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

Libertaire-Plage

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

This article was created a few years ago as a stub, without much information and citing a further reading drawn from the French Wikipedia. None of the sources in the further reading appear to have given significant coverage of the camp. Renaud Violet said that the existence of the camp was announced in Régénération, as a footnote to discussion of Faure's La Ruche, and that "it seems that this holiday camp was not a success, as we hear no more about it." Céline Beaudet doesn't appear to mention the camp at all. Michel Antony mentions it in passing as an anarchist camp. The French Wikipedia article leaves little to be desired either, as it's mostly cobbled together from individual biographies of people tangentially affiliated with the camp. I also looked it up on Google Scholar and found no results.[1]

As there is no significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and as the one source that does give it any detail says it was short-lived and there's not much known about it, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Grnrchst (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge mention and image to Albert Libertad, its founder. Alternatively, anarchism in France per [2]. Not sure about this current article title but it did indeed exist as "Le Rayon de soleil" (and "La Nature pour tous") in Châtelaillon. There are a number of sources via Google Books that mention the vacation spot in passing in relation to Libertad, hence why it should redirect there as an alternative to deletion. There might be more in non-English works about Libertad but will leave that for another search. Beaudet discusses the topic in pp. 57–59. czar 03:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on czar's ideas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Józef Kasparek

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

Primary contributor/creator (with Logologist being an older account of Nihil novi) has self-identified on Wikipedia as someone who is related to the subject of this article (see this diff, book can be found on Internet Archive where the name can be confirmed).

Undisclosed COI aside, sourcing is really poor throughout. The parts of the article that contain references are mostly sourced from the subject’s own works (including memoirs which are not published anywhere, as far as I can ascertain) and a “Who’s Who” book which I would think best to extend caution on given the integrity of these genres of book as raised by MediaKyle at the AfD for Kasparek’s relative.

I’ve also had to remove material from the article which was cited to another source because it failed verification – it most likely employed some degree of original research. I imagine much of the other unsourced material is also OR.

I can find a couple of instances where Kasparek’s work has been cited in the occasional journal article and a single question/statement to the editors of the NY Book Review hosted on their website but no significant and reliable coverage regarding him. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Law, Military, Politics, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Design Officer of the United States

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

Not a position that is guaranteed to exist in the future; thus, the information here can neatly fit within Gebbia's page for now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: With widespread international coverage, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIRS. The position does not need to be permanent to warrant inclusion. Its creation by the U.S. government makes it historically significant, even if it is temporary or later abolished. This is not a company founded by Gebbia. The office's notability is not dependent on Gebbia. He is an individual, whereas CDO is a government office. A government office should not be treated as a subsection of a biography; it is an institutional entity in its own right.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's an official U.S. government position and whether it exists in the future is speculation and irrelevant, because it already received widespread coverage which meets notability guidelines. I'd also like to point out that this is not a symbolic position. The CDO is in charge of a nationwide initiative ("America by Design") and Trump ordered the creation of the National Design Studio. They also launched 2 government websites (ndstudio.gov and americabydesign.gov). Johndavies837 (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States for now. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. All we have now is White House press release sources, and media based on those. We can't build an article based on press release and press release adjacent materials. Not enough has happened with this position yet to warrant a stand alone article because it is WP:TOOSOON. I note that the earlier keep votes didn't actually provide evidence of notability. What we see in the press right now isn't actually significant coverage of this post because nobody has actually done anything in the job yet to write about. 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Executive Office of the President of the United States for now. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. There's not enough news sources out there to support this page. KitCatalog (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Seriously, you want to delete an article about a U.S. government office? The article could easily be expanded and better sourced. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. The subject matter of this article consists of nothing but press releases, so it cannot be WP:NPOV. Maybe someday there will be something meaningful to say on the subject but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Fine Apples (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's all PR, all part of the executive office. There's no ongoing coverage. Sadly, it's part of the real problem with the media today. Bearian (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. As it stands, it is WP:TOOSOON and lacks adequate sourcing. Redirecting to a page that focuses on the Executive Order establishing the office would be more appropriate and would allow more inclusion of reliable, non-PR sources. Playoff7133 (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free Group (South Tyrol)

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

It doesn't appear to be a real party (although it has a symbol), but a provincial council group composed of a single person. No other members appear to have joined it. The sources that just mention this group are very few (there are a few more sources on its chairman, Andreas Leiter Reber). If it were to structure itself as a real party and participate in elections in the future, then the page could be recreated, but currently it is failing WP:Notability. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The party is represented in the Landtag of South Tyrol. This would be enough for me, but the party has also a website, an organisation and presence in the media. Wikipedia is great as long as it collects infos that readers might find difficult to find in such a consistent way anywhere else. --Checco (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kantrowitz

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

Fails all notability requirements. Sources in the article are primary and WP:BEFORE doesn't indicate notability Ednabrenze (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, you do not demonstrate the notability of a journalist by sourcing the article to his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers, or to work where he's the bylined author of coverage about other things — he must pass WP:GNG on sourcing where the's the subject being covered by other people, but that describes none of the sourcing shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Britain

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS: article is outdated, misleading, and based on dead or unverifiable sources. Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:N.

This article should be deleted because it fails core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:V and WP:RS. Almost all of the information is significantly outdated and misleading, with references that are either dead or do not verify the claims made. As a result, the article does not reflect a neutral or accurate representation of the subject, contrary to WP:NPOV.

Attempts have been made to address these issues through all proper channels: declaring a conflict of interest and editing transparently, submitting edit requests, engaging on the talk page, and even proposing deletion through WP:PROD. However, the fundamental problems remain unresolved. Without reliable, independent, secondary sources providing verifiable and up-to-date coverage, the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements (WP:N).

