Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. 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.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Shortcuts

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to Politicians.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Politics AfDs

Scan for politicians AfDs
Scan for politics Prods
Scan for politicians Prods
Scan for politics and government template TfDs

Related deletion sorting
Conservatism
Libertarianism

Politics

Alfred Huang


Alfred Huang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to have been AI generated. The article's author did some changes after the tag was added but a second editor has listed issues with verification in their edit summary. I think its best to delete the article at this point. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Engineering, and Australia. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
    I will do a run through of my article writing process. I gathered publicly available sources to develop on them. Following this, I do use the help of AI to search for additional sources, details or discussions that I may have missed. I do not treat AI-generated material as a substitute for reading and evaluating the sources themselves. In this case, I mistakenly left two AI-generated links in the article's URLs, which may have contributed to the impression that the article was AI-generated. I would like to apologise for that oversight.
    I read through the article myself before submitting it and am fluent in English and Chinese. I made sure to understand the subject matter and that the claims in the article were supported by sources.
    Addressing the issues from the second user, I can see how some of the wording created the mentioned problems. In particular, I attempted to include information from multiple sources into individual sentences, which resulted in some awkward phrasing and made the sourcing less clear than it should have been. I am happy to revise those passages, separate claims where necessary, and make the relationship between each claim and its source clearer. Pangalau (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Draft mayor of the capital city would be notable, should be re-written to remove LLM items. Should be an easy fix to draft and republish. At the very least, blank, make a stub and tag it for additional sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
    I will take up the task of checking the article thoroughly to ensure that no other LLM-generated material or links have been left in. I will work through it immediately and address any issues I find. Pangalau (talk) 04:08, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

West Surrey


West Surrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The move to propose the new unitary authority has been paused and is likely to be dropped. So these articles are now pretty much no longer happening. Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Speedy keep since West Surrey is still becoming an area in 2027, having held elections in 2026 DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Ridgeway (district)


Ridgeway (district) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The move to propose the new unitary authority has been paused and is likely to be dropped. So these articles are now pretty much no longer happening. Glowr Curt Ryder (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Complete list of articles bundled into this nomination.

Click on show to view the contents of this section

Decision withdrawn:

Decision under review:

I really hope I've got them all. MRSC (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

While the plans have been halted, they have not been dropped. Without reliable sources to that effect, it is predicting the future that the government may choose to drop it. I'd suggest deletion be revisited once a decision is made, but the article should be updated to reflect the uncertainty as to the district's creation. Jèrriais janne (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
This nomination was part of a group of articles whose nominations should have been bundled. Others I have pointed here now (with permission of OP) are Leicestershire and Rutland, Lincolnshire (district), Greater Nottingham, Greater Norwich, Nottinghamshire (district), East Norfolk, Western Suffolk, Central and Eastern Suffolk, West Essex and West Norfolk. It should possibly be broadened to all the other cancelled districts (note that East Surrey and West Surrey are still going ahead) Morwen (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
I've tagged all articles in the cancelled and paused categories. Although welcome someone checking if I've missed any. MRSC (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, I have doubts that the cancellation will be permanent as most of the councils have supported such proposals so I wouldn't at all be surprised if this happens and there is another U turn. If there isn't a U turn in a few months I'd then merge them with Upcoming structural changes to local government in England but otherwise similar to WP:RAPID I don't think it is a good idea to merge now. Also note that apart from Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk the proposals are only halted not cancelled. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Move to draft at a minimum and do the same for all cancelled/paused district and council articles. We jumped the gun here and should have waited for the statutory instruments before creating these articles. MRSC (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
    I don't really see a problem with articles on upcoming divisions even before the statutory instruments but then again it might be better to have waited. I can't find any guidence on notability of upcoming topics as WP:UPCOMING goes to Wikipedia:Too soon but that appears to mainly be about topics like people that exist but might not be notable yet. I don't see much point in moving to draft (but I don't really object) as I think merging with Upcoming structural changes to local government in England would be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep at the very least those where the plans have been paused but not withdrawn. These plans still technically exist they’re just paused to undergo more review. Lean keep even for the withdrawn plans, as there is enough notability for now. If there is significant changes with whatever new plans may come about, we can revisit then. estar8806 (talk) ★ 04:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep' or move to draft if the pause lasts a long time. What if the government decided to go ahead with them, and we have deleted them all, we would have to recreate them all again. G-13114 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep for now. The change has only been delayed pending review, not cancelled. If it is cancelled, we can decide what to do then. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment, to be clear my keep above only applies to those authorities where 'delay pending review' is the current status. I hadn't realised that some cancelled reorganisations had been bundled in with those that have been paused. I think those should be unbundled, as our approach may well be different for them. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
This bundled nomination includes all cancelled as well as all paused proposals. Is there consensus to restart this again as two seperate bundles? In an ideal world this is what we'd be doing, but we didn't start from there. MRSC (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Median Strategies


Median Strategies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EVENT, and WP:ORG. The topic received routine news coverage when it happened a few weeks ago, but nothing since then. I propose merging to 2026 Los Angeles mayoral election. TheBritinator (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Merge to 2026 Los Angeles mayoral election. Clearly, no sustained coverage. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

London Elects


London Elects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging into Greater London Authority because there isn't much to say. I tried to rewrite the article, but really, I could only find two paragraphs of information to write. It does not make sense for this to exist as a separate article to Greater London Authority#Elections. Technically, I suppose it satisfies WP:GNG but the reality is that the coverage is largely along the lines of what has been written. None of the coverage really goes significantly deeper than this. UrbaniteMunicipalist (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

North Zone of Afghanistan


North Zone of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Consists of just one sentence. Sources are WP:PRIMARY. No context provided in the form of subsequent history. Geoff | Who, me? 17:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is actually a very old article, dating to 2003… but that is by no means a reason to keep if that argument ever comes up, as that was the "wild west" days of Wikipedia: if NOTNEWS was in policy back then, contraventions of that were easier to slip through the cracks. The creator 23 years ago acknowledged will need more. i'll write it as the situation evolves, but they (or anyone else) never did that in all that time (but even with our loss of patience with permastubs, we don't rush to delete for that reason alone either), and even the addition of that one primary source was part of a 2024 sourcing drive–it was unsourced for nearly two decades before then (but we were lax about that, too, in 2003). It would seem that after continuing to slip through the cracks (beyond the odd maintenance edit or such) all this time, what finally broke the inertia here was a BLAR to a draft (which are prohibited from even being linked from mainspace, much less redirected) that outright admits it is not the same topic, which got this onto the NPP radar (which we didn't have in 2003 either) and thus more closely subjecting it to the stricter standards of 2026, which as written it doesn't even approach. (But after all that, no opinion on if that's insurmountable.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • delete doesn't seem to have caught on, nothing in Gnews or Gscholar that mention this Zone. One sentence, one source stub, not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Redirect to --> Abdul_Rashid_Dostum#Civil_war_and_northern_Afghanistan_autonomous_state Militant.Insurgency (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Abdul Rashid Dostum ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Territory of Junbish-e Milli MarketFruit (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Angela Gonzales-Torres


Angela Gonzales-Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current congressional candidate. Most of the coverage from WP:RS relates to allegations/controversies made against her opponent, and the others lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NPOL EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article already has dozens of sources and clearly meets notability guidelines. I'd just add a tag to the page to remind contributors to adhere to the BLP, and, remove some content that's unrelated to her but more about her current opponent in an election. Apex-nurse (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I want to echo this comment by Generalrelative from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner: It is sad that we might delete this article based on "the usual outcome for candidates" when a cursory glance at the article, which contains over 20 independent sources, indicates that this bio is the exception rather than the norm. The guidance here, WP:NPOL, is very clear that political candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Seven sources have published full articles solely about AGT, and six more sources have given 5+ paragraphs to AGT. Those sources include an international outlet (The New Arab), national outlets (Salon, American Prospect, The Intercept, NYTimes), regional outlets (Los Angeles Times), and local outlets (USC Annenberg Media, Occidental News). This seems well beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage.
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table prepared by User:CopyleftEverything
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Los Angeles Times Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~7 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The New Arab Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage, ~15 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The American Prospect Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~15 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Common Dreams Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~10 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The Intercept Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~9 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes USC Annenberg Media Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~14 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Salon Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~8 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The Occidental is student newspaper. Yes Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Substantial coverage of Gonzales-Torres, ~12 paragraphs. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The Intercept ~ Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Brief descriptions of Gonzales-Torres, ~6 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes The New York Times ~ Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Brief descriptions of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes Eagle Rock Pop is small local news outlet. ~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes The Downballot is an election news outlet. ~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes Los Angeles Times ~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes NPR No Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~2 paragraphs. ✘ No
Yes Yes Axios No Focused on Gomez inquiry, passing mention of Gonzales-Torres. ✘ No
Yes Yes CNN No Focused on Gomez inquiry. ✘ No
Yes Yes Courthouse News Service No Focused on Gomez inquiry. ✘ No
Yes Yes The Eastsider LA is local news outlet. No Focused on election results. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~2 paragraphs. ✘ No
Yes Yes CBS News No Focused on progressive primary wins. Passing mention of Gonzales-Torres. ✘ No
Yes Yes Los Angeles Times No Focused on DSA endorsements. Passing mention of Gonzales-Torres. ✘ No
Yes Yes Los Angeles City Clerk No Neighborhood council election result, including AGT. WP:PRIMARY ✘ No
Yes Yes California Secretary of State No 2026 primary results, including AGT. WP:PRIMARY ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close

Most of the remaining sources, such as the CBS News interview or the VoyageLA interview or the Orange County Register questionnaire are only used in the article as WP:ABOUTSELF. CopyleftEverything (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@CopyleftEverything
LA Times article: Primarily about how the Justice Democrats are seeking to oust Jimmy Gomez (not about Gonzales-Torres herself).
The New Arab: Article reads as very WP:PROMO
Common Dreams: Article is about how she was endorsed by Justice Democrats (which is campaign coverage, not coverage of Gonzales-Torres)
The Intercept: Article is about the congressional race, rather than Gonzales-Torres
Salon: Article is about Gonzales-Torres being endorsed by Justice Democrats
The Occidental: Articles just states campaign pitches for Gomez's primary challengers EaglesFan37 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
To group these: Two notes on LATimes, Common Dreams, Salon, The Intercept 2025:
  • 1st, each article also details Gonzales-Torres' bio, eg LATimes community activist and former president of [....] and Gonzales-Torres currently works as [....], Common Dreams She also recalled her experience growing up [....], Salon Both Gomez and Gonzales-Torres are the children of [....] and mother worked as a waitress but her [....], Intercept former Highland Park neighborhood council president [....].
  • 2nd, that story -- Justice Dems, WFP, DSA working to replace a progressive, pro-Israel, pro-crypto Dem with a democratic socialist -- is a major reason why this isn't WP:ROUTINE election coverage. IMO, it's "campaign coverage" in the same way that articles documenting James Fishback's white nationalist rhetoric on the campaign trail are "campaign coverage": They explain why people are likely to care about this person 10 years later, whether they win or lose.
The New Arab: I agree that the article clearly favors Gonzales-Torres over Gomez. The article also dedicates 7 paragraphs to Gonzales-Torres' political activity in the the 2024 UCLA pro-Palestine encampment (ie, before this campaign), part of a broader focus on her bio, eg: the daughter of a deportee and a recent graduate who took part in a pro-Palestinian encampment [....].
Similarly, USC Annenberg Media is a ~30 paragraph article focused entirely on Gonzales-Torres' liquor license political activity as HHPNC president (ie, before this campaign). CopyleftEverything (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
@CopyleftEverything Those groups have tried to replace candidates in countless races this election cycle, Gonzales-Torres is far from unique in that regard. Most of the coverage is related to her candidacy, the New Arab article discusses her involvement in the encampments at UCLA in relation to how it inspired her campaign (notably, the article doesn't describe her as a leader, nor does the Wikipedia article on the UCLA encampments mention Gonzales-Torres).
The USC Annenberg Media piece does give WP:SIGCOV, but being on the neighborhood council of a city with 57,000 residents would very rarely get an article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sourcing here very clearly satisfied WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. I will also note that there is an ongoing RFC/discussion at WT:BIO about what constitutes "routine" or "significant" coverage for local politicians and candidates. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

2030 elections in India


2030 elections in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose draftifying because, WP:TOOSOON just a pre-emptive list. Could developed in draftspace until more details are confirmed.. Vestrian24Bio 16:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Draftify as TOOSOON. Khalitate (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify per provided reasoning, an article for 2030 is pretty silly.AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Bade Nagajyothi


Bade Nagajyothi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls under Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates) and fails WP:NSUBPOL. The sources cited in the article appear to have arisen solely because the candidate contested a single legislative election, with coverage limited to the news of contest and the candidate's biography due to the contest. All cited sources date from November to December 2023 and are related to the 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly election. The candidate does not appear to have received any coverage independent of a single electoral event and is not notable. 456legendtalk 06:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: To address the concern, I have added more references including three from 2019, 2020 and 2022. This extends the coverage to a period of five years from 2019. Though the coverage is about elections, the Mulugu seat and the two candidates attracted huge coverage from mainstream media due to their naxal background. Apart from the Nov-Dec coverage, there are at least 7 references from August which are detailed articles and not just routine election coverage. Along with the two newly added (from Telugu wiki) citations 2019 and 2020 (model marriage), and three more refs from 2025, I feel the article passes General Notability (GNG). Will also try and see if more refs can be dug out from her sarpanch and ZP days. Thanks Davidindia (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Alaa Salah

AfDs for this article:
Alaa Salah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Kandake of the Sudanese Revolution because this person is notable for being the subject of that photo. Most of the content in this page is background about the Sudanese Revolution or about the photo. Most of the encyclopedic content on this page is already covered in the target page. See: WP:OVERLAP, WP:BLP1E Rainsage (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Sudan. Zeibgeist (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: the first nomination from 2019 ended in withdrawal after only one day–but also did not concern the current article at all, but in fact the page that is now titled Kandake of the Sudanese Revolution, the proposed redirect target. Obviously the subject itself is the same as before, but the other article had a rewrite and scope change in December 2022 that led to a series of page moves; article content returned to this title in December 2025, initially at Alaa Salah "Woman in White"Alaa Salah "Woman in White" and Alaa Salah From SudanAlaa Salah From Sudan before finally overwriting the redirect (but not before itself experiencing a contested BLAR to Kandake of the Sudanese Revolution#Alaa Salah). I have no reason to believe the concerns that led to the first nomination necessarily apply (note too that even then, there were also questions as to whether it should be a biographical article or an article on the photo), but much more obviously the OVERLAP/PAGEDECIDE questions present now weren't a factor in 2019. (No opinion on any of this.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Krantikari Yuva Sangathan


Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has clear tell signs of being written by AI. Violates WP:NOLLM. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Mladen Obradović


Mladen Obradović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

United Somali Party


United Somali Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this subject is notable. Whenever I searched for it in places such as Google Books, Google News, Google, HeinOnline, or EBSCO, I get either unreliable sources or passing mentions of the subject. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Hi @Z. Patterson! I agree that the two sources currently used in the article are not particularly strong, but I don't think they reflect the sourcing that is available for the subject. There appears to be sufficient coverage in academic sources to establish notability independently of the article in its present state. For instance, Political Parties and National Integration in Tropical Africa, edited by James S. Coleman and Carl G. Rosberg, discusses the United Somali Party across its treatment of Somaliland politics and the February 1960 election.[1] It describes the party's formation in 1959, its leadership and political origins, and then discusses its electoral performance and clan composition, including the political circumstances behind the alliance of the Dhulbahante, Warsangeli, Gadabuursi and Issa within the party. Mohamed Haji Mukhtar's Historical Dictionary of Somalia also has a dedicated entry for the United Somali Party, describing its foundation in 1959, the groups it represented, its performance in the 1960 election, and its subsequent parliamentary coalition with the Somali National League.[2]
The party also receives coverage in Marleen Renders' Consider Somaliland: State-Building with Traditional Leaders and Institutions, which discusses the USP's historical origins and its later revival in the 1990s,[3] while the 1992 US congressional hearing Somalia: The Case for Action identifies the USP among Somalia's clan-based political movements and associates it with the Dhulbahante.[4] All in all, I think these sources demonstrate that the USP has received coverage in multiple independent and scholarly sources extending well beyond the two references presently used in the article. The article clearly needs substantial improvement and better sourcing, but I don't think deletion is warranted where the underlying subject itself appears to satisfy WP:GNG. Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the 2017 Chilean general election


Opinion polling for the 2017 Chilean general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources and no sources available based on a Google search. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 04:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Chile. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 05:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Speedy keep. The article is, quite literally, full of sources (?). These are framed as external links within collapsed tables (not sure if the nom has actually opened those to check). These can also be found easily through a Google search. I do not see how the nomination's rationale does sustain itself. Impru20talk 13:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Unless the nom can actually prove otherwise (which seems difficult in light of the evidence), this looks an erroneous nomination that would merit a speedy keep under WP:SK3. I am thereby modifying my !vote from Keep to SK. Impru20talk 20:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
As they've crossed out the nomination without any explanation or apology (which we would appreciate), I would consider that a withdrawal, but since I've already voted I'll have someone else determine the closure result. Nathannah • 📮 15:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has well over 100 sources. Nominator clearly has not looked at it properly. Number 57 13:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are penty of sources. Athel cb (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Likely an erroneous nomination; did they click the 'show' button next to 'polling from' on each of the grids to show the polls and sources within the article? Because otherwise this is properly sourced. Nathannah • 📮 15:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. Pressing "show" on the top-left of the table reveals the sources. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. TheBritinator (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. A formatting issue is not a reason to delete. 07:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Khalitate (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Deepak Mhaskey


Deepak Mhaskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non elected politician. Fails NPOL and GNG. All sources are related to appointment to a new post. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

What are NPOL and GNG? I wasn't able to find the articles. (Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia.) MrTiwari324 (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
No problem, they are found at WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. They are notability guidelines, which help determine whether a topic qualifies for its own article or not. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment - He has some solid sources on his appointment (bylined The Hindu, hindustan times, Indian Express, and Deccan Herald, among others). I think the bigger question is is he a BLP1E? I'm leaning yes - I see no coverage of him except at his appointment. He may not stay that way, he was appointed like 2 weeks ago, but for now I think he's a BLP1E. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that he is a BLP1E. Even though his new appointment as head of the IT cell is new (for which he has gotten widespread recognition), his career is more than just that; for example, he has been an Independent Director for a central government enterprise, Engineers India Limited, since late 2021. Also, his role as the chairman of the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation actually holds the official rank of a Minister of State in Chhattisgarh, which is a pretty major administrative position even if he isn't an elected MLA. He was also a state-level spokesperson long before this, you can verify this in Hindustan Times and other articles. MrTiwari324 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
the roles you've mentioned are worth noting, but holding an administrative appointment or a board directorship doesn't by itself establish notability. What matters is whether reliable sources have written about him independently of those positions, and in any depth. The pieces cited cover his IT cell appointment. I don't see substantive coverage of his Engineers India or CMSC roles anywhere in the discussion. If those sources exist, it would help to have them here. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
The sources regarding his career before his appointment as head of BJP it department are limited at best; however, multiple reliable sources such as Economic times Money control Open cover his career at EIL and his chairmen role at CGMSCL
His post as an state IT cell coordinator was also mentioned in The New Indian Express although a lot more briefly MrTiwari324 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Site selection for the 1984 Democratic National Convention


Site selection for the 1984 Democratic National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging to 1984 Democratic National Convention because the convention is what is notable and the fact that several locations were considered is notable for its own article. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 08:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Mariamnei ✦ reach out 🕊️ 08:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
    Oppose. I had this spun-off because too much length of the main article on the convention. was being given to explaining the site selection, compared to primary subject matter of the convention.
    Bidding processes for major events are themselves often of note. For this reason, other events with competitive bidding processes have dedicated articles assigned to competitive selections processes for individual instances because the processes of bidding and selection are themselves notable and well-covered. This includes for Olympic Games, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, UK City of Culture, etc. While not every single presidential convention had a detailed-enough convention process to warrant a spun-off article: this one did. There is more available info beyond what is already in article. SecretName101 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge Prior to the split the main article was only 28k bytes in total size, so even though this is an unusally long section for this, a split was not necessary. Instead, some of the wordiness could be trimmed so it's not so long. Bidding for international sporting events is more complex and involves more years of planning with numerous venues, not just four days at an arena. Reywas92Talk 13:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
    @Reywas92 the hosting of a major party presidential convention actually involves far more complicated planning than you seem to think. It is a major undertaking. Tens of thousands of visitors to the city; the national and global broadcast media present and requiring infrastructure in place to film and relay; nearly all of a political party's political VIPs descending into one location (causing immense security infrastructure to be necessary) alongside celebrities and some foreign dignitaries (the most recent Republican convention in 2024 saw two recent British prime ministers present in the city); large protests being an expected occurrence (requiring crowd management forethought and manpower); thousands of participants needing accommodation and transportation (in the case of the 1984 DNC, the 5000+ delegates & alternates, which is greater than the amount of athletes at many multi-sport competitions). Additionally, while the primary event is at a single arena, these conventions have many other venues hosting hundreds of other events beyond the general sessions (breakout sessions, banquets, lectures, panels, galas, exhibitions). SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge to 1984 Democratic National Convention: A selective merge is appropriate; this article's play-by-play includes a non-enyclopedic level of detail. The contemporaneous, mostly local, news coverage of the site selection process is functionally primary sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Western Division of Suffolk


Western Division of Suffolk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Information Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Moved from Talk:West Suffolk (constituency) § Merge Western Division of Suffolk into this article
 – FaviFake (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Merge Western Division of Suffolk into West Suffolk (constituency)

Western Division of Suffolk was also known as West Suffolk, so should be included within this article. This would be consistent with other 2-member county divisions abolished then re-created as single-member constituencies e.g. South Northamptonshire, North Northumberland and Mid Cheshire. JSboundaryman (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Ken Silverstein (business journalist)


Ken Silverstein (business journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO. The one piece of substantial coverage is this "local boy makes good"-style story, a West Virginia paper focused on this West Virginian. Other than that, checking the first 100 Google, Google News, and Google Books results find no other significant third-party coverage -- listings for articles he wrote, biographies on the websites of publications he has written for, and brief citations of him. (Complicating matters is there is coverage of an investigative journalist of the same name; until recently, the article cited a Columbia Journalism Review article about that other journalist, for example.) The awards mentioned as being won are for specialized fields, not the level of award we generally see as connoting notability. His being named as a "a top economic and financial journalist" was on a list of over 150 names which was expected to grow as further research was done, and was on the no-longer-extant website wallstreeteconomists.org, which is a source of questionable import. Sources used in article are largely self-published by subject (often as a WP:FORBESCON piece), non-independent sources, or subject being quoted or interviewed about a topic that he covers, rather than about himself. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EmilyR34 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Tony Gosling

AfDs for this article:
Tony Gosling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

British journalist (BLP). Sources are mostly routine bios and work by the subject, or trivial coverage of the fact that he was stranded in New Zealand during Covid. I don't see anything amounting to sustained coverage of him in reliable sources independent of him, as would be required to meet WP:BASIC.

I am open to withdrawing this nomination if anyone can find reviews of his books in reliable sources, since that would satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: the first nomination in 2009 ended in deletion, but it seems less clear if it was the same subject as the current article (obviously the "stranded during COVID" thing was well in the future back then, in any event, and much of the present article in general is about what he's done since 2019, and thus couldn't possibly have been in the previous article, so regardless of anything else G4 can't apply here). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, History, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
I can't find any reviews of his books either, to be honest. But The Siege of Heaven does seem to have been published independently. (The other, The Traitors of Arnhem, is self-published.)
The subject is, however, an active contributor on Parrhesia News, a site that has only been launched recently but publishes independently of and is unrelated to him.
Not giving my own vote on this though. MbShm (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete He does have one article thar counts as secondary coverage--a write up in the BBC about being stranded in New Zealand during covid-19, but not anything else. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Dilan Sirwan

AfDs for this article:
Dilan Sirwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Iraqi Kurdish journalist (BLP). References are passing mentions, routine bios, and work by the subject: I see no reason to think that there is sustained coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of him, as required for WP:BASIC. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: the first nomination from 2025 ended in soft deletion after attracting no non-nominator opinions. Obviously that won't be happening again and more (i.e. any) input will be required this time. (No opinion.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Economics, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Clearly a working journalist, but I couldn't find anything to establish notability. All of the sources listed show stories he's written and bylines he has. Those do not qualify to establish notability. Searched in Kurdish and Arabic, still nothing. He's the editor in chief of a small digital publication called the New Region; not major enough to suggest any potential notability for him. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO,WP:NJOURNALIST, or WP:BASIC, or any sort of notability guideline that exists. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Lemkin Institute


Lemkin Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one needs some careful thought. I've spent a good deal of time looking for secondary sourcing from which we can write an article about this organisation. I haven't found WP:NORG compliant sources that meet WP:SIRS and, in particular, meet WP:ORGCRIT at WP:ORGDEPTH. That is to say (without all the caps), there are quite a few sources that mention the institute, and plenty that are not independent but are written by the institute, but what is lacking is the depth of coverage about the institute from which a page can be written. This is a requirement for organisations.

In favour of notability, it is fair to point out two important factors:

Firstly, the institute has joined GAAMAC as a community member, and that membership is not simply a matter of paying a subscription (but this also means the GAAMAC write up about the institute, written by Lemkin Institute for them, is not independent).

Secondly, there has been some critical coverage of the institute, including a naming dispute that generates some news coverage. But this coverage does not describe the institute at ORGDEPTH, and some of the sources are hostile.

Despite those reasons for thinking the institute notable, there are also some good reasons for thinking it is not as notable as its outputs may suggest. The institute is a small non-profit registered in Pennsylvania with annual gross receipts below the $50,000 threshold for filing a form 990-N. The institute address is to a residential apartment in Philadelphia.

This page was written by an editor with a declared interest in the institute. It was founded in 2021 with no apparent academic, government or other NGO involvement. One of the two founders quickly left. Primary sources from the institute (e.g. press releases, contributions to consultations etc.) show a diligence from the founder and some others, but they don't count towards its notability. It doesn't look, on the face of it, that this is an organisation that would meet NORG (at least not yet. It could be WP:TOOSOON). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - The Lemkin Institute has been covered by a litany of news organisations over multiple years, including multiple RS over the past few years. As a none exhaustive list: Philadelphia Jewish Exponent; The Algemeiner; News.am; Aravot; The New York Times; Reuters; The Media Line; PinkNews; CTV News; Common Dreams; Anadolu Agency; Middle East Eye; The Armenian Weekly; Washington Examiner; The Times of Israel; The Jerusalem Post; Ynet; Jewish News; Middle East Monitor; Human Rights Research Center; Genocide Watch; Azertac; Aish HaTorah; Monthly Review; National Post; The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles; Armenpress; Free Beacon; Israel National News; Armenian Mirror-Spectator; Palestine Chronicle; Jewish News Syndicate; The Spectator; City St George's, University of London; 1Lurer; Newsweek; Public Radio of Armenia; Dhaka Tribune; Azatutyun; Frontline Magazine.
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, but listing the news organisations is all very well, but you have not listed any sources that answer the question I raised in the nomination. In fact, there's not a single source there of any kind. As per the nomination, we need secondary sources about the Lemkin Institute that meet ORGDEPTH, which says,

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

What sources do we have that meet ORGDEPTH? (I'd be delighted if there are some, allowing us to write the article, and remove the COI stuff - I couldn't find any). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • The Algemeiner is reasonable. It says "The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention was initially registered as a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation on Aug. 19, 2021, and won US federal tax-exempt recognition in September 2023. In recent months, it has veered into strident anti-Israel political advocacy, supporting anti-Israel campus protests and reaching millions of viewers with social media posts that falsely accuse Israel of genocide." and then explains some of the things it has done. Personally I don't think that meets ORGDEPTH, but opinions will vary. Key to arguing it is ORGDEPTH, I expect, will be saying the coverage of the statements made (and the naming dispute, that this outlet also covers) amount to deep or significant coverage of the institute. If we write the article out from this source, our article will be much more critical than the current page.Question?
  • The Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, which is local press for this Philadelphia institute, is only talking about the naming dispute, and all it really says about the institute is "The Lemkin Institute was founded in 2021 after expanding from the Iraq Project for Genocide Prevention and Accountability, an organization launched in 2017 to help Iraq build genocide-prevention capabilities, according to the organization’s website." As they say, the information is taken from the website. That information, therefore, is not independent. Red XN
  • Middle East Eye is press generated from one of their red flag warnings, but has nothing on the institute itself. Clearly no ORGDEPTH. Red XN
  • The Daily Star (Bangladesh) says it is "a USA based organisation dealing with genocide prevention related research" and "The LIPG works with people around the world to promote genocide prevention, human security, restorative dialogue, mental health literacy, and peace-building education and training as well as to offer tools for grassroots responses to conflict. In the process, it seeks to inform the world about global grassroots efforts to end the cycle of genocide.
    For celebrating the golden jubilee of Bangladesh liberation war as well as the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh genocide, it collaborated with the Liberation War Museum in Dhaka to run a project called as "1971 Genocide in Bangladesh: A Micro-course". The project contains five segments that cover five vital aspects of liberation war and genocide in Bangladesh. These are the emergence of Bangladesh and its historical struggle towards independence; refugee crisis; victims of sexual violence; killing of intellectuals; and international crimes tribunal.
    Alongside, the LIGP has been working on the issue of the Bangladesh genocide for a while both in historical and legal terms. They are convinced that what happened to Bengalis in 1971 was genocide, and that the West Pakistan's policies prior to 1971 were genocidal in intent and nature."
    This is quite a lot. And it is clearly occasioned by something they have actually done. But it is quite limited, even so. What could the article say, based on this? How much of it is secondary? I think it is relevant, and not to be discarded, but it's not enough on its own. Question?
  • Armenian Weekly is an article about the name disputed and has only this about the institute: "a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit organization, was renamed in 2023 to support those who are at risk of becoming victims of genocide and other mass atrocities." Not only is that not ORGDEPTH, it is also wrong. As per the first source, it was named in 2021 and gained tax exempt status in 2023. Red XN
Again, the question is whether we can write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. Not from these sources, I think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
They provide enough information to make an article that is more than an incomplete stub. They cover the establishment/history, leadership, and work. Then when you add in all the other sources analysing and commenting on their work, it is clearly enough to be a C-class article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Weak keep I was on the fence about this and my ultimate conclusion is that you can write a non-stub, reasonably balanced article about the subject, so I think this proves adequate coverage exists and it benefits the encyclopedia to keep the article. (t · c) buIdhe 01:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep - there's adequate coverage shown by Cdjp1's sources. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep or merge per Cdjp1 and Buidhe. — KaijuEditor (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Where would you suggest it be merged to? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Genocide studies or genocide prevention, maybe? — KaijuEditor (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Kristóf Nagy


Kristóf Nagy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hungarian sociologist (BLP). He seems to be quite junior (submitting his doctoral thesis in 2024), and I see nothing to suggest that he meets WP:BASIC or any other criterion. An edited volume is probably not sufficient to meet WP:AUTHOR, since he hasn't published a single-authored book yet. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, History, Politics, Social science, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet any notability criteria. WP:TOOSOON. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
    Draftify per agreement below. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify I wrote this article, agree with nom - it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Can we move it to the draft space, where I can continue working on it, might the chance (better sourcing that counts towards establishing notability) present itself? Thank you.Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
    After deletion, you can still request undeletion though. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
    Only if it is a soft deletion: not if it is a hard deletion by consensus.
    I would however be happy with draftification as an outcome for this discussion, provided that the article is not moved back to mainspace until the subject can be clearly shown to meet our notability criteria. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 17:58, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Draftify, as agreed above, on the understanding (which I hope that Vorann Gencov accepts?) that the article will not be moved into mainspace until Nagy can be shown to meet the notability criteria. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Draftify on agreement. Maybe some reviews will be forthcoming, or a book. M kuhner (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Colorado

AfDs for this article:
Socialist Party of Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor regional affiliate of the Socialist Party USA, no reason for this to have its own article. Survived prior AfD on premise that sources would be added... it has been 4 years Scuba 07:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Colorado. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: for clarity, the 2022 nomination didn't even end as an outright "keep", but as "no consensus" (which defaults to, but is obviously not a consensus to, keep). It of course was also a traditional deletion discussion; this is merely proposing a redirect to Socialist Party USA. (No opinion on that or anything else.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to cover the much more notable party history from 1900-1970s when it was affiliated with the Socialist Party of America. For example, the party's presidential candidate received over 6% of the presidential vote in 1912. I provided sources which can be used in the initial discussion to anyone interested in expansion.--User:Namiba 13:39, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
    Still doesn't justify having its own article, the 1912 article also just points back to the Socialist Party of America. Scuba 00:03, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
    The reason to have an article is that independent sources have covered at some depth topic. Many editors confuse fame with notability. I'll repost the sources here , , . Newspapers.com is filled with coverage of their activities as well.--User:Namiba 13:56, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 13:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Carl B. Weinberg


Carl B. Weinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill economist. The current sourcing consists of organizations that have a COI against him and op-eds/articles written by him. I've only been able to find articles merely quoting him, so he probably doesn't pass WP:NBIO. Nighfidelity (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Politics, Economics, Italy, United States of America, and New York. Nighfidelity (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment a Google Scholar search of "CB Weinberg" finds a significant number of fairly well cited papers. Unfortunately he does not have a profile, and Scopus has nothing on him so someone would have to count by hand unless there is a better way. For certain his h-factor is more than 20, cites > 2K. That is not enough for WP:NACADEMIC, but a better counting might be.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. (Here from Wikipediocracy, where I often learn about both articles needing improvement and AfDs). Weinberg appears to be the Associated Press' go-to economist: search on apnews.com for "Carl Weinberg" and "High Frequency Economics". That looks to me like a solid indicator of impact in his field, by no means run of the mill. (Many of the non-AP articles I looked at, in the financial and general press, also referred to TV appearances.) But I can't find a single published profile to lock it down; the closest is this, which is all about his opinion, but attributes the biographical paragraph at the end to the High Frequency Economics website. I'd like to argue "Keep" and to brush up the article, but absent coverage of Weinberg himself, I don't see how. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep. Weinberg was profiled by the WSJ in a front-page piece published 9 October 1995, alongside his business partner David C. Munro and his firm High Frequency Economics, as part of a 1500-word piece on business economists fighting tough job market conditions by changing jobs or going independent. ProQuest has a lot more that I'm sorting through right now; I'd like to see what we can do with that. Preimage (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hansard TV


Hansard TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources; largely promotional; mainly written by an IP. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep Did you look at the article history at all? There is one bouncing IP/TA that continues to propogate the issues and @Diannaa: has been reverting their COI edits for years, and in the TA era, there have been a grand total of two edits, both good faith, updating to remove an HD/SD split that now no longer exists, and a decorative edit which can be easily reverted. We just don't have 'IP issues' any longer, nor would this be any case where semi-protection is needed; all that's needed is some basic WP:SOFIXIT sourcing, and I'm very much not inclined to delete a provincal legislative network's article that easily passes WP:GNG. In the worst case scenario I would absolutely support a merge to Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Nathannah • 📮 23:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge because I am actually disappointed in the lack of in-depth sourcing available after the launch of the service. I struggled to find substantial coverage in BC paper after 1992. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:31, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In order to give more time to demonstrate that this subject passes GNG. Otherwise, merging seems appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Socialist Labour Party (UK) election results


Socialist Labour Party (UK) election results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOPAGE and failure at meeting WP:SIGCOV. It is unclear why a standalone article for election results for this specific party is required (most particularly when these are mostly insignificant). Most of these results are already included in their respective election articles (where context is given). Article should be deleted, and any salvageable information (if any) moved into their appropiate articles. Impru20talk 08:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 14:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Communist Party of Britain election results


Communist Party of Britain election results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOPAGE and failure at meeting WP:SIGCOV. It is unclear why a standalone article for election results for this specific party is required (most particularly when these are mostly insignificant). Most of these results are already included in their respective election articles (where context is given). Article should be deleted, and any salvageable information (if any) moved into their appropiate articles. Impru20talk 08:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 14:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. This is the third of three similar AfD discussions about lists of election results of communist/socialist parties in the UK, which are all similarly non-notable. All of the election results listed are single-digit or fractional percentages and in many cases 0%. There is one re-election of a former labour councillor mentioned in the lead, but not in the actual body of the article, and is best covered in the main page on the party. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Communist Party of Britain#Electoral information as an WP:ATD. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition election results


Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition election results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOPAGE and failure at meeting WP:SIGCOV. It is unclear why a standalone article for election results for this specific party is required (most particularly when these are mostly insignificant). Most of these results are already included in their respective election articles (where context is given). Article should be deleted, and any salvageable information (if any) moved into their appropiate articles. Impru20talk 08:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 14:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands


Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting the recently created Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands to Japanese evacuation of Karafuto and the Kuril Islands because their scopes/topics are the same. There is nothing suitable to merge because the Repatriation of Japanese from South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands article is an unattributed machine translation of the Russian Wikipedia article. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Politics, Japan, and Russia. Yue🌙 (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Evacuation (during the war, performed by the Japanese government because of invasion) and repatriation (following the war, facilitated by other governments, due to occupation or in this case takeover) are fundamentally different topics. Of course if this is a bad machine translation then a different page would be better, but the topic is notable and separate. For example is an article on repatriation that shows how important the timing is. ~2026-46507-60 (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Excuse me, but these are two separate articles. The first concens the actual evacuation of the japanese population from territories that were still Japanese at that time of the Soviet offensive. The second article involves the ongoing process that took place after the end of WWII, carried out by Soviet authorities on territory that wa by them Soviet. These are distinct issues. Modun (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Then I change my proposal to Stubify or Delete because it is an unreviewed, unattributed machine translation from the Russian Wikipedia. The punctuation after the citation instead of before from the Russian article is still left in some places. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
The article was reviewed by user Santa Saana about a month ago. Modun (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
By "reviewed" I mean someone with English-Russian fluency looked over the article and made appropriate adjustments, per Wikipedia:Translation, and then made a proper attribution, which nobody has done. I do not mean somebody with the ability to clicked the button that says "Mark as reviewed" or "Mark as patrolled".
Aside from citation mistakes, other formatting mistakes and improper translations were also left in the initial and current revisions. Some examples:
  • "The repatriation of Japanese from Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands was the repatriation of the Japanese, Ainu, and, to some extent, Korean population ..."
  • "In June and July 1949, all Japanese citizens were deported from Sakhalin Oblast, except those who submitted written statements expressing their unwillingness to leave. After the repatriation of the majority of willing Japanese citizens was completed by June 10, 1949 ..."
  • Using "DPRK" and "North Korean" inconsistently when the Russian article only uses "КНДР". I put the Russian article through Google Translate (which uses AI to aid translations now and is riddled with errors) and it gives a near exact copy of the article's first revision, including this discrepancy. The article was obviously machine translated without review and attribution.
The sensible move here would be to stubify or dratify, but the current revision is so far from an acceptable revision because it's an unreviewed machine translation. The article should be written from scratch. Yue🌙 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
The original article actually refers to "North Koreans" and the state "DPRK." This isn't critical, considering that these concepts are synonymous.
As for "all Japanese citizens by 1949," this refers to the first stage of the repatriation of the Japanese population from the Sakhalin Oblast. However, even after this, a small portion of the population remained in the USSR for various reasons and was included in the second stage of repatriation. The repatriation took place in several stages.
Another incident occurred with the Korean population of Sakhalin. Postwar Japan refused to accept Koreans from Sakhalin because it did not consider them its citizens. The term "DPRK" is used to refer to the state, while the adjective "North Korean" is derived from the word "state."
Please do not confuse the term "as applied to Japanese citizens proper" with the entire population of the former Karafuto, whom Japan subsequently, for some reason, did not consider all of them to be Japanese citizens, and who were no longer eligible for repatriation. Modun (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
My point is that the quoted text shows you lazily (unreviewed, unattributed) machine translated from the Russian Wikipedia, which is against policy, not that I don't understand the quoted text. Yue🌙 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose redirect: The proposed redirect does not make sense because these two separate article topics with different content. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep The topics are distinct and this one is notable. The creator apparently knows Russian, so we should assume that the translation is reasonably accurate. Regarding the issues brought up above, they just reflect the sources: the first reference is titled "Problems of the post war repatriation of Japanese and Korean population of Sakhalin" and the June-July one says that repatriation of the last Japanese was completed in June, but in the next paragraphs it describes repatriation in July I guess what was meant is that the order was issued in June, but the actual repatriation was fully completed in July, but again, the contradiction is lifted from the source. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

{[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bravelake/userboxes/AntifaTerror}}

Non-metropolitan district


Non-metropolitan district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging this article, Metropolitan borough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Unitary authorities of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into Districts of England. These articles which are all about specific types of district have a lot of overlap in scope with the main Districts of England article with a lot of information duplicated between them, and I think it would be significantly more readable if it was all reported in one article. I have a demonstration of what such a merged article could look like in my sandbox: User:Chessrat/sandbox. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - On the surface this makes sense, but I notice that there doesn't seem to have been any discussion on the article talk pages before this proposal here? That would've let people familiar with the topic hash out ideas.
—DIYeditor (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment Chessrat raised it at Wikiproject UK Geography talk page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
@DIYeditor Editors are supposed to hash out ideas during merge discussions. FaviFake (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose and remove the info about unitaries, once this is removed there isn't that much overlap just like we have Non-metropolitan county, this article should deal with NMDs that aren't unitaries. Metropolitan boroughs are different just like the former Metropolitan boroughs of the County of London. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    Interesting proposal but I'm not sure how that would work when all non-metropolitan districts will be unitary authorities from 2028? If you end up removing all that information wouldn't it effectively just be a merger by another name? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 20:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    The longstanding scope for the Non-metropolitan district article has been to exclude unitaries so you adding them to it has given the impression of duplication. From 2028 this article should them be from a historical prospect just like Districts of Wales is even though the current principal areas are also districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    I don't know enough about Wales to say there, but I'm pretty sure that's incorrect for England.
    As far as I can tell, when English districts have become unitary upon the abolition of the counties, they are still classified as local authority districts, irrespective of metropolitan/non-metropolitan status (e.g. both Wokingham and Wakefield are categorised as local government districts) and also irrespective of borough/city status. Unless I'm missing something here? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
    I'm talking about those that haven't or won't become unitaries, Wokingham was a two-tier non-metropolitan district but became a unitary (without legally being a county) and Wakefield was a two-tier metropolitan district that gained county functions but also isn't legally a county. Mid Suffolk for example is a two-tier non-metropolitan district that is planned to be abolished in 2028. All of these are districts of England but they are different types, as you can see from Districts of England there are 5 types, unitary authorities (except in Berkshire these are non-metropolitan districts that are also non-metropolitan counties or vice versa), London boroughs which until 1986 operated below Greater London Council, metropolitan districts which until 1986 operated below a county council, two-tier non-metropolitan districts and 2 sui generis ones. If I wanted information on say the non-metropolitan districts or the metropolitan districts I'd expect to find a separate article with a list of them rather than being redirected to Districts of England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
    When there is a large amount of distinct content that needs its own article and can't be covered elsewhere you do need a separate article (e.g. London boroughs can't really be merged). But all districts in general have exactly the same powers (except for the non-unitary ones being abolished soon) and I'm not really sure how it benefits readers to have to navigate to a new article to find out about metropolitan/non-metropolitan status when that doesn't take much explaining to do. It would be like having two separate articles listing the Borough Constituencies and County Constituencies for Parliament. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Compete America


Compete America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This organization does not meet notability criteria. It is sourced only with primary sources, and I was unable to locate any independent WP:SIGCOV. I tagged the article to encourage others to try, but its author's edit history may suggest it was created for the purposes of promotion and advertising. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Simple google search yields lots of sources such as times of india, seatletimes, straittimes, etc. but this might fail WP:Notability. I do agree that the current content is now more towards promotion but this can be revamped to be more neutral tone. Elisapoly (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete The sources in Google mentioned above are about various initiatives by the group, they are not about the group. For activist groups, this distinction is important. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The available sourcing is the coalition's own press releases and letters, lobbying disclosures and directory listings, and H-1B policy stories that quote a spokesperson in passing. As Kelob2678 notes, coverage of an advocacy group's positions is not coverage of the group, and for a coalition whose function is issuing statements, being quoted often is a press operation rather than notability. The article itself is sourced almost entirely to competeamerica.org and restates the coalition's own goals, supporting the WP:NOTPROMO concern. No objection to a redirect if a suitable parent article exists. Arabbywaye (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Democratic backsliding in Mexico


Democratic backsliding in Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging because the scope of this article entirely overlaps with Democracy in Mexico, and is effectively a WP:CFORK, with "backsliding" taking a highly negative view of the recent/current Morena governments, and "democracy" taking a highly positive view. These perspectives should be reconciled in a single article; both pages are likely doing a non-neutral disservice as it stands. As for which title to pick, Democracy in Mexico is the more generic and natural title, and I'd venture that applying the concept of "democratic backsliding" to the entirety of Mexican political history, including periods of democratic growth (which are also described in the current text of "backsliding") is anachronistic and not actually supported by the sources cited in the article. The topic in both cases is "Democracy in Mexico", both when waxing and waning, and that's the framing that is most informative for readers. I’d also note that the first revisions of “backsliding” appear to have been LLM-written, although further improvements were then made. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment - no opinion on NPOV issues, but imo nom has only established that the last (of four) sections in Democratic backsliding in Mexico might be a CFORK, not the whole page, whereas both topics themselves are notable and so warrant independent articles. Is nom going for WP:TNT for all sections of the nommed page (even this ifl is sort of a tall order as the LLM issues were fixed, so presumably there's enough interest to fix any NPOV issues we might flag)? Else would be more inclined to !vote keep and tag NPOV issues in relevant section :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
As I noted in the nominating statement, which calls for merging, not TNT, it does not appear that sources use “democratic backsliding” to refer to anything prior to the later years of the PRI’s reign (and more generally, the term is almost never used in literature to refer to anything before the late 20th century). I would reconsider my views if anyone can find an RS to the contrary. signed, Rosguill talk 13:29, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
It is because democratic backsliding has multiple names (listed in the main page). The post-PRI sources I can access say:
  • Democratic backsliding
  • Democratic erosion
  • Democratic decay
  • Democratic decline
  • Autocracy
  • Illiberal
The article originally had an explaination of what the article was about, but an user enraged because I didn't follow his multiple attempts to engange in forum-like responses removed it because he wanted a WP:FALSEBALANCE in the introduction. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 17:52, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
This seems to focus on characterizations of Morena's rule. I still have yet to see any example of sources using this lens of democratic backsliding/erosion/decline/lessening/etc. to describe anything before the 21st century. The dispute with another editor about lead content doesn't seem to be here or there, as the article itself devotes about 2/3rds of its text to pre-Morena history--that is the crux of my concern, that "democratic backsliding in Mexico" is not a lens which RS use to describe anything before 2010 (I did see a source consider Peña Nieto in this context, but even that seems to be a rarity in the literature) signed, Rosguill talk 02:41, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
So now is about a concern about pre-Morena sources and presentism? Ok. The first question would be, when the concept of backsliding (or alike) democracies was invented? The base article was created in 2017 and then was treated as a recent concept. Asking the unreliable AI, it says "The conceptualization of democratic erosion—along with overlapping terms like "democratic backsliding," "autocratization," and "deconsolidation"—emerged as a distinct modern field of political science in the late 1990s and early 2000s, shifting focus away from sudden military coups toward gradual internal decay".
Before that era, it also indicates that the concept was known as ("Democratic Consolidation"). Sources I found using that term actually exist and are:
I understand why you'd suggest a merge to Democracy in Mexico as they overlap, but if the sole reason is (again) create false balances (A is positive, B is negative, let's roller coast them to make a hybrid neutral), then no. It's like asking a merge of Democracy in Mexico into Politics in Mexico and History of Mexico because all of them overlap historic facts. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 04:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
My concern is that we have the current article shoehorning the anachronistic lens (which apparently you fully recognize as anachronistic) of democratic backsliding into coverage of 19th-20th century Mexican history. The two paths forward are either to remove the material that isn't discussed by sources investigating this lens (which would likely leave an article discussing only the 21st century onward), or merge it with our treatment of democracy in Mexico more broadly. I think the latter option is much more useful to readers than carving out a separate article focusing just on backsliding, a view that is reinforced by sources critical of the current government's approach to democratic institutions and policy that do not use the terminology of backsliding verbatim. I'm also not sure why you write So now is about a concern about pre-Morena sources and presentism as if to imply I'm moving the goalposts; my original request was for sources [that] use “democratic backsliding” to refer to anything prior to the later years of the PRI’s reign, i.e. pre-Morena coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 04:20, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Well I haven't said this page should be kept, merged, or deleted, I'm just trying to fully understand what you are trying to do with it, mainly because of what I said above regarding roller coasting information. For example, how do you merge the section that concerns you (post-2000) into that article? Most of the post-2000 (and mainly post-2018 information) is very limited and outdated. Adding information you labeled as negative and anachronistic will double or triple the size of information you named highly positive, and I'm reading is outdated. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:16, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
It’s anachronistic to frame it in the context of backsliding, but it’s relevant to the topic of democracy and thus is pertinent in a merged article, at the very least in terms of sources that can be cited. Without having gone line-by-line, both articles seem to generally agree on assessments of pre-Morena politics, but there’s details here and there that are likely worth merging. In terms of the Morena era material, I think it’s probably going to be a question of looking to the collected bibliography across the two pages, pruning outdated or less reliable sources, and rewriting to present the consensus of the best sources (or attribution of claims if there isn’t agreement among the best sources). If it turns out that the bibliography clearly favors the existing framing of one of the two articles, preserving that text as part of the merge would make sense. signed, Rosguill talk 06:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep - per Rosguill and Tbhotch comments above (no TNT sought, topic seems notable and verifiable, any flagged issues will prolly be resolved in time :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you keep framing things in terms of TNT, this is a merge discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 03:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Ahh good point - just meant content problems flagged above aren't bad enough to warrant a merger when topics are distinct, notable, and verifiable! (so !vote to oppose merger) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Merge. There is substantial overlap in the articles and no compelling reason for two separate articles with their currently different framings. Better to have one article that explains and cites sources for both points of view. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Politics proposed deletions



Politicians

Agustín Iglesias


Agustín Iglesias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable local politician with no lasting significance. Bedivere (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Regioncalifornia (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Canon Andrew Nyote


Canon Andrew Nyote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any evidence of notability for this Ugandan figure. Being chairperson of a minor political party is not evidence of notability under WP:NPOL, and I can't imagine any scenario where being the head of a local school's parent-teacher association confers notability. Most of the coverage in this article is about how Nyote's famous nephew, a rapper, attended his funeral (, , , , ), but Nyote cannot inherit notability from his nephew. Other sources are trivial mentions in routine coverage (, , , ). A search turns up no qualifying coverage of Nyote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Rishi Madlani


Rishi Madlani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local councillor and businessperson who doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:NBLP. Saw this person's name being touted as a possible contender for Labour in the upcoming Holborn by-election, and found an article that appears WP:PROMO (or the opposite, depending on how you look at it) trying to emphasise their links to Keir Starmer. I've removed some refbombing where there was only a passing mention, and what's left is mostly primary sourcing and WP:ROTM coverage of a councillor in the local press. There is one source that does talk of his relationship to Starmer, but without a byline I'm not sure of its independence or reliability: Orange sticker (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete clearly fails WP:NPOL and I'm not seeing any significant coverage from secondary sources or other guidelines being met here. I also share the nominator's concerns around the risk of WP:PROMO too. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Angela Gonzales-Torres


Angela Gonzales-Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current congressional candidate. Most of the coverage from WP:RS relates to allegations/controversies made against her opponent, and the others lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NPOL EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep. Article already has dozens of sources and clearly meets notability guidelines. I'd just add a tag to the page to remind contributors to adhere to the BLP, and, remove some content that's unrelated to her but more about her current opponent in an election. Apex-nurse (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. I want to echo this comment by Generalrelative from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner: It is sad that we might delete this article based on "the usual outcome for candidates" when a cursory glance at the article, which contains over 20 independent sources, indicates that this bio is the exception rather than the norm. The guidance here, WP:NPOL, is very clear that political candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Seven sources have published full articles solely about AGT, and six more sources have given 5+ paragraphs to AGT. Those sources include an international outlet (The New Arab), national outlets (Salon, American Prospect, The Intercept, NYTimes), regional outlets (Los Angeles Times), and local outlets (USC Annenberg Media, Occidental News). This seems well beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage.
More information Source, Independent? ...
Source assessment table prepared by User:CopyleftEverything
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Los Angeles Times Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~7 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The New Arab Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage, ~15 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The American Prospect Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~15 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Common Dreams Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~10 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The Intercept Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~9 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes USC Annenberg Media Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~14 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Salon Yes Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~8 paragraphs on AGT. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The Occidental is student newspaper. Yes Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Substantial coverage of Gonzales-Torres, ~12 paragraphs. ✔ Yes
Yes Yes The Intercept ~ Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Brief descriptions of Gonzales-Torres, ~6 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes The New York Times ~ Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Brief descriptions of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes Eagle Rock Pop is small local news outlet. ~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes The Downballot is an election news outlet. ~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes Los Angeles Times ~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs. ~ Maybe
Yes Yes NPR No Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~2 paragraphs. ✘ No
Yes Yes Axios No Focused on Gomez inquiry, passing mention of Gonzales-Torres. ✘ No
Yes Yes CNN No Focused on Gomez inquiry. ✘ No
Yes Yes Courthouse News Service No Focused on Gomez inquiry. ✘ No
Yes Yes The Eastsider LA is local news outlet. No Focused on election results. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~2 paragraphs. ✘ No
Yes Yes CBS News No Focused on progressive primary wins. Passing mention of Gonzales-Torres. ✘ No
Yes Yes Los Angeles Times No Focused on DSA endorsements. Passing mention of Gonzales-Torres. ✘ No
Yes Yes Los Angeles City Clerk No Neighborhood council election result, including AGT. WP:PRIMARY ✘ No
Yes Yes California Secretary of State No 2026 primary results, including AGT. WP:PRIMARY ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Close

Most of the remaining sources, such as the CBS News interview or the VoyageLA interview or the Orange County Register questionnaire are only used in the article as WP:ABOUTSELF. CopyleftEverything (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@CopyleftEverything
LA Times article: Primarily about how the Justice Democrats are seeking to oust Jimmy Gomez (not about Gonzales-Torres herself).
The New Arab: Article reads as very WP:PROMO
Common Dreams: Article is about how she was endorsed by Justice Democrats (which is campaign coverage, not coverage of Gonzales-Torres)
The Intercept: Article is about the congressional race, rather than Gonzales-Torres
Salon: Article is about Gonzales-Torres being endorsed by Justice Democrats
The Occidental: Articles just states campaign pitches for Gomez's primary challengers EaglesFan37 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
To group these: Two notes on LATimes, Common Dreams, Salon, The Intercept 2025:
  • 1st, each article also details Gonzales-Torres' bio, eg LATimes community activist and former president of [....] and Gonzales-Torres currently works as [....], Common Dreams She also recalled her experience growing up [....], Salon Both Gomez and Gonzales-Torres are the children of [....] and mother worked as a waitress but her [....], Intercept former Highland Park neighborhood council president [....].
  • 2nd, that story -- Justice Dems, WFP, DSA working to replace a progressive, pro-Israel, pro-crypto Dem with a democratic socialist -- is a major reason why this isn't WP:ROUTINE election coverage. IMO, it's "campaign coverage" in the same way that articles documenting James Fishback's white nationalist rhetoric on the campaign trail are "campaign coverage": They explain why people are likely to care about this person 10 years later, whether they win or lose.
The New Arab: I agree that the article clearly favors Gonzales-Torres over Gomez. The article also dedicates 7 paragraphs to Gonzales-Torres' political activity in the the 2024 UCLA pro-Palestine encampment (ie, before this campaign), part of a broader focus on her bio, eg: the daughter of a deportee and a recent graduate who took part in a pro-Palestinian encampment [....].
Similarly, USC Annenberg Media is a ~30 paragraph article focused entirely on Gonzales-Torres' liquor license political activity as HHPNC president (ie, before this campaign). CopyleftEverything (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
@CopyleftEverything Those groups have tried to replace candidates in countless races this election cycle, Gonzales-Torres is far from unique in that regard. Most of the coverage is related to her candidacy, the New Arab article discusses her involvement in the encampments at UCLA in relation to how it inspired her campaign (notably, the article doesn't describe her as a leader, nor does the Wikipedia article on the UCLA encampments mention Gonzales-Torres).
The USC Annenberg Media piece does give WP:SIGCOV, but being on the neighborhood council of a city with 57,000 residents would very rarely get an article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sourcing here very clearly satisfied WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. I will also note that there is an ongoing RFC/discussion at WT:BIO about what constitutes "routine" or "significant" coverage for local politicians and candidates. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Bade Nagajyothi


Bade Nagajyothi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls under Wikipedia:Notability (electoral candidates) and fails WP:NSUBPOL. The sources cited in the article appear to have arisen solely because the candidate contested a single legislative election, with coverage limited to the news of contest and the candidate's biography due to the contest. All cited sources date from November to December 2023 and are related to the 2023 Telangana Legislative Assembly election. The candidate does not appear to have received any coverage independent of a single electoral event and is not notable. 456legendtalk 06:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: To address the concern, I have added more references including three from 2019, 2020 and 2022. This extends the coverage to a period of five years from 2019. Though the coverage is about elections, the Mulugu seat and the two candidates attracted huge coverage from mainstream media due to their naxal background. Apart from the Nov-Dec coverage, there are at least 7 references from August which are detailed articles and not just routine election coverage. Along with the two newly added (from Telugu wiki) citations 2019 and 2020 (model marriage), and three more refs from 2025, I feel the article passes General Notability (GNG). Will also try and see if more refs can be dug out from her sarpanch and ZP days. Thanks Davidindia (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

James Balbirnie


James Balbirnie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

19th-century American mayor. The sources do not amount to sustained coverage in reliable sources, as required to meet WP:BASIC, and his murder does not make him notable in itself given the lack of modern scholarly discussion of him. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep - You are not going to find the sustained coverage in reliable sources for a small town mayor who lived and served more than a century ago. That only means that Wikipedia should consider other aspects of this. The older subject articlesis, which area lot, should have a variance for these older articles. — Maile (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found more sources that contribute to WP:BASIC and expanded the article greatly, as well as removing some of the clear grammar mistakes in it. More can be found on him as well, the article just needs care and time. — HazelAlbertSheriff (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes - I see you used the Library of Congress. And many others works. Good work up for you. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Marc Cenedella


Marc Cenedella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several-time possible candidate for office (but who never actually ran) and businessman who has run a not very well-known company. He does not appear to have received significant coverage in either his possible political campaigns or business career. The article reads far more like a promotional CV than anything else. If deletion is not an agreeable outcome, it's possible that this article could be merged to TheLadders.com. PA Uploader (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Joseph Thomas Price


Joseph Thomas Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Early 20th-century American doctor and local politician. The article relies on primary sources, and there does not seem to be any sustained coverage in reliable sources of the kind that would be need to meet WP:BASIC.

The only source that might contribute to notability is Cash's The Story of Florida, but the reference gives no page number, and I have not been able to find the relevant part of the book by searching the copies on archive.org. That is in any case only one source, so not sufficient for WP:BASIC just in itself. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I found the relevant page of Cash's The Story of Florida on archive.org.
Looking for other sources, I found an obituary[5] too short for WP:SIGCOV that named him as "J.T. Price". It might be difficult to find other coverage of him distinguishable from otherpeople surnamed Price from High Springs. Lovelano (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Sardar Abdul Rashid Khan


Sardar Abdul Rashid Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Early 20th-century Afghan political figure. The article is almost entirely unsourced, and the only source given is a genealogical page, on which the subject is only briefly mentioned without any detailed information. If the information in the article is accurate, the subject may be notable, but I cannot readily find any sources that would appropriately substantiate the information given, and in any case the article is worthy of WP:TNT as it stands. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Walter Dingley

AfDs for this article:
Walter Dingley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted under another title at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Leslie Dingley; recreated the following year by the same editor who created the deleted article, virtually unchanged. I bring it here because of its long existence after recreation. BD2412 T 16:31, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@PatGallacher, Necrothesp, Bearcat, and Maile66: Pinging participants in the previous discussions. BD2412 T 16:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete would not pass political notability; this was all I could find . The OBE might be notable, but we have no sourcing that talks about it, nor to show why this person would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tried to verify the OBE, but can't. Please ping me if you can. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Beau Bayh

AfDs for this article:
Beau Bayh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Evan Bayh because it was already settled in the previous deletion discussion that the page should be redirected. It was restored for, from what I can tell, no consensus or reason. CSP3945 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Creating a new article that overcomes the reasons for deletion has never required a discussion, although in some cases it can be the best practice. In any case, the coverage in the article here is more than enough to meet the GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect NOTINHERITED and doesn't meet NPOL (he's a candidate for a state secretary of state position). The sources here are mainly local "interest" stories about him and his twin brother doing normal stuff: being born, turning 12, going to college, joining the military. None of that is worthy of Notability. Even if he wins the secretary of state position there needs to be more than routine coverage/news for him to meet NPOL. Lamona (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    @Lamona I agree with you that a redirect is appropriate here. However, I disagree that, if he was elected, he wouldn't automatically qualify under WP:NPOL. The Indiana Secretary of State is a state/province-wide public office, so if he won, he would be presumptively notable under NPOL. PA Uploader (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    When I was born, when I turned 12, went to college; none of that was reported in any newspaper, so it certainly is not ROUTINE. The GNG doesn't specify what the significant coverage is about, just that it is significant. This is precisely to obviate each Wikipedia editors biases as to what we should include/exclude - we include topics that have received coverage from reliable sources, regardless of how important each of us as individual editors think the topic is. I can think Annette Saint-Pierre lived the most mundane life, but since she received significant coverage she is wiki-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
    Content matters. It has to matter or WP would be full of junk. There's quite a range between a thoroughly researched, thoughtful article published in a major academic journal and a fluff piece in a local paper with happy news about folks that are considered celebrities. I do agree that the Politico piece is a good start toward GNG or NPOL, but for the rest I don't see significant coverage. So the decision is not about "thinking" he is important, but sources that show he meets specific policies. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect Not enough independent notability at this time. Possibly if he's actually elected, but until then there's really not enough here. Intothatdarkness 13:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Keep - meets notability from the long history of newspaper articles locally, including in the reasonably prominent IndyStar, and the more modern Politico coverage. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Kevin McKeown (politician)


Kevin McKeown (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First saw this BLP after it was mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Torosis. Does not meet either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, and WP:HEY (and WP:BEFORE).

  • Santa Monica Daily Press coverage of his appointment to the mayor position in 2014
  • Daily Press coverage of his retirement
  • Santa Monica Mirror coverage of his retirement
  • A three-part series that talks about the life of former mayor Kevin McKeown and a local band director of the same name “A Tale of Two Kevin McKeowns” here, , here , and here
  • LA Times coverage of the response to his actions during the 2020 George Floyd protests and riots
  • LA Times coverage of him in “The curious history of a Santa Monica attack ad” (reprinted here )

I will add these sources and others to the article when I have time. It looks like there are other sources that discuss him in some detail that may not be available online, and I’ll add those too, when I have a chance. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Notecardforfree (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Few of these satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. It's almost all campaign coverage. The 3-part series from the Santa Monica Daily Press is promising but I'm not personally convinced. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. From my own review, I agree with @Aesurias regarding the sources that have been provided, and I don't otherwise see evidence of significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. If the consensus is to delete, I would also suggest blanking the discussion. If the anonymous comment above truly came from the subject, I can understand why the idea that you don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability might be insulting or hurtful, so there's no need to maintain this discussion for full public view in perpetuity. PA Uploader (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Santa Monica City Council. Fails GNG per nom and PA Uploader. I looked at the sources and am not convicned they add up to passing GNG. The Newsweek piece only contains a quote and that issue was not even addressed in the coverage of the subject's retirement from council. The Daily Press coverage is better, but all it says beyond the surprise retirement is that "he had a special focus on renter issues, affordable housing, and environmental sustainability." The three part series is fun, but for a profile, the series is very short. As to the subject I would recommend reading An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there is an ongoing RFC/discussion at WT:BIO about what constitutes "routine" or "significant" coverage for local politicians and candidates. I recommend reviewing that to determine whether the votes here are consistent with the community discussion and consensus about the type of sources that can support notability. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note regarding additional sources found. I want to call everyone's attention to a few more sources that I have found that help support the conclusion that this article meets WP:BASIC:
  • Kevin McKeown's work on regulating short-term rentals is profiled over about four pages in Gregor Craigie's Our Crumbling Foundation: How We Solve Canada's Housing Crisis' (Random House of Canada 2024), see pp. 114-118.
  • Kevin's work has been profiled on the radio. I found these links on his website, which include two CBS news radio reports: , , and .
Looking at these and the other sources listed above, I still believe this article easily passes WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

William Alley (mayor)


William Alley (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a complete WP:V failure. None of the three sources mention Alley or his family at all. The only information I found in my WP:BEFORE search was user-generated geneaology websites. This article should be deleted under WP:NOR and as a total failure of WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Charlotte Bishop


Charlotte Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable local government official from Wales. There is no independent, secondary, reliable source WP:SIGCOV in the article, even after the page creator removed a notability tag left by Fram in an edit that did not add any significant coverage. The coverage here is limited to non-independent coverage from her political party ), WP:ROUTINE local coverage of her political activities (, , ), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, , ), and primary source election information , , ). No additional qualifying coverage was found in a WP:BEFORE search, and local government officials do not qualify under WP:NPOL and must pass WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)


  • Keep – The assertion that this article lacks independent secondary coverage under WP:GNG overlooks the substantive coverage provided by multiple reliable, independent Welsh news outlets.

Specifically, the article satisfies notability through:

  • Significant Editorial Coverage: Outlets such as Nation.Cymru, the Caerphilly Observer, South Wales Argus, and WalesOnline are independent regional news organisations with their own editorial independence. They are not party press releases or primary filings but some of the main journalistic outlets in the country where she is an elected representative. They have provided dedicated reporting on her specific political challenges and policy advocacy (e.g., solar farm policies, council branding disputes, transport scrutiny).
  • Historical Milestone / Leadership Role: Bishop serves as the group leader of Plaid Cymru on Caerphilly County Borough Council, notably achieving distinction as the first female leader of that group. Under standard biographical guidelines, holding prominent executive or opposition leadership positions within major local government authorities—particularly when paired with independent media profiling—establishes sufficient significance.

The sources cited are independent secondary sources that go well beyond routine or trivial mentions. MeyrickTil (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Did you use an LLM to help you write this response? If so please read WP:AITALK. To respond to the substance, my source analysis shows that the independent sources do not provide significant coverage of Bishop. And there is not a single notability guideline that would establish the historic role of (checks notes) being the first female leader of a minority party group in a particular one of the 22 local government areas of a constituent country within the United Kingdom as uniquely establishing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
As a neurodivergent writer who has relied on accessibility and writing software since childhood (long before modern LLMs existed), and as software like Grammarly utilises language models anyway, I find it worth to note that the line is now quite muddy between the two.
Even then however, my original points still stands:
  • We have the Caerphilly Observer reporting directly on 'Plaid Cymru elects its first female council group leader' as an independent outlet.
  • There's subsequent reporting from other outlets covering policy.
  • It's mentioned across other approved Wikipedia articles.
  • And if we want to talk scale, she's also featured in *The Telegraph* alongside other candidates (I can provide you the link if needed).
At the end of the day, Wales is a country with its own democratically elected government and press. It might operate on a different scale than the London or American media bubbles, but dismissing that local press as non-independent as you originally did simply highlights a common blind spot regarding how devolved political environments function.
I find the subject notable, as did the admin who approved the page initially. If someone happens to be unfamiliar with the significance of the first female leader of the Plaid group in an area like Caerffili, that is completely understandable, though perhaps it's worth reviewing local context before dismissing it as a whole.
MeyrickTil (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources cited in the article establish that the subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
    How exactly does she pass NPOL, which explicitly does not apply to local elected officials? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Local elected officials may be notable if the "depth of coverage extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". The sources that you cite as being "routine" are not, in my view, the type of "brief mentions and routine announcements" that are contemplated by this guideline. They provide an in-depth assessment of the subject of the article. In any event, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
The local coverage is the definition of ROUTINE: "X person elected to X local post, here's a little background on her, end of story." BASIC requires significant coverage or multiple independent sources, and the only independent source that provides anything beyond a trivial mention is the Caerphilly Observer, which counts as one source for purposes of calculating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
I think you and I have a different understanding of what "routine coverage" is. I share the views of this essay: WP:NOTROUTINE. While it is about events, the guidelines at WP:ROUTINE are also informative. That guideline considers things like "[w]edding announcements, sports scores, crime logs" etc. to be routine. There are multiple independent sources that provide exposition about Bishop's life and political work. In my view, that's enough for WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Helen Mukoro Idisi

AfDs for this article:
Helen Mukoro Idisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the sources I checked, this person was a fraudster who presented herself as an "author, politician, and legal consultant". It's strange that the Wikipedia article describes her that way. As she was a fraudster, many biographical details might be completely made up and are suspect. It is unlikely that this person will continue to be notable in any way; the case seems more appropriate for a news website only. WP:NOTNEWS WP:ONEEVENT JohnMizuki (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: suffice it to say, I think this is the same subject as the first nomination in 2020 that ended in deletion. No opinion on the article itself at this time, but I do have this feeling that this is another one of those subjects where deletion might be best accompanied by a dose of salt should it come to that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Women, Crime, Law, Nigeria, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete not seeing any clear claim to notability that meets the notability guidelines or significant coverage here beyond being covered in the news for one event, which as the nominator highlights per guidelines on this, doesn't meet the threshold for a page. Especially given BLP policies and the high standard for BLP pages regarding any claims made being backed by reliable sources, I'm also concerned that there's a lot of information without proper sources (and one of the source links no longer works too). Greenleader(2) (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I looked for sources, but I don't quite think the available info passes WP:BASIC. But I could be persuaded to keep if more significant coverage is found. Notecardforfree (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also looked for sources and couldn't find anything. I could have been persuaded to weak delete, but the fact that there may have been a previous nomination leads me to lean a bit further and conclude on delete. (Note: no opinion on salting.) Silvestertaylor (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Fails verification. She got fewer votes in a huge country than I got running in the village of New Paltz. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I think the incident at the UN details significant coverage? [] plus she has done bizarre things like run for higher office in Nigeria prior. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Joshua Love


Joshua Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, failed local body candidate who was killed in a car crash TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.nbr.co.nz/politics/joshua-love-offers-auckland-mayoralty-a-fresh-face-fresh-opinions/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350540043/auckland-the-opportunities-party-candidate-resigns-in-scathing-online-post
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/01-07-2020/explosive-start-for-opportunities-party-campaign-as-candidate-takes-dispute-public
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/541748/man-hit-by-three-vehicles-on-auckland-s-south-western-motorway-identified
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/joshua-nathanuel-love-hit-three-times-on-aucklands-southwestern-motorway-died-on-birthday/OE7GQZOAIZEYBGMP5FTB2H3OJI/
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/emergencies/544040/no-one-involved-in-fatal-auckland-triple-car-hit-and-run-comes-forward
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/explosive-start-for-opportunities-party-campaign-as-candidate-takes-dispute-public/3KS5YMB7CD4UXBFXUBR66QRMD4/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350540132/young-woman-disappointed-after-former-the-opportunities-party-candidate-asks-her-for-naked-photographs
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/127201090/judge-commends-teens-act-of-bravery-after-she-addressed-man-who-assaulted-her
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/man-hit-by-three-cars-on-auckland-motorway-identified-i4hbl5c6
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/drivers-in-horrific-hit-and-run-death-havent-come-forward-vyxmheok
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/man-hit-three-times-on-southwestern-motorway-auckland-named-by-police/
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2020/07/20/auckland-super-city-a-disaster-imposed-by-rodney-hyde-tuariki-delamere/
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/joshua-love-the-troubled-history-of-the-auckland-man-hit-by-three-vehicles-and-killed/KWM5BF66UZDX7MTVG37LT2LE3I/
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. I think he meets the criteria for WP:GNG based on significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources, including the National Business Review, Stuff, The Spinoff, RNZ and the New Zealand Herald, concerning different events (2019 Auckland mayoralty, 2020 Auckland Central candidacy, 2021 assault conviction, and his death) over multiple years (2019–2025). ~2026-38527-83 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep. It appears that this subject meets WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Keep. Sources show that GNG has been met. That he didn't get elected is irrelevant. Schwede66 07:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete the sources are primary and related to single incidents but do not describe Love in detail nor make connections between events. A secondary source would describe his whole life, not only the relevant parts to the news story. The only source that does go into that detail is an interview. None of these incidents are notable and simply being involved in a bunch of non-notable but newsworthy incidents does not make one notable. There are gaps in the biography that cannot be filled with the existing and provided sources, and it is unlikely new sources will spring now that Love is deceased. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
    Comment – I don't think the characterisation of the sources as primary is correct. The sources cited above include independent reporting from National Business Review, Stuff, The Spinoff, RNZ and the New Zealand Herald. Nor does WP:BASIC require a secondary source covering the subject's "whole life". The relevant question is whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published, reliable, independent secondary sources. The coverage here concerns Love himself across multiple distinct events and several years, rather than being confined to a single event. ~2026-38527-83 (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
  • I agree with the anon's assessment. The independent news sources listed in the article are not primary sources, and they satisfy WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
The NBR piece is an interview, it inherently is not independent because it is words from the subject. Primary and independent are two different things, if you look through the guideline you refer to you will see that. It says secondary sources, and these are largely just primary sources on controversies and incidents. ·Traumnovelle (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
But they have to be notable for something; founding a company isn't notable, losing in politics isn't, sexual assault isn't. The death could be, but appears largely sensationalized. The company they founded might be notable, but doesn't appear to be either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete would only be notable for founding the 88 Cups coffee enterprise, the rest seems non-contributory. The crime didn't result in any substantive jail time and seems to be a minor crime. The elections are not notable and the death seems odd, but not entirely notable. I might redirect to an article about the 88 Cups, if at all. Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    Comment – I don't think "was any single event independently notable" is the right test here. WP:BASIC doesn't require that; it asks whether there's significant coverage of the person in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, and it specifically allows combining several instances of non-trivial coverage to meet that bar even when no individual episode would be notable on its own. That's the situation here: five independent outlets (NBR, Stuff, The Spinoff, RNZ, NZ Herald) covered Love across four distinct, unrelated events over six years. WP:BLP1E, which is the guideline actually aimed at "just one incident got covered," doesn't fit a subject with coverage this spread out. ~2026-38527-83 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
    Coverage of the person, not coverage of events. I'd consider significant coverage of the person to cover their basic biographical details but the sourcing here does not do that. Usually when a person dies sources will provide details of their life, in this case the sourcing talking about Love's death does not do that. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per Traumnovelle. The articles describing the subject's death barely register that the subject was a polticial candidate. As Oaktree (and other editors elsewhere) have articulated, an assortment of non-notable coverage does not necessarily equate to broader notability or significance. --Enos733 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: there is an ongoing RFC/discussion at WT:BIO about what constitutes "routine" or "significant" coverage for local politicians and candidates. I recommend reviewing that to determine whether the votes here are consistent with the community discussion and consensus about the type of sources that can support notability. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: I think there's an argument that GNG is met, as the range of coverage indicates he isn't just a WP:BLP1E based on his political candidacy, as there's some minor coverage of him as an entrepreneur independent of his political career. That said, the non-political coverage is weak, and i doubt he'd have received as much coverage post-2020 (such as the sexual assualt conviction) if he hadn't have been a candidate. In solidarity, nil nz 23:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Another citation found: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/auckland-cafe-auctions-off-a-lifetime-supply-of-coffee/G2MT2VGXJYK7JH2BYSHK6PONCE/ WP:GNG seems to clear to me at this point. ~2026-38527-83 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep - when a person dies, the burden of proof shifts from those wanting to keep a BLP to the nomination to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Ken Genser


Ken Genser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One line biography of a city council member and mayor of Santa Monica, California who died in office. The sources I found were obituaries from the region and a couple pieces of routine coverage of ribbon cuttings and other actions on the council. There is a quote in a Christian Science Monitor article. The city did name a public square after him. I do not think these sources meet our expectations under NPOL/GNG for local elected officials. Enos733 (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are a few more obituaries and coverage of the square in the town named for him, but it doesn't make NPOL. Khalitate (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:BASIC, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:HEY. There are plenty of sources about Genser that discuss his work, his politics, and his contributions. I started expanding the article, and I'll go back to add more material when I have time. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. To the extent that reliable secondary sources discuss him, it is either in passing or as part of routine coverage. Deletion makes sense here. PA Uploader (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
@PA Uploader: what do you consider to be "routine coverage"? The article cites multiple retrospective articles about his life (see Santa Monica Daily Press coverage and LA Times coverage), detailed LA Times coverage about his work on city council, a full LA Times article about how his relationships with other councilmembers led to him splitting the mayor job in the 90s, and the other sources cited in the article. This is well beyond the type of examples of routine coverage cited in WP:ROUTINE. There is additional coverage in the Santa Monica Outlook (the Santa Monica newspaper that ran from 1876 to 1998), but I can't access most of them online. I'll see if I can get access and add them to the article. Notecardforfree (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
In addition to the sources above, I've discovered that Ken Genser's work is discussed in detail in John Gilderbloom's book Community Versus Commodity: Tenants and the American City. I've added citations to that source in the article. I've found two more retrospective articles online that were published in the Santa Monica Mirror (this and this ). I've also found the following articles about Ken Genser in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook and LA Times Community News (and one more from the Mirror), but I don't believe they are publicly available online:
  • “SM's new mayor has distinct style” 12/02/1991, Santa Monica Evening Outlook
  • “SM Official in midst of petition mess” 12/22/1993 Santa Monica Evening Outlook
  • “Council member Ken Genser enjoys his extended run” 9/8/1999 Santa Monica Mirror
  • “A mayor for the new millennium” 12/12/1999, Times Community News
  • “Genser leads city into millennium” 12/29/1999 Santa Monica Mirror
I'll add these additional sources to the article when I have time. But, for now, I think we should keep this article per WP:HEY. Notecardforfree (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Kabiru Ado Lakwaya


Kabiru Ado Lakwaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and an appointed state commissionership is not an office that WP:NPOL presumes notable. Kqol • talk 19:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and Nigeria. Kqol • talk 19:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: The rationale here is flawed. Commissioners are state-wide officeholders who are members of the state executive council. Are judges elected? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    Let’s also keep in mind that Minister’s (in Nigeria) and Secretaries (in the US) are appointed positions that also satisfies NPOL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:53, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
    Where have we decided that secretaries in the U.S. satisfy NPOL? 🄻os🄰 20:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
    You can prove me wrong by nominating US Secretaries of War: Salesses, Hegseth. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. State level position that makes NPOL. Khalitate (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don’t really know if he’s incumbent or not but Commissioner's are members of a state executive council: a state-wide position. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Draftify as per above discussion. This is not ready for main space. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: Routine coverage and passing mentions across multiple sources. Arguing this with "judges aren't elected" would set a bad precedent, wherein all the Tom, Dick and Harrys holding state/province-wide public office would automatically become notable. There isn't a single independent, in-depth profile of this BLP that could help establish his notability (the Prime Time News source is an op-ed). Subject fails GNG.
Judges and secretaries of state may easily have what's mentioned in the last paragraph of NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
WP:NPOL: “Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province-wide public office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.” Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:02, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Did you miss that notability is "presumed"? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Malcolm Grimston


Malcolm Grimston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked this as needing additional sources for verification/notability back in February, since then a couple of TAs/SPA have added info but still no improvement in terms of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. Orange sticker (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:NACADEMIC. Unable to locate any thing that suggests WP:SIGCOV. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This is one piece of WP:SIGCOV. He gets quoted a lot in newspapers.com in international press articles on nuclear energy (UK, Canada, and USA newspapers), but the coverage isn't really about him. He clearly is a respected subject matter expert. If we were to find one more good source I would say it is a keep.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this another week's time....someone might find another source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 (Ping me or else I won't see it) 11:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to be related to studies of the Chernobyl accident , I'd say he qualifies as an expert, but we still need more sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. The available sources do suggest some relationship with notability, but I wonder if WP:INHERITED is at play here. The subject is an author on notable events and issues, but I believe WP:INHERITED points us toward discounting that for notability (especially at AfD). The sources themselves don't seem to support notability for the person. Silvestertaylor (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Politician proposed deletions

Files

Categories

Open discussions

Recently-closed discussions

Templates

Redirects

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks