Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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 Politicians. 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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Politicians

Isaac Mass

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

This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Maybe the thinnest BLP I've ever seen here! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything that tells me this attorney is still active. This attorney has a very lengthy 2011 internet page about himself - personal background listings that have not much to do with being an attorney. The kind of person a town would be proud to have. But his legal "Experience" section is very scant and doesn't tells us much except others he previously worked for or with. An internet search doesn't bring up anything more recent. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Donald Trump (Philadelphia)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, and a variation on Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. It happened, yes, but what is the lasting impact? It's just another protest against a politician, though in a somewhat original format, which gave it 5 minutes of fame. Fram (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give possible time for improvements and to wait for potential future coverage. Not ready for main space.

-1ctinus📝🗨 17:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it should be merged with Statue of Donald Trump (Portland, Oregon), which is a copy of the same piece. Not sure why two pages were made for it. The same artist apparently also made The Donald J. Trump Enduring Flame and January 6 United States Capitol attack memorial so they could all be merged together since sources like [1] cover them together – there's a lot of temporary protest art that that receives brief news coverage but doesn't individually need standalone articles (also Crooked and Obscene). Or merge to Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture#Art. Certainly not make as many one-line articles as fast as possible – that's what draft space is for! Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm not sure Wikipedia should keep any of them. Please see There’s no such thing as bad publicity (i.e. things like this keep his name and image before the pubic). On the other hand, I don't see Wikipedia guidelines on what to do about this. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Philadelphia and Portland statues are similar, but not the same. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] says "An identical one showed up in Portland, Oregon earlier this week". They're not as identical as bronze casts, but they are still functionally enough the same that there is no reason for two separate articles. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable temporary art installation. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merged page as redirect. Since there are now more sources covering both statues together, including some using "In Honor of a Lifetime of Sexual Assault" as the title for both, I've redirected the Philadelphia page and moved the Portland page so both can be covered under the official title. I've left the AfD tag on the redirect to avoid removing a template inappropriately. I request to have the redirect page kept (because it serves a purpose) and propose closing this discussion as moot. I've been bold here but hope this compromise / solution works for others. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merged page as redirect

UzbukUdash (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Partin

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN No establishment of notability. Only 1 secondary source, and it's about his election. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Virginia. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL's presumed notability cause he hasn't been elected to state-level office (only local level), which makes it fall back upon WP:GNG and the "Major local political figures who have received WP:SIGCOV" bullet point. And there's no evidence of this either on the article or in my research - only things I could find are WP:PRIMARY bios/profiles on government pages (per WP:BIO primary sources don't establish notability), passing mentions in articles mainly about legislation and [3] which is just about him being a candidate for Mayor and based off an email he sent them. Molecular Pilot 08:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to my draft space for further additions, we can delete the main article Paytonisboss (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to move the article into draft while this discussion is underway. Bearcat (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not know my bad Paytonisboss (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're truly convinced that it might be salvageable with more work, then we do have the option of moving it to draft (or your user sandbox) as the final conclusion of this discussion. So if you want that, we can certainly do it, but we have to let the process run its course first. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage enabling us to write a substantial article about their political impact. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, the only GNG-worthy source isn't enough all by itself, and per MolecularPilot there really just isn't much else out there that would count for more. Bearcat (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with you guys the nobility is not there, the sources dont have much nobility all by themself and according to primary sources theres no secondary sources to back up the primary sources and the article seems a little opinionated now that i do a 2nd look of it most of the sources are based off the opinion of the person the article is about and theres very little nobility in the guy the article is about therefore i think it needs deleted. I also beleave that the article isnt able to be supported for nobility whatsoever.Paytonisboss (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

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

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

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

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

Since a large amount of people have expressed concerns about whether this article meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I will boldly start an AfD discussion to see what the community thinks, since the talk page discussions have gotten nowhere. I have also seen opinions that this is a content fork of Trumpism, which is valid. I will clarify that this is on behalf of several other editors who expressed concerns, as their opinions do also matter. I personally have no opinion on this. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense).

It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality.

To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is a shame for wikipedia to loose neutrality, the page must be deleted Fasil H. (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not American but I follow American politics from my native Africa and what I see is that, over time, Wikipedia has become a strong bastion of the Western far left. This kind of article is just a direct attack on a right-wing politician. An article that takes up all the rhetoric of the far-left. And as luck would have it, this article was written the same day THE GUARDIAN published an article "Is Donald Trump a fascist?".

I don't know if you realize it, but Wikipedia has lost a lot of its credibility in the world outside of the small woke spheres (and I deliberately use this word to attract your attention) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reda Amani (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:
If this shifts to a merge discussion, I would strong oppose that; the {{refideas}} at the top of this page shows a wealth of academic and book sources comparing Trump's views to fascism. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
charlotte ^👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article pretty clearly does not have a NPOV. The 'Criticism' section, by comparison, is quite sparse and measured. Jehorn (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.

Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" Gremlin742 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term Fascist and Communist is thrown around so loosely these days without any experience or knowledge of what those words mean. It is sad and amusing to hear people say Joe Biden is a Communist or Donald Trump is a Fascist simply because its an easy trigger word to discredit them. These arguments are being made by uneducated people who would not know Communism or Fascism if it hit them in the face and broke their nose.

_

I would love to hear stories of people who truly suffered under the horrible Fascist Trump Regime of 2016-2020, or the tyrannical Communist Biden Regime of 2020-2024, it must have been so horrible, probably more so than Romania where during the Communism regime where women couldn’t have abortions, and if they got pregnant they would be jailed or killed so they would be forced to undergo at home abortions, risking things going wrong and never being able to have children again. Artem P75 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion of Trump and the "concepts" that swarm around him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

Wikipedia's habit of reflecting what mainstream sources choose to cover means that it has an unhealthy fixation on Donald Trump. We have Donald Trump and handshakes, we have Donald Trump and golf, we have probably a hundred separate articles about every single aspect of the guy and his life and his views and everything about him. It is extremely unusual, even for someone who is the President of the United States -- we do not have this level of obsessive coverage of Obama or Bush or Biden. I get that he is a very visible public figure, and also a very silly guy, and he does a lot of notable stuff, but Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I cannot wait until the year 2029 when I get to fire up the hedge trimmers and merge a bunch of flash-in-the-pan news cycle articles about Donald Trump's opinions on Tabasco sauce and nobody will follow me around to gripe about how this means I am obviously a paid shill for the Republicans and/or Democrats and/or Whigs and/or pushing an agenda for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Diode and Big Capacitor.

See, okay, there is this very long and convoluted argument for how this article doesn't call him a fascist, it's just a list of every time anybody has ever called him a fascist, which we are assembling in a lovingly made gallery of quotes in an encyclopedia article, which inherently suggests that these utterances are worth paying attention to and that they indicate something useful about the state of reality, also for some reason we do not really spend much time explaining that they are opinions and not factual statements -- okay. I get it, whatever. This will win arguments on Wikipedia. I don't think it is going to convince anybody outside Wikipedia, by which I mean the readers of our project, by whom I mean the only actual people who matter when we make decisions about content.

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g 🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g 🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG _chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should at least be heavily rewritten so it is not bias propaganda against one side, but if that doesn't happen then it should be deleted Gremlin742 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

As for WP:NPOV, the article could definitely use a good touch-up, but it is practically impossible to compare X to Y without readers noticing a visible or perceived bias towards whether the comparison is appropriate, warranted, fair, neutral, etc. Neutrality certainly isn't helped by the fact that "fascist" and "communist" have been adopted into the repertoire of insults for a lot of people, but I believe the article is worth keeping. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The article is more a propaganda piece for the USA election than a WP article. It does not have a NPOV. Most (majority) of the sources are from strongly biased organizations: The definition of neutrality should take the population into account, rather than the left leaning legacy media. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]

Keep

Labeling Donald Trump as a "fascist" is legitimate.

Generally, fascism is a far-right authoritarian ideology that promotes;

Racial and ethnic nationalism
Centralization of power
Suppression of dissent, and often the identification of enemies within society to rally the populace.

So we continue to debate whether Trump fits this label due to his authoritarian rhetoric, attacks on public institutions, divisive rhetoric against perceived "enemies," and his apparent disregard for established norms.

However, while Trump has exhibited some behaviors associated with authoritarianism (e.g., undermining the press, rejecting election results), ~~he has not instituted a fully centralized~~, authoritarian state with absolute power. So that his actions fall short of full-blown fascism.

QalasQalas (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aside from this appearing to be AI generated (according to 10 different detectors), I don't see the point you were attempting to make here. Everyone could spend an eternity comparing person X to fascism, communism or any other ideology

Make no mistake, I also believe Donald Trump is very comparable to a fascist. But we cannot undermine WP:NPOV just because we have the impression he is comparable to one. Millions disagree, making it a view at the end of the day, not a factual statement. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete

This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.
Lack of Reliable Sources:

Many of the citations used in the article are attributed to opinion pieces. Regardless of whether the source uses the term, "analysis", "opinion", "editorial" or other words, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Just because person X says "Donald Trump is a fascist" doesn't make it so. It also fails to make it so when person X writes an opinion piece analyzing Trump's actions themselves and claims Trump to be a fascist. Whether Trump is a fascist or not should not be left for Wikipedia's editors to determine, but for the individual voters themselves.
The poll cited by ABC news in the Lede is also highly unreliable, particularly since ABC is under extreme scrutiny for bias in terms of how they conducted themselves in the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. When you go through to the actual information of the poll itself, you can see that the data is highly massaged and twisted to produce the misleading results published on the wikipedia page. 49% of Americans do NOT think "Trump is a fascist", for example, only 44% think Trump is a facist. 5% think BOTH Harris AND Trump are fascists, however this key detail is left out, as is the percentage of Americans who think Kamala Harris is a fascist.

To summarize: This article is not written with a neutral point of view, even when it contains a small section of "criticisms" of the point of view, is poorly timed in concert with the upcoming election, may put an individual or individuals in physical danger, and thus needs to be speedily deleted.Steven Britton (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

off topic

@Steven Britton: Having they/them pronouns does not constitute a conflict of interest. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please remove that personal attack, those things aren't welcome here. SMG _chat 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a personal attack. I worded it very carefully to avoid an appearance of it being a personal attack. The use of the pronouns can, and does, in this politically-charged environment, bring the author's own motivations into question. I am sure that they are a perfectly decent and upstanding person. I am also sure they have a set of opinions that may, or may not, be in sync with the rest of us. That being said, it is very reasonable and objectively true that a specific set of opinions of a certain community is very strongly linked to the use of pronouns. Which is the basis behind the need to call their motivations into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I use gender-neutral pronouns online (despite my name). Does that make me biased? No! SMG _chat 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to focus on that one particular point to invalidate every other point I made, I guess that's up to you. The fact remains, there's a perceived link between use of pronouns and political bias. I have never said there actually was a bias, just that there is an appearance of one. Steven Britton (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY RESPONSES. CENSORSHIP HAS NO PLACE HERE. I HAVE REMOVED THE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT LIKE - AS ACCURATE AS IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS STAND FOR THEMSELVES.

Just because you don't "like" or "agree" with something I said in terms of linking item A to ideology B does not invalidate the point that there does exist a link, and that link, even if not true in a specific case, can and does create an appearance of bias and call motivation into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of bias because of their gender identity will not help you. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to adhere to Wikipedia's personal attack policy will get you blocked, no matter the context. SMG _chat 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Play nice, we don't care how people identify here. Bias can be discussed without the nasty words. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to play nice. I removed this section because it distracts from the rest of this discussion, and I have also removed the part of my above arguments for “speedy delete” that was contentious. The others restored it for some reason. I have my own suspicions, but you will have to ask them why they decided to restore it. Steven Britton (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also did not see my original statement, I suspect.

I think it’s noteworthy that a discussion was opened on the admin page about “personal attacks” (which did not occur, and certainly not intended) as well. The motivation behind that decision is something I am also wondering about. In the spirit of good faith, I leave it to them to share their reasoning - or not, as they see fit. Steven Britton (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Steven Britton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is AfD the place to debate neutrality of an article? It's sourced mostly to RS... There's a "story" here, not sure why this needs to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG _chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep (with exceptions)~~ Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG _chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree the amount of opinion or "newsy" articles need to be trimmed back, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, I'm sure even more of them not used here. Also, a lot of peer reviewed studies are not inline citations but merely "further reading". Except maybe for since mid 2024, studies generally take a long time to compile and many former administration officials calling him fascist is obviously noteworthy enough on its own. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.

Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my comment above:

So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.

_

I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.

_

It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims

_

Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW keep This is clearly a very notable topic that has been reported on by innumerable reliable sources. If the article is biased or should be at another title, those are fixable problems not requiring deletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- That can be brought up in AfD in 2044 I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:

_

If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.

_

Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG _chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic.Andre🚐 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination is 100% politically motivated. Great Mercian (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination wasn’t politically motivated, my reasoning is on behalf of others. I’m a democrat. :) SMG _chat 12:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm a Labour voter. Great Mercian (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point he is putting across is that you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS. o Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for a week to 10 days, and then reconsider. Surely that would assuage accusations that this page intends to sway votes. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Biased articles like these is why many reasonable people hate Wikipedia. Nuke it. Amin (Talk) 07:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems a widely covered topic in WP:RSs and, I think, the article does a good balancing the major viewpoints in those sources (which is what WP:NPOV actually says to do). You may disagree on that last point, but that is the sort of dispute worked out through normal talk page discussion and not at and AFD (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). We are WP:NOTCENSORED for the benefit of a political campaign (or the feelings of Elon Musk). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many RS, maybe cut down on opinion pieces. Also, move peer reviewed studies from "Further reading" to inline citations. The title is good as it is, "Donald Trump and fascism", which is what it was before, is too vague.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not a reason to delete an article unless we are dealing with an attack page or a BLP violation. There's more than enough coverage over the last few years on the matter for it to pass WP:GNG; I don't think that WP:LASTING is in question here either, on the same grounds. While I do agree with JPxG's views above that we have too many articles on Trump that are probably not of lasting significance (the golf article stands out to me, for instance), I disagree that this article falls into the same category. Keep. Java Hurricane 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. NPOV violations can be fixed with through enough editing. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may not be an original take, but to reiterate, this is an encyclopedia. We document what is written and spoken in culture as well; this means that this article has a very warranted merit to exist because the word of mouth and political discourse around Donald Trump has heightened towards a discussion about him and fascism. It may have just bounded to the mainstream now, but for the past couple years, this has been happening too. The article has a place here. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sourced to RS, could perhaps use a re-write, but that's not a reason to delete it. I see no issues with notability nor with the sourcing used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If this was an exercise in baseless, political name calling, I would be calling for a speedy deletion. However, the article puts in context many of the things that Trump himself said that he believes, plans to do or has done. The article has been careful not to include many of the superfluous "examples" littered throughout social media, most of which is clearly politically motivated. As a libertarian, I support Trump's right to believe and say what he wants but I also support the author's right to aggregate the numerous, informed examples which support the overall thesis of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skish3 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)— Skish3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective, politicized, unqualified opinionated analysis by political opponents, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There's probably more I could add, but not much more than what's already been said about this process. Atsme 💬 📧 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is simply remarking on a well-publicized and non-fringe controversy, which does not come from political operatives but the media itself (and a full half of the American people). I see nothing POV about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only way to violate WP:NPOV here would be to state bluntly that Trump is (or isn't) a facist. The article is well supported by WP:RS, and a criticism section is included so both POVs are represented.estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The article has WP:RS supporting them, and I don't see any uncivil name-calling or any other bullshit in the article. There is no valid reason to delete the article. If election related articles were speedy deleted for "swinging opinions to a certain side", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to write a single modern election article. No matter how much there is an attempt to follow WP:NPOV, someone will end up finding a way to criticize it, just like how Wikipedia has long been criticized for bias. This AfD is just stretching unnecessarily to allow room for more ANI threads over personal attacks, and simply is an uphill battle of pushing the snowball up with more ANIs until the snowball melts and it's all over. I really don't like how this AfD is heading to the drama tunnel. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR - WP:NPOV issues aren't usually solved by just deleting everything, and I don't see how this article is an attack page or anything. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we have 30 for keep, 14 for delete (not including the since-blocked user), 2 for merge, 1 for draftify Superb Owl (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PLEASE NOTE:

Wikipedia:Deletion process:

"Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and

is not calculated solely by number of votes."

AND

WP:DCON:

"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments

given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Artem P75 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jairam Kumar Mahato

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

Fails WP:NPOL even WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Jharkhand. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not elected to any national or state office, this individual fails to meet WP:NPOL, and no multiple significant coverage sources were found, hence they do not meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting political notability and simply founding a party or being an activist isn't notable. The sourcing isn't very helpful, the NBT article is more of a series of brief answers than an article about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Launching a brand-new political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, but this article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump town hall in Oaks, Pennsylvania

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

Some of Trump's rallies are independently notable. This one is not. This isn't the one where he was shot at or the one evoking comparisons to the 1939 Nazi rally at MSG. This is the rally where Trump decided to stop taking questions and start swaying to music. It was in the news for a bit, but two weeks later, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is absent. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Events, and Pennsylvania. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a WP:News article with only a brief burst of news coverage. Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article is also good to keep in mind, both for Donald Trump topics and in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: More of a list of songs than anything else, other than the groovy dance moves, I don't see notability. There is no lasting coverage of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This might warrant a sentence in a larger article about the campaign, but its actual significance looks like a footnote at best, barely a blip in the heavy media coverage cycle. Bludgeoning the article with near-duplicate sources from the same tight timeframe doesn't change that. Mockingbus (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait: the event did receive widespread coverage after it took place, and if Trump's mental acuity continues to be questioned (or worsen), this event might receive lasting coverage if people look back to it as "that moment when the decline was on full display", particularly if he manages to become President again. I think a wait and see approach would be best. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a "Gerald Ford forgot to shuck a tamale" kind of situation, even if it gets there (i.e. worth a sentence or two in the context of a larger article). In the biggest (and two weeks out, seemingly unlikely) case that this is "the turning point", that article probably looks very much different from this one, to the point that I would argue it would need to be rewritten from scratch even then. Mockingbus (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and WP:HEY. The article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for deletion less than 2 hours after creation. Of course not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, but this event has received significantly more coverage than most Trump events. It was covered by numerous international news publications, as well as reliable entertainment, LGBTQ, music, political, and popular culture publications. The article includes reactions by both campaigns, the RNC, notable political commentators, notable politicians and former staffers, and notable musicians. I strongly disagree that this article is "more of a list of songs than anything else" that should be distilled down to a single sentence for another article, as suggested above. The article is a work in progress and I invite others to help expand and improve. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have expanded it, but you haven't demonstrated notability IMHO. The latest date I see on a reference is October 17, much like my WP:BEFORE search, indicating the lack of SUSTAINED coverage. As said above, there was a brief burst of news coverage that died out within 48 hours and this article is more of a Trump playlist than NEVENT article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Heron (writer)

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. He acted in a play which had 1,000 attendees. This is true barrel scraping. This is a Born - Lived - Died article about a WP:ROTM person who was doubtless notable to the who loved him 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Theatre, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California#Modern_era: where he is listed with a source; coverage exists so that other sources can be added and some content merged. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone has eviscerated this article -- I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes, indeed, removed sources tend to prove a much better article is possible, I am therefore not opposed to a plain Keep, another solution being a Merge with Forest Theater. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eviscerating and then nominating this article makes sense if you understand the context of User:Greghenderson2006's eventual site block. Greg spent many years building a "walled garden" of articles about people, buildings and institutions that were famous in the small community of Carmel-by-the-Sea. His articles all used self-published sources, no matter how often he was told to stop, and that's what was deleted in this article. If you're interested, here's the final ANI discussion which led to Greg's site ban. Toughpigs (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not satisifed with your response, because the edits that were made in deleting the sources and content were really bad edits that left the article (and the other similar articles) ungrammatical and virtually unreadable. It would be expremely helpful for someone to list the specific sources that you object to and detail why they are not acceptable, even for non-controversial facts, and then we can make better edits or, possibly, merge, redirect or delete. But these arguments that the article should be deleted simply because the person who created it was blocked, and/or because it was one of several articles used to build out information about the locality, does not explain why the person is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear: I personally had nothing to do with deleting anything from this article. I just remembered the ANI discussions, so I wanted to provide that context. Toughpigs (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Djflem (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djflem, pray elaborate: regarding whose comments and for what reason should we read this extremely long essay? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to address the 'walled garden' comment and the idea that any and or all articles written by Greghenderson should be deleted. Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF is not valid reason for deletion.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! I agree with you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this clarification of the context. I still don't think eviscerating and then nominating a page is a good approach, but, honestly, that's just me. As for "self-published sources", maybe that was the reason you blocked that user but may I ask if Watkins, R. G., Hoyle, M. F. (1925). History of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties, California: Biographical S.J. Clarke (1925) was self-published? It was removed (used 5 times). Thanks again. (I will stand by my triple !vote, if I may; opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. Djflem (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Altau

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

Being the managing director of JBAN, a non-profit organization, does not make a politician inherently notable. A non-elected politician in a nationwide office fails to meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, so they also fail to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Estonia. GrabUp - Talk 18:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person has been interviewed by major outlets DW, VOC, ERR. He has appeared on C-SPAN, and has several articles in Estonian and English media.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] Tore Eestimees (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! To sustain a Wikipedia biography, we have to have enough sources that are about the person, more so than feature the person. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEWS. We're not looking for sources in which he's speaking about himself or other things, we're looking for sources in which he's the subject being spoken or written about by other people. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any political role that would qualify as "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but the sourcing is not adequate to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom --Estopedist1 (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[8] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Newberry

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. As for the play, 1,000 theatregoers is woefully small. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Theatre, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an interesting entry about a small-town Mayor and newspaper publisher, but it is horribly written. Someone had removed a lot of the content before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so clearly it should be kept unless someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is another entry in ~~the "Carmelopedia"~~ what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO effort to promote all things Carmel-by-the-Sea. This mayor, whose term ran for two years, of a town of less than 700 people during his term, does not meet notability criteria for an encyclopedia article. According to the article, he is "best known" for his efforts to keep Carmel free from tourists; this does not confer inherent notability. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. He was also a non-notable writer (fails WP:NAUTHOR) and he acted in a play at a local theater in Carmel (fails WP:NACTOR). (The Forest Theater section is because he acted in a play there - this is typical bloat/puffery from the editor who is now blocked for COI/UPE and poor sourcing.) The sources are all local or hyper-local, or sourced to the Carmel Residents Association (COI), or the questionable "Arcadia Publisher" Images of America series of books for the tourist trade. The New York Times citation does not mention him at all. Netherzone (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: How do you know that he only served as mayor for 2 years? The article says that the was elected for a 2nd term as mayor. Most mayors serve for 4 years, so that would indicate that he was mayor for 8 years. If that is not true, you should add refs to the article to make that clear for reviewers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox states that he was In office 1922–1924. I have no idea why his term was so short. Netherzone (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are notoriously full of errors. It is far more likely that the infobox is simply wrong. Definitely never rely on uncited infobox assertions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the claim in the two citations in the article regarding two mayoral terms either. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source says he was mayor from 1923-24.[9] It's from the Carmel Residents Association, so it's a connected source - doesn't contribute to notability and probably should not be used in the encyclopedia, esp. since the dates don't match up with the above. However, it also does not mention anything about a second term. The article creator had a habit of sometimes misrepresenting sources which was one of the reasons for his block, so the two term claim should probably be taken with a grain of salt unless it can be verified to an independent reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a NYT article that is helpful. I think the 2nd term as mayor is dubious and have deleted that, because if it were true, the NYT article would likely have said so. I also saw a listing of all the mayors of Carmel in a non-RS, but it listed someone else from 1928 to 1930. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's extensive coverage of him in California papers, see San Francisco Call and Post, Fresno Morning Republican, San Francisco Chronicle (2), Oakland Tribune (2). Easily passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources presented attest of his notability; a redirect and merge should have been considered anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources listed above seem to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources or redirect top List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. The so-called derogatory Carmelopedia rationale is NOT a valid one for nomination for AFD. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by education

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for lists. Afaik, no sources in the Netherlands focus on the background of prime ministers in such a way. Dajasj (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Education, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. I would probably also nominate Religious affiliations of prime ministers of the Netherlands for deletion too, as I don't see any sources discussing that either. Procyon117 (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST. Conyo14 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch politicians with doctorates

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

Firstly, it's a pretty niche topic and I'm not confident it's notable enough. Second, it's orphaned and it's not obvious to me what other articles could link to it. Third, it's outdated now and cumbersome to keep up to date. Luxorr (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, afaik this gets no attention in the Netherlands and the article appears to be started only because there is an American version. There are not enough Dutch politics editors here, so it is unlikely to get ever updated because it is low priority Dajasj (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an "X with Y" list, but I don't see any reliable sources about the topic of politicians with doctorates, Dutch or otherwise. Fails WP:NLIST.

Note I found a discussion for a page similar to this one: [10] Wizmut (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achilleas Dimitriades

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

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate. He was eliminated after first round voting in which he got 8%. Fails WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Cyprus. Mccapra (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unsuccessful candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies. But this demonstrates neither of those things at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. In addition, this appears to be a run of the mill lawyer who fails my standards, and is without significant coverage outside of one event. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Knack

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. To be fair, Edmonton is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors could qualify for articles if they were substantive and properly sourced -- but the only attempts at content about his work on council shown here are "he participated in various committees relevant to city governance" (i.e. did his job) and "utilized social media platforms to inform constituents about local issues and gather public feedback" (i.e. did his job), without stating or sourcing anything about the impact of his work.
We would need to see things like specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his work had on the development of the city, evidence that his notability nationalizes beyond just Edmonton alone, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
And for sourcing, this is referenced entirely to one primary source (reduplicated as four distinct footnotes for no obvious reason) that isn't support for notability at all, and two deadlinked (but recoverable) hits of run of the mill local coverage of his decision to step down and not run for reelection next year, which is not enough to get him over NPOL's requirement for significant press coverage all by itself if it's the only non-primary sourcing on the table.
Simply existing as a city councillor is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be a lot more substantive, and a lot better sourced, than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand but instead of turing this article into a draft give me 24 hours and i'll have this fixed New poltics (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasta Faruq Kanarwey

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

BLP of a Kurdish veteran, largely unsourced, lacking any clear indication of notability and based on related sources. Kurdish speakers may be able to find better sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, Syria, and Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added more lists in hopes of reaching some Kurdish speakers, but the existing sources in the article appear to be dependent hence do not contribute to notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all three references are from the same [[WP:RS|source of questionable reliability. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Drummond Anderson (1886–1968)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I haven't been able to WP:V the facts on the page and not seen much to suggest that this colonial administrator meets the notability standards for inclusion. I would be interested to hear what others can find. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People) Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If as claimed, is a knight, would be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors). Djflem (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 (knighthood) and (essentially) 3 (portrait held at National Portait Gallery). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, references have now been added so that all information can be verified. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Chandola

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

WP:BLP of a tech entrepreneur cum political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for tech entrepreneurs or political candidates. This was created in August, so it was clearly intended as a campaign brochure for his electoral candidacy -- but candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and must demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons.
But his "career background" as a tech entrepreneur is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, but for one article in a suburban community hyperlocal that isn't enough to vault him over GNG all by itself -- and otherwise what's left for reliable sourcing is just the bog-standard run of the mill "party selects candidate" stuff that every candidate for every party in every electoral district can always show, not evincing any reason why his candidacy would qualify as a special case of more enduring significance than all the other candidates who failed to win the election yesterday.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree per reasons above, and the fact that Chandola has now lost the election, so notability through being an elected MLA cannot be established Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please do what is suitable with this page. Apandeyhp89 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Singh (politician)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is about an insignificant politician who is not elected to any state level, national level and even local level body. He is merely an officeholder in a government organisation. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not elected to any legislative body, fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for WP:NPOLITICIAN, as the subject holds a national-wide office, serving as the Chairman of the National Cooperative Consumers Federation of India (NCCF), the apex body for consumer cooperatives in India. The notability for politicians are not limited to holding legislative positions. WP:NPOL clearly states, "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.” National-wide office applies to his role at NCCF. The subject has held a few roles in other cooperative and government bodies in India, some of which are major, including being elected as a Director of NAFED[ref]. The page can be kept. --Vikasudayrajsharma (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject appears to lack notability, having held non-notable roles at organizations of limited prominence. Alternatively, consider a redirect, such as to the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India. Please see article hist for more information TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, of which he’s chairman. I’m not sure if anyone will be looking for him under the phrase (politician) in the sense that he’s a party leader, not an elected official, but it’s a good alternative to deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. As far as I understand it, "officeholder" in POL means being elected or appointed to a government position, agency or legislative body, not having a position or "office" in a NGO or other organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the organization: as suggested seems ok. I don't think this is a politician, more of a civil servant. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. The "national office" criterion in NPOL is referring to legislative offices, like the national legislature, and not to leadership of organizations. Leaders of organizations are permitted articles if they can be sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, but are not at all "inherently" notable just for existing, and this article is depending far too strongly on primary sources to claim that he would pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

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

This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Thanks for pointing it out in this AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Austudy Five has just been Prodded. I found a cite that Mick Armstrong was one of the 5 in a few seconds, a better cite would still be valuable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: All the references in the article (that aren't broken) only mention him in passing besides this which is a review of one of Armstrong's books. Performing a search I found a bunch of articles written by him at redflag.org.au (One of Socialist Alternative's newspapers which Armstrong seems to be a member of) and other articles from the same site that discuss him. Redflag is obviously not independent and can't be used to establish notability. Nothing I've found would satisfy WP:AUTHOR and I don't think there's enough for WP:BASIC. Ping me if good sources are found. TarnishedPath^talk 04:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Subject to another deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#Mick Armstrong) so I don't think Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Socialist Alternative (SA). That is, more or less turn back the clock to before the discussion of that redirect was started (including adding back the mention at the target; see my comment above). I find links.org.au and sa.org.au convincing enough to have him mentioned there, but too little for a standalone article. Both sources mention Armstrong at the very top, but only the latter does this because he comes alphabetically first; and judging from its critical standpoint, the former doesn't seem to be affiliated with SA. Books like this, while being self-published, at least demonstrate the link between Armstrong and SA (who surely wouldn't let him publish in their name if he wasn't speaking, well, in their name). As I said, there's not enough to demonstrate that Armstrong is notable enough for a standalone article, but the redirect looks like a straightforward "keep". Renerpho (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Socialist Alternative (Australia). I'm not sure what context you suggest Armstrong's name would be added? Back to the further reading as a link to his book? TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes, that's the target I meant. Renerpho (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would Support the redirect back to the same target ONLY if mention is added back, and would Oppose the redirect if mention could not be added. The context in which mention could be added is as a member in the history of Socialist Alternative which says: .. established in 1995 by ex-members of the former International Socialist Organisation... The pre-BLAR history of Mick Armstrong says: In 1995, he and several other leading members, including Sandra Bloodworth and Jill Sparrow... went on to form Socialist Alternative. If the list of founders is not a large number, these three names, assuming they are not WP:UNDUE, can be mentioned in the History section. Jay 💬 16:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material I removed from Socialist Alternative (Australia) on 6 October at Special:Diff/1249674311 stated:

"According to National Executive member Mick Armstrong, Socialist Alternative's focus on student work is part of a perspective that the organisation has adopted for the political period due to what they see as their limited size and influence in the working class movement and the lack of any substantial radicalisation in society. Socialist Alternative's political orientation to students mirrors the development of the British Socialist Workers Party during the 1980s.^{[citation needed]} and had been taged as needing a citation since June 2024.

The material you suggest adding to Socialist Alternative (Australia) is similarly problematic insofar that it has been tagged at Mick Armstrong as needing a citation from January 2020, seven months before the Armstrong article was first redirected at Special:Diff/971395084.

If your suggested material is to be added a citation would be needed for it. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Socialist Alternative (Australia) and add a mention of Mick Armstrong to the History section, as suggested by Jay. Yue🌙 21:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG Pass , has reliable sources, she is a national level women leader - Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a youth movement of a single party in a state but exists in more than one state [11][12] . Spworld2 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be considered in WP:GNG category, Spworld2 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG has abundant references proving it This article is a national level office older. Former office holder of Women's Youth Party, she was a former office holder at the national level of an important student movement in Kerala. All these can be considered in the WP:POLITICIAN category as a reference basis. Reference: [13] (The New Indian Express), [14] (Mathrubhumi), [15]] (The New Indian Express)

, [16] (Malayala Manorama). A article who is popular in Kerala as a Muslim woman has won the award. Also a well-known Muslim feminist in Kerala [17] [18][19]. She can be considered as an Advocate/Lawyer, she is one of the women lawyers in Kerala High Court [20] Office holder at Municipality / Taluk level [21] Reference [22] , [23] (The Hindu) and she can be considered Women in positions of power [24] [25] Influencer (Muslim women political influencer) in Kerala [26] [27] - Spworld2 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We acknowledge that the subject does not fit within the politician category (WP:NPOL). However, it clearly meets the criteria for the WP:GNG. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:NPOL. It’s Prima facie about an activist in her party with literally thousands of other people. Being the woman’s chair of a youth organization is the picture of up and coming political volunteer. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did one in ten thousand become an office holder at the national level? There is a source for that, there is evidence of people voting and winning at the municipality/taluk level, so how can you be one in 10,000 as you say? My little doubt Spworld2 (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Non notable activist who fails NPOL and GNG.202.83.51.246 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user with the IP address (202.83.51.246) discussed above is a first time wikipedia editor, and like other experience users, feels like WP:SOCK----- Spworld2 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG--Irshadpp (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politician proposed deletions

Politicians

Politician proposed deletions

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.