In its current form, the article promotes misinformation rather than providing encyclopedic value, and this misinformation is actively harmful to the organisation it describes, since the content is inaccurate and misleading to readers. For these reasons, I believe deletion is the most appropriate outcome. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 16:50, 18 August 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 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs updating but there is an abundance of reliable, independent sources that could be added, I think WP:BEFORE is needed here. Comment RoseOpenBritain has declared their COI on their talk page but not in this AfD. Orange sticker (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes notability requirements with extensive independent and reliable sources that cover the organisation, particularly for its activity during the main "Brexit" years, so deletion seems inappropriate here. I do however completely understand the points raised by the nominator (who I note has a disclosed COI) about the current state of the page, and will try to update it accordingly using more recent sources that ensure the page's claims are verified and accurate. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information and COI declaration: Thank you for your constructive responses. I should formally declare here that I have a conflict of interest as I work with Open Britain (this is also noted on my user page). To clarify the current issues: Open Britain has changed significantly from its historical role during the Brexit campaign and now operates as a pro-democracy organisation focused on electoral reform https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/voter-id-elections-chaos-new-rules-polling-station https://bylinetimes.com/2024/12/04/keir-starmer-rejects-call-for-fairer-votes-despite-mps-voting-in-favour-of-proportional-representation/. However, the current Wikipedia article contains severely outdated information - of all directors listed, only Mark Kieran remains registered with Companies House, with the rest having resigned. This outdated content is actively harmful to the organisation's current work. The organisation manages the largest APPG in Parliament and will play an essential role when the government announces its upcoming elections bill. Therefore, it is key that members of the public can find accurate and up to date information about Open Britain. I have prepared a fully sourced and current draft (User:RoseOpenBritain/Open Britain Draft) that demonstrates how this topic can be covered accurately with proper sourcing. If deletion is not the preferred outcome, this draft could guide necessary updates to address the verifiability and accuracy concerns I've raised. Given the organisation's current prominent role in electoral reform, having accurate information available is important for public understanding. If dramatic changes are not made to this page, Wikipedia will be platforming misinformation which actively harms the organisation - this is concerning. Thank you for your help so far. ~~~~

RoseOpenBritain (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Phan

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

Appears to be a non-notable politician. Sources are all hyperlocal. Google didn't bring up anything further. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article meets notability standards under both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.

Automatic notability: Per WP:POLITICIAN, “Politicians who have held international, national, or sub-national office” are presumed notable. As an elected Milpitas City Councilmember (a city of ~80,000 residents in Santa Clara County, part of the San Francisco Bay Area), Phan passes this criterion outright.
Significant coverage in reliable media:
- San Jose Mercury News (Bay Area News Group) has covered him extensively, including his election in 2016,^[1] FPPC investigation and fines (June 2017),^[2] public disputes with city staff (Feb 2018),^[3] and cyber-piracy allegations (Feb 2022).^[4] The Mercury News is the region’s newspaper of record, not a “hyperlocal” blog.
- San Jose Inside (Metro Silicon Valley) reported on his involvement in the 2018 political mailer scandal.^[5]
- Milpitas Post (Bay Area News Group) ran multiple stories, including his public apology for the 2018 mailer.^[6]
- Milpitas Beat covered controversies during his mayoral run (Feb 2022), which were then picked up again by Mercury News.^[7]
Independent and long-term coverage: These are not one-off mentions. Reporting spans from 2016 through 2022, documenting his election, governance, controversies, and campaigns. This demonstrates enduring notability.
On the “hyperlocal” argument: While some coverage comes from Milpitas-based outlets, the majority of substantial reporting is in regional, widely recognized newspapers (Mercury News, Bay Area News Group, Metro Silicon Valley). These are independent and reliable under WP:RS.

For these reasons, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and the article should be kept. Sweetabena (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Sweetabena (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an LLM post Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete Local city office is not "international, national, or sub-national office". Sub-national means state, not anything smaller than a country. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. These sources are entirely local to the area, and we generally avoid articles on local politicians whose coverage is routine and confined to the local area by local sources, which these are, even if spanning multiple terms. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:NPOL as a municipal politician. While any notable local politician will have a bulk of sourcing come from their local media market, it would appear the entirety of this person's sourcing comes from their local media market. If local coverage of a local official was all it took to meet GNG and NPOL #2, it would render those things meaningless. None of the misconduct covered in the article (and it sure is weird that there only seems to be his alma mater and misconduct in this article about this supposedly well-sourced person) rises to the level of WP:CRIME to justify a subject-specific individual article. These are small potatos in the world of politicians.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, as it explicitly states that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels may be presumed notable, whereas the subject was neither of those. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and any media coverage is routine coverage for local politicians which has never warranted a Wikipedia page. I also would like to note that the user who created the page has only ever contributed to this page on Wikipedia, which is irregular and could possibly suggest an undisclosed COI. Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors have to pass WP:NPOL #2, not NPOL #1 — "subnational" means state legislatures, not city councils, while city councillors fall under the criterion for local politicians, not "subnational" ones. But this is not sourced nearly well enough to secure the notability of a city councillor, at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Councillors do not pass WP:NPOL#1. GNG (which is NPOL#2) is not met either. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

AfDs for this article:

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

This word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 Montana gubernatorial election

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

Literally encyclopedically worthless. No information to report. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Montana. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In 2019, the pages for 2022 gubernatorial elections were mass-nominated for deletion and almost all were kept (see here); it does indeed appear to be the practice to allow creation of the article for the next scheduled election once an election has passed, and 2028 is the next one in Montana. I have not seen any coverage of the 2028 Montana election, so a strict reading of WP:GNG would mean deletion is in order, even though AfD tradition would suggest keeping. And while I think MontanaMako is a tenured enough editor to have created an article on this topic with more substance to start, PRODding it exactly one hour and eight minutes after its creation does not really signal encouragement to a creator to keep working on it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Dclemens1971 re: precedents as well as precipitous deletion nominations (put yourself in the other guy's shoes - maybe a talk page comment would be a better first step). A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t PROD it to encourage work, I PRODed it because it should be deleted, as it is too soon for this article to exist. For evidence, see the fact that it contains basically no information and cites no sources. If you think a legitimate encyclopedic article can be made about this, please go for it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the next general election for a nation is usually kept, state election pages should not be created until they meet GNG. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in having a page for the sake of having a page. This stub contains no information about the election and there is no evidence that reliable sources could be added to improve it currently. I also have no objection to draftication if the original creator wants to continue to expand it. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON. The article literally includes the statutory date of a gubernatorial election and some infoboxes. No prospective candidates (despite elections getting earlier and earlier, no context on the election, etc.). It doesn't even include the dates of the primary elections.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the moment, per Mpen. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1903

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

due to the page (List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1903) and the other pages in Category:Lists of statutory instruments of Australia being a WP:POVFORK of a subset of List of acts of the Parliament of Australia.

this nomination follows from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1902. the title says "statutory instruments" but in fact the pages contain only acts of parliament.

delegated legislation and delegated legislation in the United Kingdom explain the difference.

none of the links display lists of statutory instruments Landpin (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Australia. Landpin (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the substantially similar content, and I already did a separate nomination the 1902 article:
List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1904 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1905 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1906 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1907 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of statutory instruments of Australia, 1908 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Landpin (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

made a phrasing mistake.

it would be more appropriate to say "none of the links display lists of statutory instruments in any of the relevant years" Landpin (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hareter Babatunde Oralusi

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

Subject literally fails WP:GNG, there are no sources from a cursory search to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, no secondary sourcing to prove any notability. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any office that would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to establish notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:NBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian influence operations in the UK

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

As it was previously tagged as, the article has essay-like and argumentative prose and should be moved to draftspace for incubation AlexBobCharles (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Politics. AlexBobCharles (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Crime, Terrorism, Iran, and United Kingdom. jolielover♥talk 06:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - contentious topic it's important to treat with care, and notwithstanding WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SYNTH concerns (e.g. in order to weaken and sow disunity within the United Kingdom in lead), currently there are not nearly enough incline citations to support some of the very strong claims in the article. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 11:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Similar reasoning to Epsilon.Prota but different conclusions. I don't think an article whose notability is based on an author's original conclusions, tabloid news, and the opinions of authors publicly opposed to the Iranian government is appropriate. Evidenced claims and allegations of Iranian espionage and interference in British affairs (and vice versa) can be covered in a neutral tone at Iran–United Kingdom relations. Yue🌙 21:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly, thank you AlexBobCharles for initating a discussion. I beg to differ with the above, my original conclusions or personal thoughts are unrelated to the article. Regarding Epsilon.Prota's statement, it is not my personal opinion but a reflection of reliable sources e.g Hall's New York Times interview.^[1] The citations support the statements. The text is not a synthesis or original thoughts, it entirely a reflection of the citation at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph. This topic is clearly very notable and has raised multiple headlines over the years. Most recently the United Kingdom has placed Iran and Russia in the top tier of threats.^[2]^[3] Regarding the "enough incline citations to support some of the very strong claims in the article", please look at the list of references: among the sources quotes are reliable sources such as the Financial Times, the BBC, Reuters, the New York Times, The Times, The Guardian... Having read Wikipedia:Notability I will make clear that the article does conform to the standards set in this platform. The sources are secondary sources, Independent of the subject and provide verifiable evidence that this article is notable. The coverage of the issue is significant enough to warrant its own article since the scope of the article is too large and significant to appear soley in the Iran - UK relations page. This issue isn't temporary and has been ongoing for the last couple of years at least. Of course, I'd be happy to engage in proper discussion over wording of sentences. However I do not believe it is on its own enough of a reason to draft or delete the article. I'm attaching some direct quotes from sources.

Jonathan Hall told the New York Times, the United Kingdom - "Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, MI5, warned that Russia, Iran and China represented the biggest state threats to national security and were outsourcing espionage and sabotage operations designed to disrupt and destabilize Britain." , “Faces ‘Extraordinary’ Threat from Russian and Iranian Plots”. - This is based on the NYT article. "Mr. Hall’s warnings, and those of other senior British officials, stand in sharp contrast to the United States, where President Trump has said little about the efforts of Russia and Iran to destabilize American society, preferring instead to focus on diplomatic overtures to the two countries on issues like the war in Ukraine and Tehran’s nuclear program."

Reuters which reports on UK Security minister Dan Jarvis Iran statements: "Britain said on Tuesday it would require the Iranian state to register everything it does to exert political influence in the UK, subjecting Tehran to an elevated tier of scrutiny in light of what it said was increasingly aggressive activity." , "(Iran) has become increasingly emboldened, asserting itself more aggressively to advance their objectives and undermine ours. This is evidenced by the fact that direct action against UK targets has substantially increased over recent years," , "It is clear that these plots are a conscious strategy of the Iranian regime to stifle criticism through intimidation and fear. These threats are unacceptable. They must and will be defended against at every turn."

The Times: "“It’s clear that the IRGC is taking on an extremely active role in supporting Scottish independence across social media" "

The Times: "Iran has developed a “sophisticated network” across the UK to actively promote propaganda and “plant seeds of suspicion” against the British government, a report has claimed." , "Britain had become a “flashpoint” Iranian influence." , " Iran became the first country to be formally declared a national security threat to the UK." , "NUFDI said the centre was the “main artery of information between Tehran and London” and allowed the regime to “construct a multifaceted web of institutions in the UK, all subservient to the supreme leader of Iran”." , "...it was “planting seeds of suspicion (against their own British government)," , "...rather seek to export the Islamic Revolution to their new homeland”" , "...certainly to weaken support for Britain and the freedoms that we have in the West”" , "A government spokesman said: “Anything that seeks to undermine our democratic society is unacceptable. We consistently work closely with our partners to ensure the safety and security of the public."

Policy Exchange: "Finally, Iran poses a direct threat to British social cohesion. Iran has a network of active agents and friendly plants within the UK that it has used, and will employ in the future, to infiltrate British society. " , " Iran has sought to use astroturfed social media accounts in the past to support Scottish separatism"

There's more...

Thanks! MelikaShokoufandeh (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above arguments have convinced me this article is worth keeping. It is supported by multiple high-quality and independent sources (NYT, Reuters, BBC, FT, The Times), establishing clear notability. While the prose may need copy-editing, these are presentation issues and not grounds for deletion. Razgura (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Politics Book

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, serving here as a WP:PROMOTION only. A day earlier this was removed as WP:G11 and WP:A1 Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quick note in case anyone was considering nominating this for a speedy. This doesn't really qualify under either A1 or G11. A1 is more meant to cover non-coherent stuff and/or when something is to vague to make sense. While short, this article does give enough info to establish the focus of the article. As for promotional content (G11), there really isn't anything overtly promotional in the article. Notability is certainly in question, however. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agent VII, please don’t delete. I have just expanded it now. And I am planning to expand it more with references. HQIQ (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, IDK if WP:NBOOK is a valid complaint in my context. HQIQ (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By valid, do you mean that it should be ignored or that it currently meets NBOOK? If it's the first, then that isn't really how it works - all articles must meet notability guidelines. Subject specific guidelines were developed because GNG can be so broad that it overlooks specific situations where a topic is notable within its subject area. As far as passing NBOOK goes, this does not currently pass NBOOK. The DK and Penguin sources are WP:PRIMARY, meaning that it was put out by the publishers themselves. They can be used to back up basic details but cannot be used to establish notability. Goodreads reviews cannot be used as a source to establish notability. The site itself is largely unusable as a source as well. The reason for this is that anyone can post a review, so it's not discerning. It's expected that something listed on the site will gain reviews. The only times user reviews are notable is when it results in widespread coverage along the lines of Saving Christmas or Bend, Not Break.

Finally, The Nile is a place where one can purchase the book. This should be avoided as a source because it could be seen as a form of promotion - plus there's almost never anything in the site that cannot be sourced with something else. So for example, the source is being used to back up that the book was published by DK - however this could be sourced by the book itself. Sometimes, rarely, you'll have something like an interview on sites like this - if the interview is useful it could be considered a primary source, but it wouldn't establish notability. The reason for this is that the sales site has a vested interest in promoting their offerings, so it can never be neutral. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also missed the PDF from Tutoo - this is just a scan of the book itself. I'm going to remove this from the article because it poses a major WP:COPYVIO issue. This does not appear to be an official scan of the book (ie, put out by the publisher or by someone they authorized), so it would be considered an illegal copy of the book. Wikipedia cannot host links to illegal copies of books. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_publications_of_Dorling_Kindersley#Non-fiction. I wasn't able to find where this book is independently notable of the publisher. It exists and can be purchased, but neither of those things give the book notability. I did some searching but couldn't find where this book was reviewed or covered in-depth. I see where it was mentioned briefly in relation to the publisher or where it was listed along with other books that were for sale, but nothing that would be considered an in-depth, reliable secondary source. To be honest, this is kind of par for the course for these types of books. DK puts out hundreds of similar books that focus on a single subject. It's seen as so routine that most media outlets won't give the individual books any true focus, especially as one of these books may go through several updates over the years. Now, I don't see why this couldn't redirect to the publisher page for the time being. If another book with the same title comes out this could be moved to a more publisher specific name like "The Politics Book (DK Publishing)". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of publications of Dorling Kindersley#Non-fiction, although I do not understand why a list of publications by a specific publisher is appropriate but that is not this discussion. Yue🌙 18:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of publications of Dorling Kindersley#Non-fiction per above. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library} ^revision\ 23:46, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don’t. HQIQ talk 07:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HQIQ Why though? Do I keep this article, instead? >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library} ^revision\ 00:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeLibrary460, I just want this article to stay, please. It’s my first article created. HQIQ talk 07:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might consider this. >^CreativeLibrary460 /^{access the library} ^revision\ 07:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Caro, Susanne (2013-04-15). "The Politics Book". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-08-23. Retrieved 2025-08-23.
  The review notes: "This book serves as a helpful introduction to the thoughts and theories that have influenced leaders and policy throughout world history. The bright, bold colors and illustrations help make the subject approachable. A good resource for middle and high school students who are interested in political science and history."
2. Gardner, Jan (2013-03-17). "The Find". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2025-08-23. Retrieved 2025-08-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "“The Politics Book,” the latest installment in DK’s Big Ideas Simply Explained series, is a visual encyclopedia of “isms.” Beginning with Confucianism in 500 B.C., it explores more than 100 big ideas, including Leninism, liberalism, and libertarianism. Key dates, statements, works, and thinkers are highlighted in a colorful presentation. Naturally, the political views of the editors become apparent from time to time as it does when the US Patriot Act is criticized during a discussion of Carl Schmitt’s concept of exceptionality. Nevertheless, the book is an accessible introduction to centuries of political thought."
3. Hill, Greg (2016-08-15). "The importance of being well-informed about politics". Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Archived from the original on 2025-08-23. Retrieved 2025-08-23.
  The review notes: ""The Politics Book" popped up during a recent foray to the public library. ... The historical overview of politics was, as some reviewers noted, distilled and simplified. But it was also easily digestible. There I learned about philosopher George Hegel's curious view on the root of slavery being the slave's obsequiousness ... DK's overview of John Stuart Mill's philosophy, particularly his thoughts on "tyranny of the majority," revived more pleasant memories."
4. From Amazon: "With easy-to-follow graphics, succinct quotations, and accessible text, The Politics Book is an essential reference for students and anyone wondering how politics works." – Politico.com
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Politics Book to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Notability requires multiple, non-trivial sources or notable status, major awards, or influential authors, none of which are evident. The book violates WP:NOTPROMO. ~~~~
Editor1769 22:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further review of Cunard's coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I don't think the Politico.com one is a review. It appears to just be something they got from the publisher. They original source is here: https://web.archive.org/web/20130323135153/http://www.politico.com/bookshelf/books/details/9781465402141/the-politics-book-by-dk-publishing ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Library Journal and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner sources from Cunard are sufficient to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist League (Nepal)

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

Uncited for years. Searches turned up zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to Nepal Red Communist Party. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No mention of this organization at Nepal Red Communist Party.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Redirect this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ROSA (organisation)

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

ROSA International is an "international", with demonstrable sections in multiple countries. This article for ROSA is currently more focused on the activities of those associated with the organisation in Ireland rather than the international as a whole. Currently there is a subsection for ROSA as an international on International Socialist Alternative (ISA) as that is the organisation that founded ROSA and its National Sections (such as Socialist Party Ireland) were lead elements within it. However there have been disaffiliations from ISA since then, including the Socialist Party Ireland) leaving the nature of ROSA unclear. Their own social media still suggests they're still affiliated[3] so believe that until we have reliable sources otherwise, this article should be either:

Merged into ISA due to the existing subsection.
Moved to clarify it is only referring to the Irish section (i.e. ROSA (Irish Section)).

Given the limited RS on the subject I would prefer merging to ISA as that would alleviate this issue as there are sources about ROSA activities outside of Ireland on the ISA article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ireland. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that the "Irish section" of ROSA is notable (clear coverage in national news sources) whereas the "international" section is likely not. The "solution" is not deletion. Deleting an article about an organisation because one part of it is much more well-known than the rest doesn't make any sense. At most, renaming (although I don't know, I'm convinced of that) is considerable. The status quo, with some tweaks, is not unreasonable. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the initial proposal. The suggestion is to merge, not delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG - ff the three references, one is a broken link to a UPenn global list of think tanks, one is an e-paper article on their engagement of a US lobbying firm, and thhe other is to a copy of one of the subject's own reports. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 22:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have repaired link syntax in the nomination so that {{subst:afd2}} can actually function. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Clicked on and checked all the references at the article. They seem to work fine. Apparently WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ fixed them after this nomination...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only repaired this nomination page itself; I have never edited the article or its references. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I should have taken the time to figure out exactly what was done at the article previously. Normally I try to do that and this time I missed it. Anyway, I have now added 2 more newspaper references to help improve the article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some sources to support. There could be more improvements to the page.*DP (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focus (Slovenian political party)

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

It does not currently meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG and it is too new to demonstrate sustained notability - The9Man ^Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Slovenia. - The9Man ^Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As far as I have been able to research, the party is significantly covered by multiple English-language sources—including the English versions of RTVSLO, The Slovenia Times and Slovenian Press Agency—from November 2024 ([4]), January 2025 ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) and April 2025 ([10]). It has also routinely appeared in some opinion polls since November 2024 until now. Plus, its leader and founder is the current president of the upper house of the Slovenian parliament.

Granted, the sources, while can be argued to be reliable, independent and secondary, are Slovenian-based (even if in English). It also gets covered in China-CEE ([11]), but together with other new Slovenian parties (and I am not sure about the nature of the source). And the party's results in opinion polls are not impressive. This is why my keep is "weak", but I think the party passes the notability threshold, even if barely. Impru20^talk 20:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or probably draftify as TOOSOON. The only SIGCOV I actually see is from its founding January, and I've searched Slovenian sources. The April English source is clearly a mere mention. I don't think this is ripe yet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

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

It has been stated that legislation is automatically notable under WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is not true.

wp:RSPRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources"
wp:ARTN states that "Notability is a property of a subject"
wp:PRIMARY states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

I have not found any secondary sources that mention this topic to establish notability. Landpin (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Landpin (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008

I find the nomination unconvincing and having more of sophistry about it than any attempt to build content. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22+-wikipedia
largely lists primary sources or sources that briefly mention it in a list containing other law reform commission recommendations or other statutory instruments, without explaining the details
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1
empty
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Regulatory+Reform+%28Execution+of+Deeds+and+Documents%29+Order+2005%22
largely lists sources that just list statutory instruments, or law reform recommendations without really explaining what the details of the legislation are, or sources that discuss land policy and briefly mention this legislation in passing without explaining the details.

These links are available to you too where it says "find sources". Landpin (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wp:WHYN says "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic."

Landpin (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic regulation, no indication of significance, no independent sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regulatory reform orders. This is a perfect example of something that isn't exactly notable from significant coverage, yet just important enough that it should be mentioned somewhere. Bearian (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008

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

It has been suggested that legislation is automatically considered notable under WP:GNG, WP:RS, etc.

WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources"
WP:WPNOTRS says "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

The excessive use of primary sources in this article strays into original research. (the primary legislation it was made under, other statutory instruments, and a document written by the administering government department.)

I don't think this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article.

While I have found three secondary sources which mention the regulations, none of them explain the details contained within it.

I stress the phrasing of

WP:WHYN states that "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic"

I don't think this threshold as stated in WP:WHYN is met (as stated immediately above this sentence).

I don't think this article justifies a merge. Landpin (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Landpin (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005

I find the nomination unconvincing and WP:SOFIXIT carrying rather more weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose a merger with an appropriate target, but why didn't you just do a proposed merger? Bearian (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a merge is the right option because the content is esoteric enough to justify a straight deletion. I think straight deletion would be better. There have been times where I've suggested a merge even when I personally preferred deletion because I'm aware of views like yours, which ended up concluding a merge would be wrong. See Talk:Parish council (England)#Merge proposal. Landpin (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regulatory reform orders. I'm not convinced that a merger is not a good option here. Bearian (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a regulatory reform order. Possibly you are mixing this up with Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 the afd for which has been linked above.

they have nothing substantive linking them beyond their their Wikipedia categorisation and the class of legislation they belong to and this is just a normal statutory instrument. A regulatory reform order is a specific subset of statutory instruments. Landpin (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources will likely be in legal textbooks. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States governors who died in office

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 18:07, 12 August 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 August 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too specific, and since it already fails WP:NOTTRIVIA, it would get deleted. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom and comment above. Asteramellus (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends if this is WP:SYNTH or not. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian chief ministers who died in office, this is a relevant topic and I don't believe it's synthesis or mere trivia. Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Reywas92. Article with potential encyclopedic interest if reviewed/kept in scope. Svartner (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Reywas92.PortraitMaster1 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I disagree with the interpretation it does not meet WP:NLIST and believe it fulfills a purpose relevant to Wikipedia. Today I learned how many governors died in office and am a little surprised it hasn't happened in 22 years. I also know this is a bit "other stuff exists," but certainly lists like List of members of the United States Congress who died in office (1950–1999) do demonstrate the usefulness of such a list. I do preface it as a weak keep because there doesn't seem to be a ton in the article at present that ties the concept together.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "This article provides an overview of the important turning points in the history of U.S. states by linking to further articles, which helps in understanding how these events shaped the subsequent governing history of each state. It also allows for comparisons with similar situations in Indian states by referring to the corresponding article on Indian chief ministers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh PreetManak (talk • contribs) 02:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temples Order 1971

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

I could not find enough secondary sources to establish notability.

In some situations, it has been suggested that legislation automatically meets WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc, but this isn't true.

WP:PRIMARY states "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
WP:SIGCOV states "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" and that sources "should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."

I found 1 source that mentions the legislation but I haven't been able to substantiate what it says, because I don't have access to it.

https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Principles_of_Local_Government_Law/GRxXLUlKbxsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Temples+Order+1971&dq=Temples+Order+1971&printsec=frontcover

I haven't found any other sources. Landpin (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some secondary sources out there. I have added a few. John Cross (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have added the websites of two of the organisations that administer the legislation - they aren't secondary. You have also added a Substack post, which is self-published. Landpin (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's good enough. Significant coverage doesn't mean perfect. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. By comparison, something legal that exists, but lacks significant coverage, is being discussed right now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possession proceedings. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(This is information I learned after I started this AfD)

The content in this article is an infobox and a sentence of text, with the sentence of text being essentially a strict subset of what Liberty (division)#Inner and Middle Temples contains.

if I had seen that I'd have proposed a merger just to move the infobox... Landpin (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHYN says
- We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.
as it stands, I don't think the article can support this given it is literally just a sentence and an infobox. Landpin (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Ceylon Islamic United Front

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

No cite yet given for the claim that it was represented in parliament before the July 1960 election so might not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sri Lanka. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely existed but not notable enough. Agletarang (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as explained when de-prodding, the party was represented in the national parliament. --Soman (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have provided evidence to show WP:SIGCOV. Will look at rewriting, when time permits, to highlight its significance to the national politics. Dan arndt (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M. S. Kariapper. Apparently he formed ACIUF sometime between March and July 1960 elections, ran on July election unsuccessfully, and then was convicted for corruption in the same year, later in 1965 running already as independent. All in all, ACIUF appears to have been a single election project that failed to take off, and is not really independently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politics proposed deletions

Refeudalization (via WP:PROD on 23 March 2025)

Politicians

Teuku Wariza Aris Munandar

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

The subject is only known for his involvement as a perpetrator in the 2023 Banda Aceh anti-Rohingya protest, which makes this a clear case of WP:BLP1E, so there is no need for a standalone article. As of 2025, he remains active in local organizations in Aceh, but this has not received SIGCOV, therefore does not meet GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 15:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Banda Aceh anti-Rohingya protest per nom, as BLP1E. LightlySeared (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Woerner McInnis

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage is primarily local (AL.com, Yellowhammer News, Gulf Coast Media, Business Alabama), and some sources are routine or promotional (corporate profiles, campaign site, Lowe’s Corporate). There is little in-depth, independent secondary coverage to demonstrate enduring encyclopedic notability. Setwardo (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author, sources like AL.com, Yellowhammer, and Business Alabama are not what I would consider local coverage, covering the entire state rather than this simple local area. Press-Register would be something considered local, covering areas from the county over. Lowe's and the personal website are not meant to be sources that would qualify as GNG. Some sources (Alabama News Center, WBRC) only mention the subject in passing. Does not meant NPOL, but that is (at least currently) not a defining point in her career. Overall sources covering her and her activities are enough to meet the general notability guideline. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 24 August 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 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Food and drink, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in future elections that haven't happened yet, so she's not notable on that basis, but this article is not doing nearly enough to properly establish her as an already-notable businesswoman. "Local" and "covering the entire state" are not mutually exclusive characteristics — even "statewide" coverage can still be too local to secure notability on "media coverage exists" grounds alone. What matters is the local vs. national significance of the thing you're claiming as her notability claim, and founding a company (especially a company for which we don't have have an article about the company) isn't an instant notability freebie in and of itself. And as for the sourcing, some of the footnotes aren't GNG-worthy coverage at all, while others are GNG-worthy but McInnis herself isn't the primary subject of them, and thus aren't helping to get her over GNG as an individual.
So the way forward here would be to write an article about the company which properly demonstrates that it would meet WP:CORP requirements, not a BLP of its founder — even if it's trying (but not succeeding) to prove preexisting notability in business, this is clearly an article that was intended as publicity for an election campaign. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat absolutely not intended as publicity. I contribute across Alabama election related articles and research candidates. I saw strong coverage of her, prior to her declaration of candidacy and created the page. I stated all my points why I think it passes GNG above, I am only responding to the point that this was "clearly intended" as publicity. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulaiman Zakaria

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

Fails GNG and WP:NPOL. the subject was only a member of a legislative body at the regency level whereas NPOL states only Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels may be presumed notable. Additional note: This article was created by a suspected sock of a banned editor who is known for making articles about the Zakaria family from Bengkalis Regency. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regency is a local level of government in Indonesia, comparable to city or county councils rather than states or provinces — but politicians at local levels of office are not at all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show much, much more GNG-worthy media coverage than this is citing. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Phan

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

Appears to be a non-notable politician. Sources are all hyperlocal. Google didn't bring up anything further. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article meets notability standards under both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.

Automatic notability: Per WP:POLITICIAN, “Politicians who have held international, national, or sub-national office” are presumed notable. As an elected Milpitas City Councilmember (a city of ~80,000 residents in Santa Clara County, part of the San Francisco Bay Area), Phan passes this criterion outright.
Significant coverage in reliable media:
- San Jose Mercury News (Bay Area News Group) has covered him extensively, including his election in 2016,^[4] FPPC investigation and fines (June 2017),^[5] public disputes with city staff (Feb 2018),^[6] and cyber-piracy allegations (Feb 2022).^[7] The Mercury News is the region’s newspaper of record, not a “hyperlocal” blog.
- San Jose Inside (Metro Silicon Valley) reported on his involvement in the 2018 political mailer scandal.^[8]
- Milpitas Post (Bay Area News Group) ran multiple stories, including his public apology for the 2018 mailer.^[9]
- Milpitas Beat covered controversies during his mayoral run (Feb 2022), which were then picked up again by Mercury News.^[10]
Independent and long-term coverage: These are not one-off mentions. Reporting spans from 2016 through 2022, documenting his election, governance, controversies, and campaigns. This demonstrates enduring notability.
On the “hyperlocal” argument: While some coverage comes from Milpitas-based outlets, the majority of substantial reporting is in regional, widely recognized newspapers (Mercury News, Bay Area News Group, Metro Silicon Valley). These are independent and reliable under WP:RS.

For these reasons, the subject clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements and the article should be kept. Sweetabena (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC) Sweetabena (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an LLM post Geschichte (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dearden, Lizzie; Landler, Mark (2025-06-06). "U.K. Faces 'Extraordinary' Threat From Russian and Iranian Plots, Official Warns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-06-28.
^ "UK launches Foreign Influence Registration Scheme". United Kingdom Government.
^ "Client Challenge". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2025-08-20.
^ Mercury News, Dec 8, 2016
^ Mercury News, June 23, 2017
^ Mercury News, Feb 8, 2018
^ Mercury News, Feb 13, 2022
^ San Jose Inside, Nov 5, 2018
^ Milpitas Post, Dec 20, 2018
^ Milpitas Beat, Feb 9, 2022

Delete Local city office is not "international, national, or sub-national office". Sub-national means state, not anything smaller than a country. The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. These sources are entirely local to the area, and we generally avoid articles on local politicians whose coverage is routine and confined to the local area by local sources, which these are, even if spanning multiple terms. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:NPOL as a municipal politician. While any notable local politician will have a bulk of sourcing come from their local media market, it would appear the entirety of this person's sourcing comes from their local media market. If local coverage of a local official was all it took to meet GNG and NPOL #2, it would render those things meaningless. None of the misconduct covered in the article (and it sure is weird that there only seems to be his alma mater and misconduct in this article about this supposedly well-sourced person) rises to the level of WP:CRIME to justify a subject-specific individual article. These are small potatos in the world of politicians.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, as it explicitly states that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels may be presumed notable, whereas the subject was neither of those. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and any media coverage is routine coverage for local politicians which has never warranted a Wikipedia page. I also would like to note that the user who created the page has only ever contributed to this page on Wikipedia, which is irregular and could possibly suggest an undisclosed COI. Greenleader(2) (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors have to pass WP:NPOL #2, not NPOL #1 — "subnational" means state legislatures, not city councils, while city councillors fall under the criterion for local politicians, not "subnational" ones. But this is not sourced nearly well enough to secure the notability of a city councillor, at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Councillors do not pass WP:NPOL#1. GNG (which is NPOL#2) is not met either. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roger ...felde

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

"Presumably" notable politician, but absolutely fails WP:GNG and a snowball chance in hell we will ever have any coverage of him --Altenmann >talk 06:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. jolielover♥talk 07:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Hereford (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs 1295–1640 as an WP:ATD. WP:NOPAGE applies. Curbon7 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Curbon7 Andre🚐 07:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:COMMONSENSE when not even the name is known. Geschichte (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is presumed notable already because he was a member of parliament of the House of Commons, as per WP:NPOL. While I understand people are wishing to seek a common sense solution here, there is no precedent for deleting a page for a former member of a national legislature who is already presumed notable, and to me it doesn't seem particularly sensible to seek to alter this. The nominator acknowledges the presumed notability here and therefore WP:GNG isn't needed, so I would politely request they withdraw this nomination. Greenleader(2) (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one similar instance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John ? (MP for City of York). At the end of the day, we defer to WP:NOPAGE; if all that can ever be said about a person is X is a politician who served in Y legislature for Z years and literally nothing else, a contextualized redirect is of more value than such an article. Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hereford (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs 1295–1640. While the subject would ordinarily pass NPOL, the fact that we do not know (yet) a full name is a strong reason not to have a stand-alone page. That said, if more information is found, a stand-alone page would then be appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A presumption can be overcome. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Even holders of NPOL-passing offices still have to have reliable sourcing with which we can write some actual information about them. They aren't exempted from GNG just because of the political office per se, and still have to have viable sourcing — the only thing NPOL extends is a presumption of notability pending the addition of better sourcing, not a "get out of ever having to have any sourcing at all" card. An article can still be dealt with some other way (such as redirection to a related topic, like the office that he held) if such sourcing turns out to be in a state of failure to exist, so that we remain permanently unable to say anything more than most but not all of his name. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hareter Babatunde Oralusi

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

Subject literally fails WP:GNG, there are no sources from a cursory search to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, no secondary sourcing to prove any notability. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any office that would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to establish notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:NBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alok Chandrakar

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

Promotional article about a political figure who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – The article fails WP:GNG at this time; current sources are routine announcements and do not provide independent in-depth coverage (WP:SIGCOV). I suggest draftifying so improvements can continue off-mainspace and the page can be resubmitted via AfC once stronger sources are available.

Disclosure: I created/edited this page; I have no financial, familial, or professional relationship with the subject. A no-COI statement is added on my user page. — Pranjalckar (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, as it explicitly states that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels may be presumed notable, whereas the subject was neither of those. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any office that would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to establish notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 25 August 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Ahmad

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a recreation of a deleted article that was previously removed through the AfD process. I initially tried G4, but another editor blocked its use. The creator of this article is currently under SPI, and if confirmed, the article can be speedily deleted under G5. The subject itself fails GNG and WP:NPOL. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Islam, and Indonesia. jolielover♥talk 16:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article claims he was a member of the national House of Representatives, but the associated news article suggests instead he was a member of the Regional People's Representative Council. As Indonesia was no longer a federal state in the period he served, holding the equivalent of a provincial councillor position would not seem to meet WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: Yes, and that was also one of the reasons cited for deletion in the previous AfD. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails SIGCOV and not every members of Indonesian National House of Representatives are met GNG. 🅷🅴🅽🆁🅸 ^{(Let's talk)} ✉ 07:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't view the sole source since my network is blocking it as a malicious link, but based on the previous discussion this individual was not in fact a national legislator in Indonesia and thus would not pass WP:NPOL. I can't find any other source that would corroborate the claim that got this version of the article through AfC. SALT due to repeated creation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:48, 26 August 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.

Obioma Success Akagburuonye

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

WP:PROMO article with serious WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA issues. For example, one source refers to him as Barr. Success Obioma Akagburuonye, a renowned philanthropist and an Ambassador of social justice for the umpteenth time [12]. Another source is incredibly biased: While he is working assiduously and trying every trick in the book to meet the housing needs of Abuja residents, he has come under ferocious attacks... [13] Does not pass WP:NPOL as a failed candidate. Astaire (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and Nigeria. Astaire (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as created by this author.

article with serious WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA issues. The article could not have had “serious” Nigerian newspaper issues when many of its references are news articles in reputable national Nigerian newspapers that analyze the subject in great details, passing WP:NEWSORG and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that these newspapers are seen as “well-established news outlets” by articles on them in the Wiki project. Examples include:

Another source is incredibly biased

This is a hurried view. A source can contain both reliable and non-reliable elements, and can be termed reliable provided much of its contents are considerably analytical. see this national newspaper source with similar posture:

it indicates the notability status of the subject

In the final analysis, many articles in Wikipedia are bearing tags that direct the editors on how to improve them. It is a worry, or rather a concern, that the nomination by-passed the use of improvement tags and opted for deletion within seconds of the article being reviewed. Royalrumblebee (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - right now, I can't verify a few things, but I'm not sure if it's a syntax problem, lack of adherence to WP:MOS, or another issue. I'm willing to assume good faith, but right now this page is not ready for prime time. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember this article and I also saw their few Manual of Style issues WP:MOS too. Hope to help clean up. I think the nomination should be for improve WP:AFI not AfD. Bemanenough (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - per User:Bearian. Shoerack (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:01, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are a mess of typically promotional Nigerian "news" (example), trivial mentions, primary sources (including a purported government doc hosted on Google Drive, who can say that's legitimate?), his own writing or WP:INTERVIEWS that simply transcribe his statements. I don't see a single WP:GNG-qualifying source here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre Willmott

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable as bussiness person or politician. Prod was placed by someone else and removed for procedural reason. Previous afd in 2011 closed as no consensus. Rolluik (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and Australia. Rolluik (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, not notable. Teraplane (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is undoubtedly notable, although the article doesn't clearly explain why. The subject was a senior figure in WA business and the public sector who was preselected by the Liberal Party for one of its safest seats in the WA Parliament. Due to a change in the political landscape, she then stood aside as Liberal candidate, in favour of the hitherto retiring incumbent member, a former Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition. He resumed the latter position, and, soon afterwards, at the election, became Premier for two full terms. As a mere business and public sector figure, the subject might not have been notable. It is the decisive role she played in bringing about the election of one of WA's longest serving Premiers that tips the balance in favour of notability. Also, even if standing aside as a candidate had been the only significant thing she'd ever done, then she'd still have been notable, as "[a]n event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable" (see WP:LASTING). Bahnfrend (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:BIO it only applies to elected politicians. A withdrawn canditature doesn't appear to ascribe notability. Teraplane (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that it does. My post is more specific than that, and relies upon WP:LASTING, which doesn't apply to most withdrawn candidatures. I suggest you read my post again. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also be fine with a redirect to Colin Barnett#WA Government or Electoral district of Cottesloe#History. Rolluik (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL. WP:LASTING does not apply to biography pages; only event pages. It's a novel application for this policy, and one that doesn't have community standing. The sourcing also doesn't bare out the significance of this change. Withdrawals and sacrifices happen all of the time in politics and elsewhere, but that doesn't make them encyclopedic until they get WP:SIGCOV (which in this case would require more than routine coverage from the election cycle). At best this would be a footnote in Colin Barnett#WA Government or Electoral district of Cottesloe#History, but I'm not really seeing a need here for a merge or redirect with the current sources in evidence.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like we might have another No consensus closure here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. --NYC Guru (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as that seems to be the ongoing consensus. Bahnfrend actually makes an excellent point about how history works. The subject should be considered notable (in the historical sense) because of what she did, but has not been considered notable (in a narrow, significant coverage sense). Alas, that is not what we look at. There isn't any policy or guideline for this person did something critical that changed history. Due to the current situation, it is probably the best to be as risk-averse as possible and not change anything for the next 17 months. Bearian (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Templates

Redirects

[1] Mercury News, Dec 8, 2016

[2] Mercury News, June 23, 2017

[3] Mercury News, Feb 8, 2018

[4] Mercury News, Feb 13, 2022

[5] San Jose Inside, Nov 5, 2018

[6] Milpitas Post, Dec 20, 2018

[7] Milpitas Beat, Feb 9, 2022

[:72-8] Dearden, Lizzie; Landler, Mark (2025-06-06). "U.K. Faces 'Extraordinary' Threat From Russian and Iranian Plots, Official Warns". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-06-28.

[9] "UK launches Foreign Influence Registration Scheme". United Kingdom Government.

[10] "Client Challenge". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2025-08-20.

[11] Mercury News, Dec 8, 2016

[12] Mercury News, June 23, 2017

[13] Mercury News, Feb 8, 2018

[14] Mercury News, Feb 13, 2022

[15] San Jose Inside, Nov 5, 2018

[16] Milpitas Post, Dec 20, 2018

[17] Milpitas Beat, Feb 9, 2022

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

Politics

Politics proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects