.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sri Lanka. 4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced; and anyway information that would probably be better included in a different article. Athanelar (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tagged as unsourced for almost 16 years, this is basically synthesis. As the years go by the potential sources become depleted. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 28 November 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.

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Angola

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

Fails WP:No original research/WP:GNG. Our article appears to be based on a translation of the Hausa wikipedia page. The author of that page appears to have confused this organization with the different but similarly named Frente Nacional de Libertação de Angola (National Front for the Liberation of Angola); making the content inaccurate and perhaps a tangle of the history of two separate organizations (meaning we can't just simply retitle this as a fix).4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Angola. 4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – My searches in my scholarly libraries and general search engines returned no results for the name in English or Portuguese. The topic is at best poorly covered in reliable sources and possibly lacking standalone notability, and at worst it is a fictional amalgamation of two separate organisations. I personally have never heard of such a group in my readings on Angolan history. Yue ✉ 02:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Tourism, Leisure and Transport

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG. Individual government departments are not inherently notable. Per WP:NOPAGE this would be better covered at Isle of Man Government so a merge/redirect there could be an WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was only able to find primary sources on the topic. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaima Rahman

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

According to WP:BIO, for a person to have a separate article, there must be WP:SIGCOV in independent, third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources used in the article are about the National Prayer Breakfast. Besides that, I haven’t seen any detailed coverage of personal or professional achievements, and the sources are mainly family-centric, such as news like “whose daughter/granddaughter.” In this case, such one-dimensional, event-based coverage is not enough to create a separate biography.

According to WP:1E, if a person is discussed in the media because of a single event, their information should be kept in the article about that event, not in a separate article. From what I’ve seen, the sources in the article are centered around a specific visit in 2025, and beyond that, there is very little independent discussion about Zaima. So this falls under WP:1E.

According to WP:BIOFAMILY, “being a relative of a notable person alone does not make someone notable.” Such information is usually kept in the family article or in the article of the notable person.

Therefore, I think this page should be deleted and Zaima’s information could be added to the Majumder–Zia family article. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article subject (she) was a subject of national controversy, per /Career section, as a result of the controversy a former minister had to resign, so obviously a notable topic. Also she is one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, such as recent coverage 1 and 2. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman, I have read the career section. The claim that she is notable because “a former minister had to resign” is not supported by the citations. Murad Hasan’s resignation resulted from multiple controversies, including derogatory remarks about Islamic scholars and an actress, alongside the comment involving Zaima Rahman. Reliable coverage makes clear that the resignation was not caused by the subject (Zaima) personally, and she was not the main focus of the controversy.
Moreover, the cited sources in the article are about the minister’s conduct and resignation, not about Zaima Rahman herself. They do not provide the significant, independent, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON.
Per WP:BLP1E, a person mentioned incidentally in a short-lived, event-based news cycle does not gain notability. Being referenced in someone else’s scandal without substantial biographical coverage does not justify a standalone biography. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 16:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got misleading. read the section and cited sources again. However, this is not the only event I mentioned, you also mentioned about another event in main nomination, that is National Prayer Breakfast, and she is obviously one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, per my comment above, and I have searched on google (you can also try a query) there are lot more can be added. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete shows no notability. Mehedi Abedin 03:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not place for personal promotion. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, Wikipedia is not for personal promotion, so we should remove promotional content from this article to make it suitable for Wikipedia standards. Zaima Rahman is an important figure in Bangladeshi politics because she is mentioned various times in the Bangladesh political landscape. Additionally, she is the daughter of Tarique Rahman and the granddaughter of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia. I believe we need to consider these points to improve the article's standard rather than delete it. Iftekharrr (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources that provide WP:significant coverage. I'm not familiar with the sources and I'd like other editors to weigh in on their quality. If they are independent and reliable, then this article could pass the letter of the guideline of WP:BIO while being sustained over time. However, the coverage is limited to speculation about future endeavors, and is centered around two appearances. I'm not sure that the subject feels notable.

United News of Bangladesh (UNB) 2025-02-03 and 2025-11-23 have multiple biographical details, that address the subject directly and in detail including education, residence. Speculation about her future role in the BNP. Mostly keyed off of two appearances.
Ittefaq 2025-02 article on subject's potential role in the future of the BNP (political party)
Kaler Kantho editorial? 2025-11 with biographical information

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources about Zaima Rahman that are reliable, neutral, and not promotional. Iftekharrr (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @PacificDepths: I would say that UNB is reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS (France24, BBC, AP), The Daily Ittefaq is mentioned in the BBC media guide for Bangladesh, it is sometimes quoted in Google Books and Google Scholar, however, I cannot find its About page. Kaler Kantho "About" page states (Google translate), Kalerkantho is a national leading daily from Bangladesh, established on January 10, 2010. We serve complete truth to our readers, not the half., I would say it is unreliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Labour League of Sweden

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

Political party that failed to ever win any elections/ get any seats. Not clear if this passes WP:ORGCRIT. At the moment has zero sources.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sweden. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know nothing of this subject matter, but I see that 21 years after creation, it still has no sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If WP:BEFORE had bee done, it would have been revealed that the Swedish interwiki is referenced. And WP:BEFORE would have revealed that SKA appears in many potential sources, as being the first . See [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. SKA was a small group, but is historically notable in literature as the first anti-revisionist organization in Sweden, and served as a precursor to the 1968 left and a bridge from the old SKP to the various groups on the Maoist left of the 1970s. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do these pass WP:ORGCRIT? Linking to a bunch of books without viewable text isn’t much of a demonstration of SIGCOV. (Although different countries have different access levels, so depending on where you are you might have access) if these had viewable text with in-depth coverage I might take your criticism, but they don’t. Offline foreign language materials isn’t something one would expect to come up in a BEFORE. Have you read these? What do they actually say? You are going to need to give us a bit more to prove your point because I can’t access a single word inside these.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added three sources (at least one I would characterize as unambiguous sigcov) to the article from offline DN archives. You can view the search results (although sadly not the full clippings) here. Zzz plant (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. This is not an endorsement of their ideology. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Weirdly, the sourcing on the article in Swedish is hardly any better. If this was an extensive article in Swedish I'd feel more inclined to save this one. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Brit

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A puppet used some time around 2009 by a far-right party. Sources are 1. A list of 10 things to know about the party, 2. An opinion column that says that the party has far better recruitment techniques, 3. A TV panel show that mocks obscure and bizarre things from the week's news, 4. A blog (dead link). This is neither a notable exercise in far right youth recruitment (compare to Nazi punk and white power skinheads) nor a notable fictional character. When characters from major franchises are put in list articles because they are not deemed to have individual notability, surely this doesn't meet notability. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. In addition to the sources already present in the article, there is WP:SIGCOV in this academic book. All together seems to meet our notability threshold.4meter4 (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 17:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British National Party the two reliable sources are actually about the party not this puppet. Passing mention on a tv show and the last source is a blog. Can't find any other sources of WP:SIGCOV so I don't think this is notable enough for its own article. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British National Party - The coverage in reliable sources regarding the puppet is found in sections of articles/discussions of the BNP overall, and per WP:NOPAGE it would make the most sense for us to do the same here for the greater context this would provide. Rorshacma (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Aneirinn (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Fair Start Movement

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

Seems like astroturfing to me. Clear neutrality issues in the writing, and the vast majority of sources are either directly self-published by the organization or otherwise written by people tied to it (Carter Dillard, Policy Director and Board Member of the Fair Start Movement; Esther Afolaranmi, co-executive director at the Fair Start Movement). There are a few cursory mentions in news articles, but not enough to establish notability. I have checked on Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar, and the results don't seem much better there. Spookyaki (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Environment, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Among the sources listed in the article, this is the best one, it contains two paragraphs on the organization. Also this is the only source not authored by Dillard/Afolaranmi when I searched in Google News. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure its astroturfing, I actually am familiar with the Fair Start Movement, but I can't find enough sources to justify keeping the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the sources currently cited. I do not see any assessment of the baseline problem our work covers in any of Spooyaki's coverage of political movements: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spookyaki. That means they don't assess how birth inequity fundamentally stymied those movements, leading to massive inequity and risk today, with it likely that more people will die because of birth-based inequity than ever before: https://healthpolicy-watch.news/climate-change-is-here-and-its-killing-millions/. All of their writing assumes the standard birth inequity baseline for damages arising out of the polycrisis, meaning they are wrongly discounting climate reparations significantly. CarterDillard (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is false. Here are multiple articles cleared by editors or in some cases authors unassociated with our organization, including one published at the MAHB at Stanford University: https://www.rubywarrington.com/wwk_podcasts/questioning-our-procreative-ethics/, https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/family-planning-offers-the-best-means-for-combating-climate-change-an-interview-with-carter-dillard-fair-start-movement/, https://planetcritical.substack.com/p/who-pays-the-cost-of-growth, https://www.newsweek.com/its-earth-overshoot-day-future-generations-are-calling-opinion-1728512, https://www.planetcritical.com/climate-reparations-esther-afolaranmi/, https://youthtimemag.com/whats-the-fair-start-movement-and-how-it-leads-us-towards-a-better-future-an-interview-with-carter-dillard/, https://www.newsweek.com/todays-trolley-problem-only-one-track-leads-future-opinion-1787190, https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/ab05c291-1556-41a0-a328-f59cdd5c842a/episodes/0f95b1c0-a4f3-4b66-ae65-cfbbb68e750e/the-simple-heart-w-wayne-hsiung-from-cop-to-criminal---carter-dillard. There are dozens more. CarterDillard (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be kept if it can be shown that there are sources that pass WP:NGO. The ones provided above fail the criteria for independence. Going through them one by one, 1. A podcast with Carter Dillard, who is listed in the "Our People" section of the movement's site[30]. 2. Interview with Dillard. 3. Substack is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. 4. Authored by Dillard. 5. Podcast with Esther Afolaranmi, who is associated with the movement. 6. Interview with Dillard. 7. Authored by Dillard. 8. Podcast with Dillard. All these sources fail WP:ORGIND because Dillard/Afolaranmi have basically co-authored them. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast hosts and interviewers are persons not associated with the movement, and the material cited is published by institutions not associated with the movement. Newsweek editors are not associated with the movement, for example. Stanford MAHB employees were not associated with the movement. CarterDillard (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Start reforms that elevate birth equity as the preemptive standard for legitimate cost/benefit analysis significantly increase liability for a variety of harms linked to the climate crisis, the decline of democracy, and increasing maternal/child mortality rates. Our advocates have seen multiple attempts to remove our information and hide that increased liability, often by those engaged in growthwashing (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/01/07/how-the-world-hides-liability-for-climate-deaths/) for example. The legal research underlying the idea that measurable birth equity is the first and overriding human right, and the baseline for measuring liability for the polycrisis, has an H-index of 10 on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WCOdw3oAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao, with publications appearing in variety of peer-reviewed legal journals. The research is discussed in a variety of more commonly read publications: https://observatory.wiki/Fair_Start_Movement. Discussion of deletion seems retaliatory for our recent coverage of Wikipedia's omissive standards in publishing content around environmental impact claims(true neutrality requires first accounting for one's privileged birth and developmental positionality and the full impacts of the system that create it) that are false and misleading: https://fairstartmovement.org/factchecking-wikipedia-and-the-center-for-biological-diversity-take-action/. We will certainly be adding additional sources to the page, but also adding new pages regarding evasion of liability as climate-related deaths increase, and the equitywashing and fraud that gave rise to our organization: https://www.laprogressive.com/gender-discrimination/birth-equity CarterDillard (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this kind of proves my point. Spookyaki (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? CarterDillard (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do admin work on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_rights page Spookyaki. That page has no discussion of birth equity as a preemptive human right, or the simple concept that authority to govern must be derived back to the measurable empowerment of those subject to it. Those ideas have multiple peer-reviews supporting them. Instead, the human rights page excluded that information, and replicates the error detailed here, https://www.radiofree.org/2024/07/09/how-a-twentieth-century-family-planning-strategy-fueled-the-climate-crisis/, a mistake now fundamentally leading to the deaths of millions. CarterDillard (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this sort of thing.

The sources for this article are unreliable and also seems rather promotional. Delete. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Carter Dillard appears to be an attorney, and so presumably is able to read and understand WP:N and the key material linked from it, particularly that on source reliability and independence. He's had two weeks to show us such sources, but instead pontificates about WP:Righting great wrongs. Time's up. E Eng 06:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Summit Council for Peace

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

Subject is a non-notable Unification Church affiliated organization. Current sourcing fails to show notability. After close to 3 years with a more citations tag, the current citations are:

1 RS partially Unification Movement funded source that gives a bare mention in a list of other UC affiliated organization

5 primary sources reprinting speeches from ISCP or press releases by the ISCP or their speakers

1 source giving a close paraphrase of a speech from an ISCP conference

With the exception of the bare mention in the middle of list of other similar UC organizations in ~~Freedom of Belief~~ The Journal of CESNUR which is partially funded by the Unification Movement (included in it's entirety below), all the sources are exclusively interested in the attendees, not the ISCP itself. This clearly fails WP:INHERITORG, which says An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Some notable people have spoken at ISCP conferences, but ISCP is not itself notable.

The UPF is active through a number of specialized organizations, each of which holds its own events:
The International Association of Parliamentarians for Peace (IAPP)

The International Summit Council for Peace (ISCP)

The International Association of First Ladies for Peace (IAFLP)

The Interreligious Association for Peace and Development (IAPD)

The International Media Association for Peace (IMAP)

The International Association of Academicians for Peace (IAAP)

The International Association for Peace and Economic Development (IAED)

[...]
The Interreligious Association for Peace and Development (IAPD) has been launched on November 13, 2017, in Seoul, as a partner association of IAPP. More than 60,000 attended the event at the Seoul World Cup Stadium. The idea behind IAPD is that the aims pursued by the IAPP parliamentarians, and by UPF in general, also have a spiritual dimension, and that dialogue between religions is a necessary pre-condition for peace. Regional meetings have gathered representatives of most major religions.
— The Journal of CESNUR

CamAnders (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Edited: 10:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CamAnders (talk) 05:40, 18 November 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 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links? I don't understand, yesterday I found and opened all those links again. Therefore, all Wikipedia users can open those articles and verify all sources of information.

In any case, let other WP editors check all the sources of information and make a decision. I will accept the decision of the WP community.

If other WP editors conclude that the sources of information are not reliable or that they are dead links (which I do not agree with because I opened all the links without any problems) and that it is not an important topic for Wikipedia, I will accept such a decision. DanielCro (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I think you meant to reply to me on this page. I've replied there accordingly. CamAnders (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you very much.

Below is my answer on other page.

You are right about that one link, but all the other 4-5 links that I added yesterday are fine, the sources can be verified, and the additional content and information prove that this is an important article about a very important political initiative, for Wikipedia and beyond.

Thank you for your help and support trying to search for archives in order to rescue missing articles, I'm really grateful to you for this effort.

This only shows how important the WP community and mutual support are in achieving a common goal, sharing important information with the public DanielCro (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and Politics. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:14, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Amin-Smith

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

British political advisor ('SpAd') and sometime musician. Not elected, so fails WP:NPOL as a politician and brief career with Clean Bandit doesn't confer notability. Redirect to Clean Bandit as AtD (his only possible claim to notability is the band, not as a political advisor) reverted, so we find ourselves here. Coverage presented is for Clean Bandit, not Amin-Smith. Wonder if there's a COI involved here, but honestly am not bothered. If not Redirect, Delete. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Politics, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: his notability as a political advisor is underscored by his several mentions in various reputed outlets (Politico, The Guardian) as Rachel Reeves' foremost advisor, and in his topping of The Standard's 'List of Sexiest Londoners' this year, both of which were my reasoning for constructing the article (as opposed solely to his time as a violinist in a band). I don't see why he should be considered any less notable than two of the other Clean Bandit members Grace Chatto and especially Jack Patterson, neither of whom are reported on individually as much in recent years. Amin-Smith does fail WP:NPOL (after all, civil servants aren't politicians), but fulfils every aspect of WP:GNG. Profavi1 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As argued by the previous voter. The current article is lopsided and does not need to repeat basic info on Clean Bandit and Smith's place in the band. Conversely, the section on his political advising career can be expanded because he has received notice for influencing some powerful people. He does not need to satisfy WP:NPOL because he is not a politican running for office, but per WP:GNG he has achieved basic notability as someone who has been covered in reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:00, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But he hasn't - that's the issue here. The RS references on this page are all about Clean Bandit... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the sources currently in the "Political career" section have a hard time introducing him without talking about his previous music career, but that is standard journalistic practice. After that obligatory coverage, my stance is that the sources are indeed about his current work as an advisor, however brief. Here are some more that follow the same pattern but still name him as an advisor to the powerful: [31], [32]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:05, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lovely Arab phrase, the dog of a Sheikh is not a Sheikh - Advisors to the powerful are not themselves in power. Or, to be a tad more pithy, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - notability is not inherited. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid the temptation to bludgeon when your points have already been made several times. Meanwhile, the argument that an advisor to the powerful is not in power, and therefore only inherits notability from the powerful, is a red herring that avoids the question of whether an advisor can be notable as an advisor. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this here indenting thing? It's used for discussion. I say a thing, you say a thing. Screaming bludgeon during dialogue is hardly conducive to discussion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fully two-thirds of the current sourcing relates to Clean Bandit. That leaves the only claim to fame being mentioned incidentally in coverage or winning a "sexiest" list by one publication. That doesn't meet the significant coverage standard for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A special advisor isn't notable, the violin playing could be, but he's a rather minor member of the band. Sexiest anything isn't quite notable either. Most of the coverage is about the band, not about this person. Being on a politician's staff isn't notable, I'm not sure what's left... Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the sources cited are quite subpar, additional sources exist, thus he meets WP:GNG.Cornerstone1949 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do, please, feel free to provide links to three reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here, or on the article? Cornerstone1949 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anywhere, TBH. Here's fine... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Amin-Smith has had an interesting career. Perhaps we can all agree on that! If he was just a musician, maybe you'd have a case to just redirect to Clean Bandit. If he was just a spad, maybe you'd have a case under WP:NPOL to delete. But he's been both and there's enough sourcing to write an article about him. In other words, he meets WP:GNG, including a Politico article all about him, and a lead role in a Standard article, and even an Attitude piece about his relationship ending. Bondegezou (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Will Stancil

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

Sources are entirely about losing a local political campaign and being the victim of a harassment campaign. Fails WP:NPOL, and per WP:AVOIDVICTIM we should not make articles like this. Also usage of several sources disallowed on politics, e.g. Rolling Stone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Minnesota. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Person appears to have detailed (i.e. significant) coverage in multiple reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. He has more coverage than simply the harassment issue - I think it just slides by the victim thing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the page, Stancil has received notable coverage about his takes, as shown in the references. More could be added, but he has had significant coverage in reputable sources before his political campaign. Examples:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-is-the-public-down-on-the-economy-ft-will-stancil/id1390384827?i=1000637921316

https://www.businessinsider.com/recession-outlook-economy-good-inflation-jobs-wages-2023-12

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/18/democrats-less-boring-emotional-reaction-00033382

https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/will-stancil-repetitive-and-annoying-and-influential-player-american-politics

I think he gets enough notability as a public intellectual, and I have tried to avoid undue weight on the recent AI generated show. The article is a stub, and could be improved, but he meets notability criteria. Calwatch (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all opinion pieces, him being quoted with no sourcing about him (so not sigcov) or local news. Every piece of sigcov is about him being bullied on Twitter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References #2 and #3 already in the article (Intelligencer and Slate) sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is just a further explanation of WP:BLP1E which doesn't apply here for a multitude of reasons. Katzrockso (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AVOIDVICTIM is not that, it is the rule that "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization", and so we should not include detail that is of that nature. Stancil has only ever received coverage for being bullied on Twitter (as both of the sources you note are about). This entire article is a WP:BLP issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that someone has received abuse in no way "participat[es] in or prolong[s]" victimization. It is quite simple to reduce the proportion of material focused on the abuse he has received in the article and this would suffice in assuaging any concern you might have (even if we accept the proposition that AV applies here). Am I to understand your position that bullying/harassment shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia because it reproduces the victimization? Katzrockso (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an entire article about someone being a harassment victim does contribute to their harassment.

Yes, if it involves specific BLPs of people solely covered for being harassment victims. For example we do not even mention the name of the person Kiwi Farms is named after, because that is contributing to that person's harassment, even though it is noted in RS, because WP:AVOIDVICTIM. People like this who have received coverage solely for being harassed by the internet have regularly had their articles deleted/draftified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But Stancil is a public intellectual who has had his opinions both published by major publications like Politico and examined by other RS like Slate and New York Magazine. The harassment (such as it is) is mostly related to his public positions, and not some immutable characteristic like his race or sexual orientation. Calwatch (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call him an intellectual and the sources that examine his views are within the context of the campaign against him. The Slate article title begins "The Most Harassed Guy on X", and the rest of it is an interview. What the harassment is because of is irrelevant, nothing in AVOIDVICTIM says it should only be about identity-based harassment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stancil is obviously an intellectual — of the liberal-pundit type. I also think it's misguided to try to justify disappearing him from WP as something implicit for 'his own good' (you keep citing, unconvincingly, WP:AVOIDVICTIM)...joepa^T 19:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Intellectual", I do not see how he obviously matches the definition (unless everyone with a masters degree is an intellectual, which I do not believe to be the case). It is not for anyone's good or ill, I have no personal feelings on the man, it is for compliance with WP:BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An intellectual of the liberal-pundit type, like Will, is a public performer who packages ideas for political impact and media consumption, while someone with a master’s degree is usually just a private professional with specialized training and no obligation (or platform) to translate that knowledge into partisan narrative. Despite his own substantial academic training, Will as the pundit-intellectual is defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth.joepa^T 19:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...according to who? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources in the article says "the region's most prolific public intellectual on social media". https://mspmag.com/arts-and-culture/in-conversation-with-will-stancil/ Calwatch (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking about what the rest of that whole statement was from (saying he is "defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth" what?). Intellectual just means 'intelligent person', so yes, I am not surprised that you can find a source that calls him one, but that's something of an opinionated statement. And we likely aren't going to convince each other, so it's best not going in circles. I stand by my opinion and you stand by yours and it is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? According to Intellectual#Public_intellectual! joepa^T 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking how you came to conclude that Stancil as an individual is "defined by visibility, rhetorical packaging, and tribal signaling rather than pure scholarly depth". PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I mean, just read the quote I reference below, where Stancil is quite clearly described as a liberal pundit comparable to Chris Hayes in influence. joepa^T 21:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously. Stancil, despite being considered a "lolcow"^[1] in some spaces, is clearly notable in his own right for his work in government and public affairs and his endeavours in electoral politics.joepa^T 10:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. While the subject admittedly fails WP:NPOL, this is clearly a WP:GNG pass per the sourcing. Sal2100 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He isn't notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. There are other wikis. Raync (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Would you please explain, citing the appropriate WP policies/parameters, why the subject "isn't notable." Thank you! joepa^T 05:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ MacDougald, Park (6 November 2024). "JD Vance: prince of the MAGA movement". UnHerd. Paul Marshall. Archived from the original on 6 November 2025. Retrieved 3 December 2025. A handful of liberal pundits, including MSNBC's Chris Hayes and the newly minted lolcow Will Stancil, have pointed to these connections as evidence that Vance himself is a budding authoritarian, or that his brain has simply been "pickled", in Hayes's words.

Battle of Begums

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

This article is based on very poor sources which mentions the topic as trivially. Rest of the article is an original research/possible hoax. Rht bd (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Rht bd (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree with the reason. But the topic is notable. I think it should be rewritten or smth. Raihanur (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Calder

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

Fails WP:GNG – town councillors are not considered notable in and of themselves. Was PRODed but that didn't take. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • a frantic turtle 🐢 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two primary sources are not enough for a BLP, and as a local government official, he's not automatically notable. A gentle reminder that the burden of proof is on the creator of a BLP. Ping me if you find and add two or three secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources and I cannot find more to bolster the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Gozi

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

Unsourced since 2005. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of captains regent of San Marino, 1500–1700 – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. If someone argues that he meets WP:NPOL by default, I counter with WP:PAGEDECIDE - we don't have more information than what fits into the list. Geschichte (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The figure should meet WP:NPOL and a good WP:BEFORE of Italian language sources should be done before redirecting, although I am aware that it may be impossible to find additional sourcing on a figure this old. I can't read Italian, so I can't really do a good WP:BEFORE. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Svartner. Mccapra (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator, I support a redirect to List of captains regent of San Marino, 1500–1700 as an WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Sure, he meets WP:NPOL as a head of state, but a head of state should at least have records of what he did for his country. If there is nothing, a redirect is better. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of captains regent of San Marino, 1500–1700 per Svartner, he meets WP:NPOL as he was a head of state.

KhantWiki (talk) 01:32, 4 December 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nizar al-Madani

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

Non Notable politician, member of people's assembly doesn't automatically give him notability. Only mentioned in passing in online articles: [33] [34] Quick-ease2020 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Quick-ease2020 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic, there is this extensive article from 2016: [35] and this video essay on yt: [36] Quick-ease2020 (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear pass of WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes NPOL as a member of Syria’s national legislature DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 07:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WP:NPOL says The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians ... who have held ... state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Clearly meets this standard aesurias (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - elected, active parliament members are automatically notable. This is not an endorsement of any of his policies. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NPOL. --SaTnamZIN (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. I think we're close to WP:SNOWBALL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:37, 28 November 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.

Zaima Rahman

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

According to WP:BIO, for a person to have a separate article, there must be WP:SIGCOV in independent, third-party reliable sources. Most of the sources used in the article are about the National Prayer Breakfast. Besides that, I haven’t seen any detailed coverage of personal or professional achievements, and the sources are mainly family-centric, such as news like “whose daughter/granddaughter.” In this case, such one-dimensional, event-based coverage is not enough to create a separate biography.

According to WP:1E, if a person is discussed in the media because of a single event, their information should be kept in the article about that event, not in a separate article. From what I’ve seen, the sources in the article are centered around a specific visit in 2025, and beyond that, there is very little independent discussion about Zaima. So this falls under WP:1E.

According to WP:BIOFAMILY, “being a relative of a notable person alone does not make someone notable.” Such information is usually kept in the family article or in the article of the notable person.

Therefore, I think this page should be deleted and Zaima’s information could be added to the Majumder–Zia family article. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article subject (she) was a subject of national controversy, per /Career section, as a result of the controversy a former minister had to resign, so obviously a notable topic. Also she is one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, such as recent coverage 1 and 2. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbiruzzaman, I have read the career section. The claim that she is notable because “a former minister had to resign” is not supported by the citations. Murad Hasan’s resignation resulted from multiple controversies, including derogatory remarks about Islamic scholars and an actress, alongside the comment involving Zaima Rahman. Reliable coverage makes clear that the resignation was not caused by the subject (Zaima) personally, and she was not the main focus of the controversy.
Moreover, the cited sources in the article are about the minister’s conduct and resignation, not about Zaima Rahman herself. They do not provide the significant, independent, in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON.
Per WP:BLP1E, a person mentioned incidentally in a short-lived, event-based news cycle does not gain notability. Being referenced in someone else’s scandal without substantial biographical coverage does not justify a standalone biography. Emdad Tafsir ◀ Talk ▶ 16:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got misleading. read the section and cited sources again. However, this is not the only event I mentioned, you also mentioned about another event in main nomination, that is National Prayer Breakfast, and she is obviously one of a regularly discussed topics in Bangladesh, per my comment above, and I have searched on google (you can also try a query) there are lot more can be added. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 16:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete shows no notability. Mehedi Abedin 03:37, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not place for personal promotion. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, Wikipedia is not for personal promotion, so we should remove promotional content from this article to make it suitable for Wikipedia standards. Zaima Rahman is an important figure in Bangladeshi politics because she is mentioned various times in the Bangladesh political landscape. Additionally, she is the daughter of Tarique Rahman and the granddaughter of Ziaur Rahman and Khaleda Zia. I believe we need to consider these points to improve the article's standard rather than delete it. Iftekharrr (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are some sources that provide WP:significant coverage. I'm not familiar with the sources and I'd like other editors to weigh in on their quality. If they are independent and reliable, then this article could pass the letter of the guideline of WP:BIO while being sustained over time. However, the coverage is limited to speculation about future endeavors, and is centered around two appearances. I'm not sure that the subject feels notable.

United News of Bangladesh (UNB) 2025-02-03 and 2025-11-23 have multiple biographical details, that address the subject directly and in detail including education, residence. Speculation about her future role in the BNP. Mostly keyed off of two appearances.
Ittefaq 2025-02 article on subject's potential role in the future of the BNP (political party)
Kaler Kantho editorial? 2025-11 with biographical information

—🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources about Zaima Rahman that are reliable, neutral, and not promotional. Iftekharrr (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @PacificDepths: I would say that UNB is reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS (France24, BBC, AP), The Daily Ittefaq is mentioned in the BBC media guide for Bangladesh, it is sometimes quoted in Google Books and Google Scholar, however, I cannot find its About page. Kaler Kantho "About" page states (Google translate), Kalerkantho is a national leading daily from Bangladesh, established on January 10, 2010. We serve complete truth to our readers, not the half., I would say it is unreliable. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Oleskiv

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

Removed as spam and not notable person in Ukraine WP. Head of the not notable state agency, no notable positions held. Lulakayd (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable state agency, the best source in the article is an interview. AGF and all that, but it appears the creator engages in paid editing and was accused of it in Ukrainian Wikipedia[37][38].Kelob2678 (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheInevitables (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while marketing tourism to the world is notable, she would not be. She's not a cabinet minister that would give a presumption of notability. There is at least one reliable source, but that's not enough for a BLP. I also think it would need to be re-done completely so it's not written as if it's a LinkedIn page. Since I support Ukraine and would love to visit, it's not personal. Lastly, I am concerned about possible conflicts of interest. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Trotman

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

fails GNG. looking at sources online its mostly opinion pieces she wrote, and promotional-toned interviews. Not anymore notable than any random local board member. Article also appears to be mostly written by the subject herself TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 10:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet GNG through a few sources. Also, is New Zealand Order of Merit a "well known and significant honor" for WP:ANYBIO?

Stuff 2016 Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit, 2019 profile, 2021 resignation and Western Springs Forest,

New Zealand Herald 2016 Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit

New Zealand Business February 2014: promotional tone, but an in-depth article with biographical information. partial link: "Woman of influence: Sarah Trotman is living proof that success and influence often go hand in hand with defeat and sacrifice. Mary MacKinven profiles one of New Zealand's most passionate business supporters."

🌊PacificDepths (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. stuff 2016 isn't significant coverage (just one brief bit amongst many other people), the 2019 profile is promotional in tone imo, and on the 2021 resignation source "local politician resigns" isnt exactly a notable event

2. isnt really significant coverage, you could probably use it for the article on the 2016 ONZM grants

3. a promotional tone article in an industry magazine.

There's like maybe 2 sources here, both promotional in tone, and you're gonna have NPOV issues. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue you're saying is less about WP:NPOV (reflect coverage from reliable sources in due proportion) as much as it is gauging the reliability of the source. You may be calling it human interest reporting in WP:NEWSORG.

Second, just one bit amongst many other people can still be significant coverage. The guideline doesn't state that. We can debate how much coverage is needed to be significant. One interpretation is that 100 words is enough.

Third, is the New Zealand Order of Merit is a well known and significant honor that meets the standards of notability in WP:ANYBIO? 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my keep vote: I believe Stuff (Niall 2021) has some secondary analysis and coverage of the subject with some context of her relationship to the project and history on the local board (Paragraphs such as "Trotman had been the elected member most critical...", "In April, Trotman was arrested..." and "Trotman had been the third highest-polling member...".). However, I'm not sure I can find another source that has WP:SIGCOV and isn't so reliant on primary sources. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All NZ Herald sources are merely interviews of the subject. The Stuff source, I suppose, does not meet the high parameters set for BLPs. The other sources mention the subject in passing. I'm open to retaining this article if further sources can be found. Just from an encyclopedic standpoint, the article in its current state does not seem fit to be in the mainspace. Kvinnen • dispatch an owl 10:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per details above by User:PacificDepths. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit isn't a significant honour, its the 2nd lowest on the list and equivalent to an OBE. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with comment above about GNG, which she very clearly falls short of. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Extensive coverage of Trotman in the media (here are articles/interviews from major sources with non-trivial mentions: [39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]). --Prosperosity (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who voted keep above, I don't think this is helpful. Your first link is an interview (though the intro is possibly more independent). The second link is also the source in their own words. These are not independent sources, being mostly primary sources. With WP:reliable sources we are looking for secondary sources that have done some research or analysis of the subject, one step removed from primary sources. Link #6 mentions Trotman once, in passing. It's not WP:significant coverage. I suggest paring this down to two or three sources that you can demonstrate are independent, reliable secondary sources, with significant coverage of the subject, to meet the WP:basic biography notability guideline. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beya Alcaraz

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

Alcaraz was appointed and resigned in about a week. Although there has been a flurry of attention in the local media, she doesn't pass either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BLP1E. I have added a short section to the article on Daniel Lurie that should be adequate coverage Lexiconaut (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Lexiconaut (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 05:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SUSTAINED probably applies here, subject's notability seems to be mostly in the context of her being elected, and given she only sat for one week this doesn't substantiate sustained notability for a biography. Athanelar (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to make a call on WP:SUSTAINED as she only resigned last week. Plus she meets criteria for WP:POLITICIAN so that policy becomes superfluous. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While her tenure was extremely brief, Alcaraz was an actual member of the SFBOS, and should have an article like all the others. She was the first person of Filipino descent to serve on the BOS, which is significant. I don't believe that simply listing her as a "controversy" on Lurie's article does justice. Her appointment and subsequent resignation have now made national news as well (NYT). Funcrunch (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe in keeping because on a list of supervisors she would be a mystery if she was in red or black and people would wonder why. They could google her name and see she served a week but why not have that information here? Theissuesandthedebates (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is likely the first major scandal of Lurie's administration and there has been extensive press coverage surrounding it. When you have the editors-in-chiefs of flagship local papers penning acerbic op-eds there shouldn't even be a question of notability. And as Funcrunch noted, this became a national story. She does meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN because she was actually sworn into that office, and WP:BLP1E states that EACH of the three criteria needs to be met. The event that she is associated with is significant and she was a major figure - if not the major figure - in that event. So neither of those, narrowly read, can be grounds for the removal of the article.

But forget the bureaucracy for a moment. Right now, if you go to the COB's office and you ask for a roll of SF supervisors, her name is going to appear on that list into perpetuity. She's probably got an engraved placard sitting somewhere in the board chambers. If someone wants to figure out what happened to that official, this page is going to be an important resource. That alone warrants her inclusion in my book. And who knows, she might even make another bid at some point. Ice Vest (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another important factor to consider: she is possibly the shortest serving supervisor in San Francisco's history! Ice Vest (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E with mostly negative content outside of the run-of-the-mill coverage; at this point she's notable entirely for her appointment having been a bad decision. Coverage of her appointment, before the purchaser of her business came forward, was overwhelmingly about how unknown she was, including to her constituents. The desire for complete coverage of the Board of Supervisors doesn't outweigh the BLP considerations. Should be deleted and replaced with a redirect; it's a pity there isn't a District 4 article to serve as the target, so I suppose the relevant subsection of the Lurie article would be the best choice. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN states we presume notability with elected officials and deletion precedent suggests that by custom, legislators of intl. recognized cities receive pages. Furthermore, it's not appropriate that the first Fillipina supervisor in the city's history exists only as a footnote on Lurie's record. Negativity of coverage does not affect WP:BLP1E compliance, see WP:What BLP1E is not. Ice Vest (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for example, we see coverage of her in the context of her *attaining political office,* not in the context of her being fired. So the BLP1E screen doesn't pass muster. The "one event" is her firing, but she also generated coverage of that independently of that as an appointed legislator, with the swearing in and so on. Ice Vest (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E strictly does not apply here since there are two events to speak of (her appoint and her dismissal). Even if you conceptualize the "one event" as her membership/term on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, it doesn't meet the 3rd prong of BLP1E "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event is significant - dismissing a politician is very commonly significant, especially when it achieves press coverage like this, and her role is both documented and substantial. As noted above, WP:What BLP1E is not applies here. Coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which means that she passes WP:NPOLITICIAN under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage".Katzrockso (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She represented 80,000 people in an official capacity. She is notable for her appointment and abrupt resignation in scandal, two distinct events, therefore BLP1E does not apply. Deathying (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Size of jurisdiction does not matter for NPOL. However, I do not think BLP1E fits in this situation. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local politicians are neither notable nor insignificant. While WP:POLOUTCOMES would generally favor a retention of a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Chico does note that NPOL #2 is not an inherent way for any big city politician to have an article. NPOL #2 states that major local political figures who have received significant press coverage are presumed notable. In a note, significant press coverage is a figure who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. She has not been the subject of significant profiles from multiple journalists let alone with any kind of sustained coverage. This article has fallen into the trap of creating an article on a news story covered in a bunch of local newspapers. I also have to disagree with the assertions that the single event criteria or WP:BLP1E would not apply here. 1) There is no consensus that appointments to local governments are notable. Thus it would not be notable that she was both appointed and quickly resigned. 2) Almost any event can be broken down into multiple little things. This would make any officeholder who does not lose an election or retire at the end of a term notable which flies in the face of numerous policies. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:POLOUTCOMES nor a specific AfD are binding on the decision here. Your comment here demands "significant press coverage is a figure who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists", but this is not the requirement given by the WP:GNG for this subject to be notable. The WP:GNG states "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but does not require "news feature articles" (which I am taking to understand as a specific profile?). Editors certainly disagree about what constitutes WP:SIGCOV, but commonly WP:100WORDS about a subject is taken as one good indicator, and there are plenty more than 100 words written across many sources here.

Your argument about BLP1E is just as confused: nobody here is arguing that there is any sort of inherent notability to local government or that Beya Alcaraz is notable in virtue of having been appointed. The point is that her appointment and subsequent dismissal have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is enough for a WP:GNG pass. I think you may be confusing the counterargument that the story is significant with the point that it is notable. Moreover, a successful WP:BLP1E argument requires that all 3 prongs be met (see WP:What BLP1E is not), a requirement that is not met here. Above I argued that even if we accept that her tenancy as a San Francisco city council member can be understood as a single event (dubious), prong #3 is not satisfied. But I would also like to challenge prong #2: that she will remain a low-profile individual. She engaged in all the hallmarks of being a high-profile individual: seeking media attention, giving press conferences [51], giving interviews, etc. Indeed, becoming a politician (even one appointed) in a city as large as San Francisco almost inherently rebukes the idea that one can remain a low-profile individual. She had even given interviews before this whole political debacle! [52]. So here is another example of significant coverage for a different event (her pet store ownership) that once again refutes the third prong of BLP1E. Katzrockso (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how the phrase "While WP:POLOUTCOMES would generally favor a retention of a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors," could be interpreted as me thinking it is binding nor how directly quoting NPOL #2 to prove she fails to meet a subject specific guideline is irrelevant to the AfD. There is also no reason to think from what I have written that I consider a specific AfD binding either. While I disagree with you about GNG being met, be reassured if my views are as "confused" as you claim, then the experienced closers here will simply disregard them. --Mpen320 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned POLOUTCOMES and another AfD, which I noted neither have any PAG bearing on the notability of this particular individual. Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but I don't know why you would bring them up unless you thought that they were relevant to the notability of the subject. Katzrockso (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I think she is/was irrelevant as far as San Francisco politics go. If anything her appointment to SFBOS highlights the political quid pro quo system operating in the shadows. She has zero qualifications, credentials or experience. Her "career" as a pet shop owner was created by her father — not as a result of her business acumen. I think her 7 day supe job can go into a section on Daniel Lurie's page under blunders/embarrassments. Either way, the current state of Alcazar's page is white-washed of all the illegal activity she was engaged in (i.e. paying workers under the table and cheating on her taxes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrock95 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out double !vote.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E does not apply as she is notable for being appointed and resigning with there also being coverage on her pet business. Point 3 is also not met as there is substantial coverage of the event and a member of the board resigning is significant. She passes the second point in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG based on significant coverage of her in reliable sources. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was a mistake that lasted less than a week. She didn't win an election, she was appointed. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on hundreds of SFBOS that have served full terms. Bottom line: Alcaraz is an inconsequential and irrelevant political figure. This article screams of recency bias. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldrock95 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Every member of the SFBOS since 2001 has had an article on Wikipedia. I created the article for Beya Alcaraz on that basis, on the same day her appointment was announced. Funcrunch (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting for the record that you already !voted on this AfD. Funcrunch (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As we already have numerous articles for members on the SFBOS, it has been established that holding such a position warrants an article, although some delete voters argue that serving for around a week renders her not notable, and as she is no longer in office, she will fade into irrelevance. However, coverage of her resignation from office has reached significant coverage from outlets such as the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle. As such, it is clear to me that this individual passes WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. TheInevitables (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that she has an government website as a former Supervisor with a bio that is going to be maintained, into perpetuity, by the Clerk of the Board. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point in favor I mean - pushing back on this idea that she’s not a “real” supervisor or deserving of the courtesies that we typically associate with that office. ~2025-34029-62 (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Raihanur (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has made the New York Times regarding the recent scandal: [[53]] and also the San Francisco Standard: [[54]] Agnieszka653 (talk)
Redirect to Daniel Lurie#Beya Alcaraz as subject is only notable for serving one week on SFBoS and resigning amidst scandal. Although this event, which I consider WP:BLP1E, has received SIGCOV, the notability is more about the mayor not properly vetting the subject. Coverage is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED. I don't think NPOL#2 applies here as the subject is not a "major local political figure". Thus the redirect will cover what happened for those concerned about having an encyclopedic entry about the incident. Nnev66 (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E and SUSTAINED can't apply because she also received SIGCOV for her pet store. [55], meaning there is more than one "event" Katzrockso (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's passed on GNG and SIGCOV. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply in this case per GothicGolem29. This is also applied for WP:BASIC. Some delete votes focus too much on BLP1E without looking to another guidelines (See:WP:NOTBLP1E), this rule is not meant to exclude people who have coverage from more than one event. On WP:POLITICIAN, Alcaraz meets the second point, as she was sworn in as a member of SFBOS. Using of WP:SUSTAINED is too early, since coverage is recent and already significant. Other members of SFBOS have articles, so it makes sense to keep hers for consistency. For the record, this is not about bias or her Filipino heritage but about applying notability rules fairly. Based on these points, there is no strong reason to delete. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Genovese

AfDs for this article:

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

It looks like someone created pages for all the major candidates in the 2017 NJ governor's race, regardless of notability. Genovese was an independent candidate who got less than 1% of the vote. She was previously the mayor of a township with a population of <10k and was apparently the first openly gay mayor in New Jersey, which is interesting but IMO not enough for a Wikipedia page. This page was previously created and deleted not once but twice, with the only change since the 2nd deletion being her campaign for governor. I'd suggest a redirect to 2017 New Jersey gubernatorial election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 New Jersey gubernatorial election: There's certainly a few passing mentions of Genovese but not really any meat on the bone. There would be a stronger argument for an article if she was a notable perennial candidate, but there's just not enough here for her own article. 🪷 nahida 00:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significant coverage for her comes after the prior two deletions. [56] [57], though there is this from earlier [58]. She probably notable then too, people just didn't bother to look for sources. Becoming a mayor got her in The Advocate. More coverage here [59] and here [60].

I am having a hard time seeing these as anyone other than a WP:GNG pass Katzrockso (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One more source: The Star-Ledger.^[1] This, combined with New Jersey Spotlight and Advocate from @Katzrockso, makes three independent, reliable sources covering her separate from her gubernatorial campaign over the period 2006–2014. AfD tends to be skeptical of unsuccessful candidates, but there is good evidence that she is notable outside of the candidacy. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Vernon-Sparks, Lisa; McDermott, Maura (January 9, 2006). "In a conservative suburb, an untraditional choice; Openly gay woman will lead GOP stronghold of Long Hill Twp". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved November 20, 2025 – via Newsbank.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per coverage indicated by Katzrockso and 🌊PacificDepths above. BD2412 T 03:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yŏn Chayu

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

I'm concerned that this may be a hoax article. I don't speak Korean, but none of the four forms of his name (Hangul, Hanja, RR, MR) came up with anything seemingly relevant in my searches (there were a few possible matches on Google Scholar for the Hanja name, but I couldn't be sure it was definitely about this person with just machine translation). It's absolutely possible that all sources for this person's existence are offline, but I have no way to check that. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 02:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and Korea. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 02:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have been a real person, these sources are just Korean wikis/Encylopedias so they're not like the most ideal but they do suffice. I do think the figure is very obscure though hence why theres almost nothing on him, his most noteworthy things really are just being Prime Minister (but no records of what he did survive) and being an ancestor of his much more famous descendent. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you want me to look at other potential sourcing? Sunnyediting99 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what you want. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Korean wiki links to a website that seems to reference a paper source from 1992, but I have no idea if that's a RS. I don't find anything, but wouldn't know where to look other than Gbooks or Gscholar, which don't turn up much. I don't have enough info to !vote at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few more sources and here, these are newspapers like Chosun Ilbo. That said I do agree its hard to verify this figure, I do lean towards keeping it. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. Still no ! votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources seem to talk about a person with this name, the last few mentioned above are likely RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forgot to vote on this, but I think its a very obscure (but historical) figure who we can verify was real and had some prominence. --Sunnyediting99 (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yŏn Kaesomun, his famous grandson, both sources provided above discuss him in this context. To have an article on a historical person, it is not enough to verify their existence, we need to have at least something substantial, sourced to RS, to add to the article. Here, we have nothing, not even his birth/death years. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC) The article states that he held a position akin to a Prime Minister, so one could argue he passes WP:NPOL. I would then say that we have WP:NOPAGE. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I agree that this would be a good course of action. If more sources are found later, the redirect can always be made back into a full article. Suntooooth, it/he (talk | contribs) 20:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. I'm concerned about the large backlog of unsourced articles, but we are working on it. The consensus is that every article should have at least one reliable source. It's also a way to respond to our critics. Bearian (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[1] MacDougald, Park (6 November 2024). "JD Vance: prince of the MAGA movement". UnHerd. Paul Marshall. Archived from the original on 6 November 2025. Retrieved 3 December 2025. A handful of liberal pundits, including MSNBC's Chris Hayes and the newly minted lolcow Will Stancil, have pointed to these connections as evidence that Vance himself is a budding authoritarian, or that his brain has simply been "pickled", in Hayes's words.

[2] Vernon-Sparks, Lisa; McDermott, Maura (January 9, 2006). "In a conservative suburb, an untraditional choice; Openly gay woman will lead GOP stronghold of Long Hill Twp". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved November 20, 2025 – via Newsbank.

[1]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects