Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics

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.

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics/archive 2

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

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)

• 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)

August 2026 New Zealand National Party leadership election

August 2026 New Zealand National Party leadership 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)

This doesn't need to be a standalone article. Content can be selectively merged to relevant articles although its already well-covered at Luxon and Penk's article. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

David Pakman

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/David Pakman
• Articles for deletion/David Pakman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/David Pakman (3rd nomination)

David Pakman (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. A search does not appear to establish significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Most sources cited are primary, affiliated, passing mentions, or routine coverage. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Politics, Internet, Argentina, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete I think, in general, we're too hasty to post articles about marginal Youtube personalities like this and I'm relatively receptive to the suggestion he's of, at best, borderline notability. There have also been neutrality problems with the selection of sources as inflammatory statements that problematize the "he's a bromine progressive journalist" have been excluded on procedural grounds that have no strong basis in policy. I think, if we can't have a neutral article on a marginal figure, it's better to have no article at all. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I disagree with Simonm223 - I don't think he's marginal. I see a full article in The Jerusalem Post, a full article in NBC News, and a full article in UNILAD cited in the article - checking them, they're all non-interview, lengthy pieces. That's more than enough for notability, and per WP:Deletion is not cleanup the article's neutrality is not something that deletion is here to rectify. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think simply counting three links establishes WP:GNG without examining what those sources actually contain. The UNILAD article is event-based coverage prompted by Pakman's own video about his immigration concerns; it largely summarizes and quotes his own statements rather than providing substantial independent coverage of Pakman himself. The Jerusalem Post piece is more substantial, but it is also heavily based on an interview with Pakman and much of the biographical material comes directly from the subject. NBC is the strongest source and does appear to constitute significant independent coverage. The question under WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, however, is whether there are multiple independent reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the person, not whether a subject has a large following or has been mentioned or interviewed by prominent outlets. The article itself still relies heavily on Pakman's own content, appearances, interviews and affiliated sources. I don't think the sourcing presented so far demonstrates the sustained independent biographical coverage necessary for a standalone BLP. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:INTERVIEW unless it's interview formatted it's not considered an interview - and event-based coverage isn't necessarily a problem. 17:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC) Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: the first nomination from 2007 ended as "keep", at a time of lower standards. The second nomination from 2016 ended as "no consensus", but there wasn't any support beyond the then-nominator for deletion either (the split was instead between outright keeping and merging or redirecting to The David Pakman Show). No opinion on if this meets 2026 standards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Merging with the show could be a viable route to resolution. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - David Pakman is a notable enough political commentator on youtube to warrant having a wikipedia page. There are almost certainly improvements that can be made to his article, but he unambiguously meets WP:GNG LincolnMagnus (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also just like to add precident and point to the discussion of bill wiatrak, a far more obscure youtube creator who editors found did have independent coverage to warrant maintaining his article. Pakman's independent coverage meets the standards that bill wiatrak met, in my opinion. LincolnMagnus (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Certain events and controversies concerning the individual deems the subject marginally notable. However, the sources that significantly cover Pakman mostly refer to his interviews and do not seem to have received sufficient secondary coverage to warrant WP:GNG. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Lithuanian by-elections

Lithuanian by-elections (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 Seimas because this is not by itself a notable subject and unlikely to ever expand beyond a stub. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lithuania. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator's rationale. FaviFake (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Not much else to say: article comprises barely one line, it is unlikely to expand beyond a stub and can be perfectly covered within Seimas. Impru20^talk 14:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the article has been moved to Lithuanian by-elections, which would be a perfectly reasonable title fix if not for the fact that it was moved during an AfD discussion, which is frowned upon. (No opinion on the article itself or the merge proposal.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fixed nom in the hopes of avoid breaking XFDcloser. FaviFake (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Failsworth Independent Party

Failsworth Independent 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)

Extremely local political party based entirely in one town, which doesn't appear to pass GNG RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment would there be an WP:ATD for this? The party has won seats in the Oldham Council, but that appears to be it.4meter4 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
  • It could perhaps be included in Oldham Council's Governance section somewhere? I don't think much would be needed here, just a sentence or two to say "There's a local independent party that's consistently won a few seats since its formation." Outside of that I'd be struggling.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of England-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, to Oldham Council, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - I have expanded the article. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

History of foreign relations of the People's Republic of China

History of foreign relations of the People's Republic of China (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:TNT. Amigao (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: are there any specific issues with the article that are insurmountable enough to require TNT? Blindly pointing to an essay (or even a policy or guideline) as the entire rationale is not considered a true argument and often tends not to fly at AfD. (No opinion or comment on the article itself at this tie.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The lack of in-line citations and the essay-style prose is not good. I've added in-line citations to the article previously, and just did a bit more work on it. I'll commit to further efforts to improve it. The article has existed since 2007, and that makes it hard for me to think deletion is the answer. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:58, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep This has to be a troll, no rational, no specific issues, or even questions. The talk page of article itself is quiet which isn't always a tell but for its length I imagine issues would have been brought there in some capacity before suggesting we just blow up this article. So maybe you just wanted to nominate an article for deletion... ok cool. Please don't waste people's time.AadamentAardvark (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• draft? This article is too long to be bunk, but the lack of inline sources is a pain. It's likely just a copy paste from the public domain cite listed, but we still need citations. this needs a rework. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:DRAFTIFY would suffice as well. - Amigao (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep I think there are some clear NPOV concerns, but this article has continued to evolve since it was first published in 2007. I'm happy to try to spend some time (when I find it) improving this article, but a delete is not appropriate here. Cawhee^Talk 11:09, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026

Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act of 2026 (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 it seems like the content can be worked into the article for the original Sanctioning Russia Act. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United States of America, and South Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Law-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge: This is a continuation of the original stalled legislation as noted in various sources (, ). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

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

2003 ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships

2003 ISAF Youth Sailing World Championships (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)

Stands on single source, failing to withstand WP:GNG. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Games, Politics, Sports, Sport of athletics, Lists, Hong Kong, Europe, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Australia, Argentina, and United States of America. Yavuz Ben (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

extra sources added. other articles in series accepted despite similar sourcing. Fin.Seaman (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to Youth Sailing World Championships#Editions, same championship ~2026-43057-50 (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Redirect, zero independent sources have been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

other articles in series accepted with identical sourcing. if the nomination for deletion succeeds which i dont think it should please dont redirect it just delete it Fin.Seaman (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Youth Sailing World Championships#Editions – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Abhijeet Dipke (activist)

Abhijeet Dipke (activist) (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)

Abhijeet Dipke was merged into Cockroach Janta Party back in May as a result of WP:Articles for deletion/Abhijeet Dipke. Subsequent edit-warring is described at the DRV in July. Abhijeet Dipke (activist) was created recently through AfC, with very similar (but not identical) content. Its creator believes that the original reasons for merging no longer apply, but see the deletion review. Even if Abhijeet Dipke is independently notable now (less than a month after the deletion review), it's incorrect to have Abhijeet Dipke redirect to Cockroach Janta Party while Abhijeet Dipke (activist) exists in parallel. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 08:56, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• I agree. This is why my vote is Delete the Redirect and Move this article to being the main one. GNG is met through new coverage solely about him - as shown by the other comment. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Opinion - I believe Abhijeet Dipke is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. He is not simply a person with routine or limited public activity; he has received substantial media coverage for his activism and public campaigns and has become associated with the Cockroach Janta Party and youth-led protests. Multiple independent sources have also published profiles covering his background and education.

• Merge::: Long term abuse, cordinated spamming. Spammers now switched to promote this guy by changing titles? ~2026-45930-52 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  You just called the article creator GourabIND indirectly a spammer which is considered as personal harrassment. You can vote here your opinion, but if you think some user is spamming/socking, open a relevant discussion at respective venues. Don't do personal harrassment which is not tolerated. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I have updated the article by copying from Draft:Abhijeet Dipke. The person has gained significant coverage from international outlets such as NBC, Al Jazeera, Financial Times, and many others. Clearly meets GNG. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 17:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. User:ZDRX, good job. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Highly notable now given the broad coverage. Koshuri ^(あ!) 02:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete the redirect and Move Abhijeet Dipke (activist) to Abhijeet Dipke. ZDRX and the other contributors to Draft:Abhijeet Dipke have done an excellent job of making it clear that WP:BIO1E is no longer an issue. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 09:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep:Reliable sources such as Reuters describe him as the most recognisable figure in the Genz protests in India. Apart from this many sources exists in multiple languages which were published after the last AFD closure in May. Also as per WP:1E, when an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The role of the subject in the 2026 Genz protests is very significant. The subject is also described by the sources as someone who was able to lead a successful protest against the current Indian government in the last 12 years which even the opposition could not do. Also the subject has been keep receiving additional broad coverage day by day.Thilsebatti (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The Wikipedia article on Abhijeet Dipke should be retained because it preserves his public profile, online visibility, and historical record. Deleting it could reduce his presence in search results and public discourse.

As with the case of Umar Khalid, continued online documentation can contribute to long-term public relevance and keep a person visible in internet discourse and to relevant authorities, though this does or does not imply an identical future. Since Dipke meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (GNG), the article should therefore be retained rather than deleted. ~2026-46374-61 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and United States of America. 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)

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTPROMO. The article is built entirely from primary non-independent sources. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:10, 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)

Independence of Moldova

Independence of Moldova (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)

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:Independence of Moldova § Merge proposal

 – FaviFake (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think this article should be merged with Moldovan Declaration of Independence. Circumstances around independence can be discussed there. Two articles are not necessaery. Nivzaq (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Reverse merge – per extreme WP:OVERLAP. These topics are really not distinct at all. FaviFake (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Moldova. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge agree with the comments above FactWeaverDelta (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge the declaration of independence here. The topic is broader than a declaration. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep I would support a merge of the declaration of independence into this article as stated directly above me but minimizing the story of independence for this merge doesn't square with me. We would never merge an article on the US Constitutional Convention into an article about the constitution.AadamentAardvark (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep This is wrong. This is same idea as merging Us Constitution with the US Indepedence Bermensterflora 5:00, 24 August (EET)

It would be the same idea if the articles for the US Constitution and US independence were as short as these two. The whole topic is best understood in one page per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FaviFake (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge But I support merging Moldovan Declaration of Independence into this article, per @Clarityfiend. The WP:PAGEDECIDE point raised by @FaviFake is really relevant here, since it notes "at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic". The differing content in the declaration article seems to fit this scenario. If more sourced content is available to flesh out each article, then separate articles could be considered. SupermarketCake (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with your new proposed direction, so I've changed my !vote to reverse merge. As @Clarityfiend also said, the topic is indeed broader than the declaration. FaviFake (talk) 21:22, 26 August 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Mexico. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Support They seem similar and therefore would be easier to read than going in between each other. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 23:58, 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:

• Democratic consolidation by publication date: 2011, 2020 (about the 1977-2000 period), 2014, 2004, 2008, 2003, 2006, 2014 and many more

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)

• 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)

List of honours of Italy awarded to heads of state and royalty

List of honours of Italy awarded to heads of state and royalty (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)

Page has had a Notability notice for several years, with no indications that this grouping is a commonly discussed topic. The relevant points are probably better discussed on either the individual persons' pages or the pages for the honours themselves. Illini11 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related articles:

List of honours of Austria awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Belgium awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Brazil awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of the British Crown awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Brunei awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Bulgaria awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Croatia awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Denmark awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Estonia awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Finland awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of France awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Germany awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Japan awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Jordan awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Latvia awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Luxembourg awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Malaysia awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of the Netherlands awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Norway awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Portugal awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Spain awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Sweden awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Thailand awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Tonga awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Johor awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Kedah awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Kelantan awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Malacca awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Negeri Sembilan awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Pahang awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Penang awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Perak awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Perlis awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Sabah awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Sarawak awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Selangor awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of honours of Terengganu awarded to heads of state and royalty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Royalty and nobility. Illini11 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Category:Lists_of_state_honours_awarded_to_heads_of_state_and_royalty shows 27 of these lists, plus 15 more for Malaysia alone. The AFD should include all of them since its the same issue. Dream Focus 11:37, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  What of the entries in the mirror category Category:Lists of honours of a royal family by country? Illini11 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I added the ones you mentioned to this discussion. Illini11 (talk) 01:10, 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) 03:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Adoption of the euro in Italy

Adoption of the euro in Italy (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 contains zero information not present in History of the euro and next to no content specific to Italy. It seems to be AI-generated but may simply be bland prose. As of now, there is no benefit to keeping the article, as it gives our readers no specific information not found in greater detail elsewhere. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Precisely zero percent of the article is Italy-specific and sourced; this is a pointless WP:CFORK of History of the euro as well as being likely AI-generated. Nothing at all to see here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per OR and OVERLAP. Khalitate (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Italy was definitely not one of the first to adopt the currency, seeing as 10 other countries adopted the currency in 1999. Most of this article is not specific to Italy anyway, meaning that those details could belong in suitable existing articles instead of a standalone one. JuniperChill (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete The page creator created many similar articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:27, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Italy was definitely one of the first to adopt the currency, together with 10 others in 1999. (well sourced in the article). (Greece joined later in 2001.) I added some Italy specific facts. I hope other participants could contribute more (I have just joined the Wikipedia community, not completely aware how the things work here). L'sbagliatony (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep At the moment looks pretty good. The article is Italy-specific and sourced. It had a lot of improvements since the deletion request. It is possible to be even expanded if someone is interested in this topic. Otoniou (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion out of deference to significant editing since the last "delete" comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies

The Arctic Institute – Center for Circumpolar Security Studies (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 think tank that fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE found no substantial independent coverage of its reports in WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, Washington, D.C., and Antarctica. Longhornsg (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's some news articles, reports etc. either citing the works of the Arctic Institute or quoting, interviewing or otherwise featuring people identified as its representatives over the years:

• Al Jazeera on 15 May 2013
• Bloomberg on 30 October 2013
• Associated Press on 1 January 2014
• Center for American Progress's 2015 report
• The Guardian on 19 December 2016, 21 August 2020 and 16 October 2020
• The Washington Post on 8 September 2018, 24 August 2019 and 31 March 2025
• TAI representative testifying before congress on 19 September 2019
• Canadian Government/Department of Justice on in 2021
• Chatham House's 2019 report and 2023 report
• RAND Corporation's 2023 report
• European Commission on on 2 May 2023
• South China Morning Post on 23 July 2023
• Reuters on 14 May 2024
• U.S. Naval Institute on 29 October 2024
• BCC on 27 March 2025
• Newsweek on 29 March 2025
• New Statesman on 2 April 2025 and 5 April 2025
• The Hill on 1 July 2025 (or 7 January 2025)
• US Department of Defence on 25 September 2025
• Atlantic Council's 2026 report
• CBS News on 21 January 2026
• US Army War College on June 2026

That being said, the Wikipedia article certainly needs improvement. Tupsumato (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The few of these I've checked don't seem to have WP:SIGCOV, are there any specific ones here that you think do? bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 23:43, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Union of Chinese Nationalists

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Union of Chinese Nationalists
• Articles for deletion/Union of Chinese Nationalists (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Union of Chinese Nationalists (3rd nomination)

Union of Chinese Nationalists (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)

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of a temporary account as requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Proposed deletion for Union of Chinese Nationalists. I have no opinion on the actual proposal and won't watch this discussion.

I propose deleting this article on the grounds that the page has virtually no WP:SOURCEs, and for most of its history has not had any sources either. The only sources I notice in the page are an archived page from 2009 on what appears to be a Chinese political dissidents forum, and another Chinese language news website. At some points of the page's history, unreliable sources such as Epoch Times were cited. Google searches give bring up only this very Wikipedia page, a Facebook page apparently belonging to the group, some Reddit alt-history posts, and some Hearts of Iron IV mod reference; I think this also makes the topic's WP:NOTABILITY questionable (not to mention its origin also being an internet forum). Their supposed official website seems to be a dead link as well. For reference, there are smaller political parties (this one claims a membership of 5000; the American Communist Party, meanwhile, has somewhere between 300 and 1000) with much more adequately sourced material. ~2026-44453-50 (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I could locate no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources on this organization. Fails WP:ORG / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep By translating the content from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:中国泛蓝联盟), you can add more sources and content. ProgramT (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete: The Chinese Wikipedia article only consists of some minor news coverage (are VOA and Phoenix TV reliable for this?), and the current version of both articles likely don't pass WP:NORG. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Ng, Jason Q. (2013). Blocked on Weibo: What Gets Suppressed on China's Version of Twitter (and Why). New York: The New Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-59558-871-5. Retrieved 2026-08-22 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "中国泛蓝联盟 (the Union of Chinese Nationalists / Zhongguó Fànlán Liánméng), also known as the Pan-Blue Alliance of Chinese Nationalists, 33 is an unrecognized political party in China that is anti-Communist, opposes Taiwanese independence, and supports a Chinese transition toward liberal democracy (see page 27). Why it is blocked: Though the Chinese government does sanction a number of non-Communist political parties in the name of diversity, these groups are without actual power (see Communist dog, page 198, note 12, and Lei Jieqiong, page 107). Those not sanctioned— and thus not regulated by the government—are deemed illegal and prone to suppression due to fears that they may present a genuine challenge to Communist rule. In 2007, China's Taiwan Affairs Office declared the UOCN "unregistered and illegal."3! Being anti-Communist and supporting political reform efforts are nonstarters for any collective group in China, let alone a political party, so it is inevitable that the UOCN would be suppressed in mainland China."

  2. Weatherley, Robert (2023). Mao's China And Post-mao China : Revolution, Recovery And Rejuvenation. London: World Scientific. p. 358. ISBN 978-1-80061-224-2. Retrieved 2026-08-22 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Another notable aspect of Republican fever has been the assertion of a Republican national identity, often as an alternative to the PRC's own national identity. The most daring espousal of this was made by a group of mainly young internet users called the Union of Chinese Nationalists (UOCN) established in August 2004, but now banned in the PRC (YZZK, 2008). The group identified itself with Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People (nationalism, democracy and people's livelihood) and described its supporters as "spiritual members" of the KMT, claiming to have more than thousands of online registered members. The UOCN's nationalist stance was manifested mainly in its opposition to Taiwanese independence which is why the group was also known as the China Pan-Blue Alliance and pledged to "work with the KMT for national reunification". The group organised specific events that commemorated the KMT's war effort during the Second Sino-Japanese War and publicly exhibited Taiwan and KMT flags in cities such as Wuhan and Chongqing. In addition to its nationalist activities, the UOCN openly advocated a representative form of multi-party democracy and respect for human rights. Some members attempted to stand for election to local People's Congresses and participated in the democracy-oriented Rights Defence Movement, offering help to protesting workers at the Chongqing Special Steel Group."

  3. Yuan, Zaijun (2011-08-18). "Independent Candidates in China's Local People's Congress Elections". Journal of Chinese Political Science. 16: 396–397. doi:10.1007/s11366-011-9167-x.

     The article notes: "The Union of Chinese Nationalists is a political dissenting organisation which was active in the local congress elections in 2006 and 2007. The organisation was established in 2004 by a group of Kuomintang (KMT) supporters in mainland China. The organisation regards the Three Principles of the People 三民主义 as their ideological guideline and it advocates political democratisation in China and the reunification of Mainland China and Taiwan. Even though the union members think they are the “spiritual party members” of the KMT according to the KMT’s party constitution, the KMT negates any relations it has with the union and states it is not responsible for the activities of the union [1]. The CCP announced the union’s illegal status in April of 2007 [21]. The communication between the union members is mainly on the internet. The union is actively involved in the activities of maintaining villagers’ rights and competing in the local congress elections."

  4. "國泛藍 推動政治維權" [China Pan-Blue Alliance Promotes Political Rights Advocacy]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 2007-04-25. p. A13.

     The article notes: "在大陸高舉三民主義和台灣經驗旗幟的中國泛藍聯盟，成立於二○○四年，是一個網絡群體，去年的公開會員已達到二千多名，以二、三十餘歲的年輕人為主，並在多個地區設有負責人，成為聯盟縱橫通訊的聯繫核心；他們除了進行思想分享、維權、參與地方人大選舉外，去年底開展並在多個農村地區選舉外，去年底開展國家大選舉外，去年底。該聯盟在成立兩年後，考慮到會員成分要突破網絡群體、活動要走出“紙上談兵”的局限，乃在多處農村地區協助推動維權行動，至今不足一年，已處理了九十一宗維權事件，不僅受到地方政府的廣泛關注，他們也招網了更廣泛的支持者。"

     From Google Translate: "The China Pan-Blue Alliance—a group that champions the "Three Principles of the People" and the "Taiwan Experience" within the mainland—was established in 2004 as an online community. By last year, its registered membership had surpassed 2,000, consisting primarily of young people in their twenties and thirties. Regional coordinators were appointed across various areas to serve as the core of the alliance's communication network. Beyond sharing ideas, advocating for rights, and participating in local People's Congress elections, the group began organizing rights-advocacy campaigns in rural areas late last year. Seeking to move beyond mere online discussion and "armchair activism," the alliance has assisted in rights-advocacy actions in multiple rural locations. In less than a year, they have handled 91 such cases; these efforts have not only drawn significant attention from local governments but have also garnered a broader base of supporters."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Union of Chinese Nationalists (simplified Chinese: 中国泛蓝联盟; traditional Chinese: 中國泛藍聯盟) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union of Chinese Nationalists participants who have edited in the last year: JamesMLane (talk · contribs) and Whpq (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union of Chinese Nationalists (2nd nomination) participants: Benlisquare (talk · contribs), Carrite (talk · contribs), and Soman (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources that Cunard found. Lightoil (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:10, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

2009 cow head protests

2009 cow head protests (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)

Available sources are mostly primary news reporting, no WP:SUSTAINED and significant coverage about the event available. We also already cover it Hinduism in Malaysia#Cow head debacle. Also potentially on the table, if anyone feels like the coverage we have at that article is insufficient, is the bold alternative of turning Persecution of Hindus in Malaysia, currently a redirect to Hinduism in Malaysia#Persecution of Hindus, into an article, and then merging to that article. The reason I'm not proposing a merge is that I think it would be WP:UNDUE to add more information about this to the Hinduism in Malaysia article. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Politics, Hinduism, and Malaysia. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:11, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Events-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 15 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)} 19:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep while the reasons stated by nominator are understandable but a bit confusing. This article does pass WP:LASTING and WP:NEVENT and has a lot of independent reliable coverage. While the proposed page is a good call. But until then keep the page, perhaps more sources can be added. , , , , , , , , . Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Per above. Notability is not an issue. Lorstaking (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as the article passes WP:GNG. The issue itself is significant enough to have an article, also, the user above provided enough secondary sources to back it. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 10:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Plaid Army

Plaid Army (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 Diagolon because they are two halves of the same coin. Diagalon grew from the Plaid Army and the two groups are barely distinguishable. On its own, Plaid Army's content is limited and would be sufficiently covered in a section of the Diagalon article. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Politics, COVID-19, and Canada. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Internet. Bridget (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Coalie

Coalie (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)

Redirect to Timeline of the second Trump presidency (2026 Q1)#January 2026. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTRUMP. Yet another "outrageous" stunt of the president of that country. V. S. Video (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, Environment, Technology, Artificial intelligence, Internet, and United States of America. V. S. Video (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• The notice on the article ACTUALLY SAYS "This article has been nominated for redirecting to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement", perhaps a better idea. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Now changed. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Will come back to this, but please put the redirect notice at the top of the article suggested to be merged into. Have seen this numerous times now, did the new rules and regs remove the notification requirement at the target page? And one of the two main reasons given in the nomination, outside personal dislike, is an essay, which an article cannot "fail" (they are editorials). Essay mentions and links should not be placed in noms without identifying them as essays and not policies or guidelines, this confuses editors who do not realize the difference and trust noms to be accurate, especially when noms incorrectly say that the page "fails" something which it cannot fail. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:48, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested, and as reasonable in these circumstances. There has been much less than significant coverage.Bearian (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Reywas92^Talk 15:00, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, meets GNG. The Guardian, Mother Jones, etc. That's all we need to know. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Was on the fence but if you do a google search a guardian article a mother jones article plus local news stories about "coalie" come up--so there is enough sig cov for "Coalie" to have it's own page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: clear pass WP:GNG based on the sources like The Guardian, Politico PRO and Washingtonian, merge/redirect would hurt searchability for users looking it up Brodska213 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep an outrageous stunt, yes, but a NOTABLE outrageous stunt (The Guardian, Politico Pro, Mother Jones, LA Times, Racket MN, Fast Company, and Washingtonian, just to name a few) and it'd be really weird to redirect or merge to either subject because it'd be given unduly little weight in the Trump presidency one and would be losing the encyclopedic content as a redirect - and OSMRC merging would make it sorta take up all the space there, causing undue weight again. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. What on earth good will a redirect do to an article that doesn't and shouldn't mention it? Bungled nom. Or Keep. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Makes GNG per the coverage presented by @Jishara and others. Khalitate (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump

Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump (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)

Very brief coverage, fails WP:SUSTAINED.

Also: Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Xacaranda (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, Politics, and United States of America. Xacaranda (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete literally no coverage, other the brief news cycle a year ago. NOTNEWS. This can be a one-liner somewhere, not enough notability for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, easily meets GNG, and if the sustained coverage criteria fails on this painting then arguably 99% of Wikipedia's artwork articles, let alone the majority of all articles, also fall below the barrier. Note that the second nomination reason is an editorial essay, not a policy or guideline, and presenting essays as determinative evidence in the body of a nomination can mislead editors unfamiliar with the difference. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn, Are you arguing that the grand majority of visual art articles don't meet WP:SUSTAINED? I find that hard to believe. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Of course not, but most paintings or statues don't have articles about them every year or so. The coverage for the artwork being discussed here was pretty recent in terms of encyclopedic articles, a great deal of major news sources with 2025 cites sustained over many months. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Having coverage every year" isn't what Wikipedia:SUSTAINED is saying. It's saying that the work must have coverage over a long period of time. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)?

  Right, this 2019 artwork's coverage was sustained throughout most of 2025. How many other 2010s paintings have articles reporting on them for many months in 2025 are being questioned for "sustained" in August 2026? Since you've asked Wikipedians to merge this page, that's a serious question. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  1. I don't think you read my comment correctly, and 2. This is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Colorado State Capitol - Very much not WP:SUSTAINED. There may be potential for an article about Donald Trump in art or something along those lines. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete WP: NOTNEWS, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, no WP:SUSTAINED coverage by sources, has not attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Asparagusstar (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  So a 2019 painting with lots of major reputable sources reporting on it in 2025 is not enough attention? I'm glad that these type of discussions are not decided by head count (although some closers actually do that for some reason). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is no coverage of the painting from 2019, that's the issue. It doesn't really matter how old it is, it's when it got coverage. 2025 only. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oaktree b, your wish is my command (at least this once), the Denver Post, August 1, 2019. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oaktree b, you said "There is no coverage of the painting from 2019, that's the issue." I found a very good article from 2019, linked just above. Seems to meet your stated concern, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure the painting is notable. Other than being somewhat unflattering, it's not a notable piece of art. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your choice, but please consider striking your "There is no coverage of the painting from 2019, that's the issue" above as well as maybe correcting your opening "literally no coverage..." comment so as not to mislead readers, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is a portrait of a majot historical figure who illuminated it with his reaction to it. I feel sustains fails when any number of 18th-century portraits have sporadic coverage over centuries owing to the dint of fame of their maker. As people living in a modern period, and writing the art history of our times, we lay the groundwork for future historians. My recent series of official presidential portraits is part of this corpus. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support a merge to the CO state capital article; the notability isn't really around the photo, it's Trump's grumpiness about it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very least merge the content as it was suggested above. Trump's reaction and the whole fiasco surrounding this portrait definitely made it notable as an object. Keivan.f^Talk 23:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete There was a brief burst of coverage of this in 2019, then again in 2025. This article is just on the edge of WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of everything Trump is so overwhelmingly prolific that we could easily write Hair of Donald Trump , and its notability would be far stronger and WP:SUSTAINED than that of this article. Small articles about irrelevant things like this that are only borderline notable are usually merged into larger articles. V. S. Video (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  God, someone actually tried that. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair. V. S. Video (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Colorado State Capitol. This is classic WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Whomever merges should take care to make sure to avoid undue weight. Frankly a photo of the image and no more than a paragraph is fine.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Seconded FineIllDoIt (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, just to clear up many editor's perception, this is not an article about Trump, it is an article about a painting. An artwork. Please remove Trump from the equation, both because of, and along with, citing an essay as a reason to delete or merge a existing painting which has a history of being displayed in a public place. For an artwork, it clearly meets GNG and the added source relieves the nominators SUSTAINED concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: it fails to meet WP:SUSTAINED coverage requirement & violates WP:NOTNEWS, the media coverage is limited to two brief news spikes in 2019 & 2025x Brodska213 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Colorado State Capitol: The topic has been discussed quite a lot by various independent and reliable sources, so there isn't a clear violation of the WP:GNG policy in this case. Nevertheless, the evidence of independent notability of the particular painting is rather weak: almost all the major mentions of the painting have happened in connection with the controversy related to Donald Trump's critique and consequent removal of the portrait. The encyclopedic information provided in the article can be covered in the Colorado State Capitol article. Alazar202 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The 2019 Denver Post article covers the artwork well, and, since as you say, it meets GNG, the emphasis on Trump's objections is notable but not the essence of this page about a painting. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge: I concur with merging it, wiki isn't the news, this had minor coverage at one or two discrete moments of time and isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. Not everything Trump whines about needs it's own article, and it ia undue weight to maintain a separate article for this incident. FineIllDoIt (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I remember sporadic statewide coverage of this portrait dating back to around five years ago. I wasn't always in Colorado during the early period of this portrait (and I'm there even more rarely now) but more recent nationwide coverage like this and this suggests that the painting is independently notable as a piece receiving substantial commentary and having repercussions for artwork in Colorado. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The coverage looks remarkably sustained to me. As well as 2019 and 2025, as mentioned above, I find 2024 and 2026. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

National Doctors Forum

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/National Doctors Forum
• Articles for deletion/National Doctors Forum (2nd nomination)

National Doctors Forum (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)

Also nominating:

Swadhinata Chikitshak Parishad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both fail to meet WP:NORG, as no sources with significant coverage were found. Notability is not inherited. — Raihanur (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Medicine, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: presumably (based on the deletion sorting lists), the nominal lead article (National Doctors Forum) is the same subject as the first nomination from 2015 (unlike this one, that was a standalone with no bundle), which ended in deletion. This iteration did pass AfC in 2025, for what that's worth. (No comment with regard to Swadhinata Chikitshak Parishad, and no opinion on either article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - the previous AfD had only two participants (1 delete, 1 keep, no in-depth arguments). The article as it exists now is well sourced, with references indicating notability of the organization. --Soman (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Can you point out a single "source indicating notability"? I mean, I’m not seeing a single source that goes beyond routine coverage. If there are multiple sources that meet WP:GNG, I would happily withdraw the nomination. — Raihanur (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. LogosUnspoken (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Record of decision

Record of decision (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 of the very bare-bones content. Frankly, I don't believe the page in its current form is good enough for mainspace. It definitely needs at least some more work and content done before that. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and United States of America. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:DRAFTNO, I do not think we should draftify this since the article has been in existence since 2009. I think the article could be expanded a bit and add citations. Aude (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. I don't see what's wrong with it that requires draftification. Bearian (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete alternatively draftify. A quick Google yielded a lot of discussion of actual RoDs. But little of what an RoD is and almost nothing in the form of in depth discussion from independent reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't really understand keep arguments that say expand and add citations. Which citations? I.e. can someone discuss the sources please since that's the nexus of any consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. There are reliable sources that explain what a "record of decision" is (see, for example ). Notecardforfree (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

List of princely states of British India (alphabetical)

List of princely states of British India (alphabetical) (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)

List of princely states of British India already exists, so this is WP:DUP as a useless WP:FORK. The ctrl+f function already exists, and a table can be made on that page to arrange it alphabetically. Regardless, these types are not allowed because of WP:NOTDB|

A merge into the main list would be useless, there's nothing useful to merge HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Lists, Asia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Oman, India, and United Kingdom. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Delete, clear duplicate. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Not surprisingly I would be opposed to this article being deleted, seeing as I created it in 2010.

I would dispute this page is either a simple duplication, or a "useless fork" of the (by region) page: It was spun off from there in 2010 via the Split process, after a discussion (of sorts), the reason being that page was hopelessly cluttered (viz). So merging them back together would just re-instate the problem. And I would dispute there is "nothing useful to merge"; The information on this page (flag, relative status, period of British rule) is different from the information there (resident/agency, last ruler, where it is now), so it isn’t simply a duplication. Also the (by region) page has over 20 separate tables in it, so it isn’t amenable to being sortable, whereas this page, as a simple alphabetical list, already is. I would also dispute the NOTDB tag; most pages can be seen as "an indiscriminate collection of data" to someone not interested in that subject: As someone interested in the history of India I can see a value in having this information in an accessible form.

The purpose of a list page is for information, navigation and development. The Princely states article says there were 584 of them, while this page has less than 300, all of which, as sovereign states, should have articles somewhere on them, so there is actually a need for expansion here, to make navigation easy and to indicate areas for further development.

Finally I am unclear why having this information on complementary pages in different formats, for ease of access and cross-referencing, (as stated in the original rationale) is automatically a bad thing. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not dispute that having a list of princely states of British India is something that is useful and should exist on Wikipedia. But it already exist at List of princely states of British India. There, it has more context, each individual entry has more detail, and generally, it is presented in a way that you would expect an encyclopedia to present it. This list on the other hand it more just the thing you'd find in a database HerrHeulsuse (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

By 'List of princely states of British India' I assume you mean List of princely states of British India (by region), where your term redirects to. And to answer your comment, the by region page looks to me like something you’d find in an encyclopaedic article (like here), whereas the alphabetical page looks like a list (like this, or this, or this, or even this). I would also note that WP:DUP is grounds for a merge, not for deletion, so maybe an article that has had over a thousand edits by dozens of contributors over the last 16 years shouldn't just be dumped: Maybe it’d make more sense, if a list of princely states would be useful, to merge both pages into something new, rather than trying to fiddle around with something that already exists. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I like how the by region page is divided by agency, it'll be more useful to the reader. I think merging the article is inappropriate, merging unsourced contents would go against WP:V. . There isn't much to merge anyway, only the 'reign' section is not in the by region page. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If it comes to that, I like the layout there too, but as you have determined that there should only be one list page, I’m pointing out that the by regions page overlaps with the section at Princely states, and with all our lists of princely states by region/agency pages, and that List pages are generally sorted alphabetically (or chronologically). Your proposal seems to be to delete this page, which is alphabetical, then re-organize the by regions page so that its in alphabetical order (which is ludicrous). I can see that neither page is ideal; if you are serious about having something useful to the reader, a merged list page (arranged alphabetically and sortable, with detail on when it came under Brit suzerainty, the agency it belonged to, and which state it’s in now, maybe also salute status, area and population) would be better. (Something like this) Moonraker12 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge – Both articles have some table parameters that would be useful, and attribution should be kept if we want to copy that. Best way to do this is to take the alphabetical table and expand it to have some parameters used by List of princely states of British India (by region). It doesn't really matter much technically in which article is the target, but it would be more like merging (by region) into (alphabetical). Neither of the articles are using inline citations right now (there's a whole 2 of them in the (by region) one) so I don't see how this would be some sort of WP:V disaster. For the record, I'd be willing to perform the merge. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian: I would agree it’d be easier to start with the alphabetical list and add to it than the other way round; but whichever article we started with it would need to be renamed, which is why I thought putting a merged table on a new page (maybe the List of princely states of British India page, which is currently just a redirect) would be easier. And I’d be happy to help too, if that’s the option chosen here; just give us a buzz... Moonraker12 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Raihanur (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

All India Youth Federation

All India Youth Federation (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 majority of the references are primary sources (not independent) and the few secondary sources do not seem to cite the information present in this page. Not to mention that this article has remained poorly sourced for almost a decade. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:ORG organisations are not inherently notable, and, as Kvinnen has pointed out, there is no significant coherence in secondary sources. Katiedevi (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Even though I did try to salvage the article in the past. However there is just not enough reliable or significant coverage for it to pass notability. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• AIYF is the oldest youth organization in India.
• Keep - this is clearly a case where WP:BEFORE has not been applied. Also a reminder that AfD is not a venue for article clean-up. Some secondary coverage includes;
  • "All India Youth Federation , the youth organisation of the Communist Party of India organised " blood pledges " at 500 centres to express solidarity with the people of Punjab who are fighting against the forces of disintegration. [...] programme of the All India Youth Federation in Kerala . The AIYF conducted hundred of jathas and street corner meetings to seek the support of the people of Kerala , to the fight their comrades are waging in Punjab against the terrorists and other divisive anti- national forces" (Link, 1987)
  • "... All India Youth Federation ( AIYF ) was formed with the ideology of scientific socialism and functioning as a mass organisation" (Youth Vision: Guidelines for Youth Ministry in North East India. Don Bosco Institute, 2002. p. 93)
  • "... All India Youth Federation ( AIYF ) The AIYF was formed in 1959 as a broad united platform of " progressive and democratic sections of the younger generation with a view to gradually making them more active in socio - political life and ..." (Saraswathi, Srinivasan. Youth in India. Indian Council of Social Science Research, 1988. pp. 343-344)
  • "... of harijans culminated in a mass demonstration of 15,000 youth and students before the Parliament in New Delhi . The All - India Student Federation and the All - India Youth Federation brought over a million young people into the campaign." (Youth and Employment, 1977. p. 18)
  • "... All - India Youth Federation and the All - India Students Federation marched to the Raj Bhavan Nov. 7 as part of their ' job or jail ' agitation . A strong contingent of police and CRP men blocked them about 200 metres from the Raj ..." (Data India, 1981)
  • "... All - India Youth Federation and the All - India Students Federation will launch a joint campaign to collect about 11 lakh signatures in support of their demands for youth welfare in the state . The decision to this effect was taken at ..." (Punjab 1999: Political and Socio-economic Developments. Anamika Publishers & Distributors, 2000. p. 103)
  • "The All-India Students Federation and All- India Youth Federation took out marches to mark the 150th anniversary of the First War of Independence. The 'jatha' started from West Bengal on April 29, 2007, which traversed through Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh and reached Delhi on May 11, 2007. Another 'jatha' began from Punjab on May 5, 2007 and passed through various districts of the State and Haryana before reaching Delhi. The marches met several freedom fighters. " (Pratiyogita Darpan Jul. 2007)
  • "At the call of the All India Students Federation and All India Youth Federation thousands of youth have been arrested as a part of their compaign to highlight their problems . Many of them have been injured in the lathi - charge in Patna , Muzaffar Nagar , and other places" (Caudharī, Vijaya Candra Prasāda. Secularism Versus Communalism: An Anatomy of the National Debate on Five Controversial History Books. Navdhara Samiti, 1977. p. 87)
  • "... AIYF ( All - India Youth Federation ) activists went on dharna pickets and were arrested at various places . In Azamgarh district , 1,000 students and youth were beaten up by the police and dozens of demonstrators were badly injured ." (World Student News, 1989)
  • "... mass front organisation of the CPI ; its role was intended to be changed into that of an organisation of the select cadres . Instead , the All - India Youth Federation ... " (Janata, 1959)
  • "... AIYF to open 100 schools in Hyderabad State for Telugu - speaking adults and train volunteer teachers from among students ..." (World Marxist Review, 1974)
• --Soman (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - here is some TV news coverage on AIYF - Manorama News reporting of AIYF Kerala State Conference , Sakshi TV reporting on AIYF protest in Vijayawada , Sakshi TV reporting on AIYF protest in Anantapur , DNA India reporting on AISF-AIYF protest against NEET in Chennai , ANI News reporting on AIYF protest in Thiruvananthapuram , Siasat TV reporting on AIYF protest against 'anti-Telangana comments' , Manorama News interviews AIYF leader running for the Adoor Assembly constituency (in a report titled 'An AIYF love story') , Manorama News 'AIYF Protest march to Paliakkara toll plaza turns violent' , etc.. More videos - AIYF meeting in Nangavalli , photos of AIYF Kerala State Conference , AISF-AIYF rally in Punjab , AISF-AIYF protest in Begusarai , etc. --Soman (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: per Soman. Plenty of offline coverage also exists along with many reliable sources from Malayalam publications. Meets GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Communist Party of India per WP:ATD. Not impressed with the quality of sourcing identified by Soman; most of which is either press release adjacent (ie announcements of future events which lack independence) or eye witness reporting which is WP:PRIMARY newspaper/television media coverage (not WP:SECONDARY). See Newspapers as Primary vs. Secondary Sources We need clear retrospective coverage to meet the secondary sourcing requirement of GNG, and that has not been met here (other than the one clear retrospective source). Also not seeing how this passes WP:BRANCH.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more thoughts on the sourcing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - sometimes you have to see the forest in spite of the trees. If an organization pops up repeatedly in press, that is an indicator of notability. If a major media outlet can you a headline 'An AIYF love story' without the need for explain what the AIYF is, it is because the press outlet assumes readers/viewers will be familiar with the acronym (ergo, notability). And if we want to find indepth coverage, it exists as well. Here a three-page excerpt from Зарубежные молодежные организации (authors E. M. Abolin, G. P. Studennikova, pp. 140-142); [translated] "ALL INDIA YOUTH FEDERATION ( AIYF ) was founded in 1959 . Currently , AIYF unites in its ranks more than 500,000 Indian boys and girls . Membership in AIYF is open to any citizen of India who has reached the age of 16 , accepts the charter and program of the organization , pays membership fees and works in one of its primary organizations . AIYF unites youth from various strata of Indian society , intellectuals , workers and peasants . The highest governing body of AIYF is the congress [in English, the more usual term would be 'conference' to avoid confusion with the Indian National Congress ], convened once every two years . The congress elects an executive committee of 125 people , the executive committee , in turn , elects the president , general secretary , treasurer and secretaries . The finances of the organization come from membership fees and donations from sympathizers . The Federation operates under the leadership of the Communist Party of India . At the founding congress of the All-India Youth Federation, the main goals of the organization were proclaimed, which consist of carrying out democratic changes in the country, providing assistance in the consistent implementation of agrarian reform, developing the struggle for the democratization of education, for the improvement of the situation of youth in the city and village, for the elimination of the caste system. One of the most important tasks facing the All-India Youth Federation is the struggle for social and economic progress of India. The All-India Youth Federation also comes out with demands for restrictions on the activities of large private national and foreign capital, the nationalization of the largest enterprises and banks, and the implementation of industrialization as a necessary condition for the economic recovery of the country. The All-India Youth Federation has earned great authority through its consistent struggle for the rights of Indian youth. The All-India Youth Federation is the initiator of the largest youth protests in its country. In these protests, it actively cooperates with the All-India Students' Federation, with which it is connected by common goals and methods of struggle, and a belief in the triumph of communist ideals. An important step in strengthening the organization's authority was the National Conference of the AIYF, held in December 1969. It provided an in-depth analysis of the events that had unfolded in the country's youth movement over the previous four years and outlined the main tasks for the immediate future. Internationally, the AIYF resolutely supports the national liberation struggle of the peoples of Indochina, demands a solution to the Middle East problem in the interests of satisfying the just rights and aspirations of the peoples of Arab countries, and actively supports the struggle of African patriots against Portuguese colonialists and racist regimes. The AIYF supports the idea of ​​creating a collective security system in Asia. The Federation consistently carries out its activities in the interests of further strengthening the unity and cohesion of the democratic and student movements throughout the world. The AIYF welcomes the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation between the USSR and India and considers it an important condition for the independent and democratic development of the country. The All India Youth Federation is a member of the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY) and takes an active part in its events. Relations of friendship and fraternal cooperation exist between the AIYF and the Komsomol. A broad exchange of opinions on all issues of the international democratic youth movement is constantly carried out. Our organizations actively cooperate as members of the WFDY, speaking jointly on topical issues of the modern international youth movement. A regular exchange of delegations, literature, etc. is carried out between the youth organizations of the USSR and India. Delegations of the Komsomol and AIYF participate in congresses, conferences, symposia, meetings held by our organizations. The printed organ of the AIYF is "Youth Life" ("Life of Youth")." Unsurprisingly, this is not the sole coverage on the organization in Russian-language literature. --Soman (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  sometimes you have to see the forest in spite of the trees. If an organization pops up repeatedly in press, that is an indicator of notability. This is not true, per WP:GNG and specifically WP:ORGCRIT. Sources must significantly cover the subject. In solidarity, Eyesinthefire (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  • So, none of the potential references presented here are trivial mentions (as outlined in WP:GNG). Trivial mentions are passing mentions, without detail. Here we have press articles available on the subject, spanning across decades and across most states. The semantics of the 'press release adjascent' argument to disqualify the notability of AIYF is not supported by any wording in WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. Furthermore, see WP:ORGCRIT "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.", both of which are fulfilled here. Clearly organizations counting their membership in the 100,000s are well above threshold. --Soman (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Kenneth Baer

Kenneth Baer (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 WP:NBIO. Has placed some op-eds, but is a mid-level political appointee and roving spokeman in U.S. politics. Provides cookie cutter quotes to news media on behalf of his clients. Lacks the WP:SIGCOV or impact to establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, England, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I was doing a search for sources and discovered that we are two degrees of separation, which isn't surprising because I was a Democratic committee person for over a decade. Therefore as is my practice I won't "vote" on this matter, and will trust the process. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Bearian This isn’t close enough to be a COI in my opinion Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Tell that to the random new users who have flamed me over the years. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

*Weak Keep Profile seems notable, have few notable news sources too, yet i want more editors to cast theiur vote to make the clarity.Rainfixer (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• This is a passing mention in an op-ed from 20 years ago. The other WaPo source is a photo. The other sources are a marriage announcement and a geneology website. None of these are WP:RS that establish WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Rainfixer has been blocked as a sock and their comment has been struck out per WP:SOCKSTRIKE (not by me). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete sources are OPEDs and not used for proving notability HerrHeulsuse (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak Keep. While he may not meet WP:NJournalist, but the coverage generated by his published work shows enough depth to establish notability Brodska213 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• weak keep More than a few reviews for the "Reinventing Democrats:" book, , , , although the book might be more notable than the author. A redirect to the book perhaps might suffice? Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The book may be notable per WP:NBOOK, but the author isn't. So we could delete the author page and have one for the book. Longhornsg (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - He is notable per WP:NAUTHOR and I think in general as well. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as we haven't kept anyone as notable for one book. His book might meet notability criteria, but he fails WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. DylanMReed (talk) 06:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak keep: Subject appears to meet the third criterion of WP:AUTHOR due to cofounding and editing Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. The sourcing on that article is itself suspect, with one of the five sources being the journal's own about page and two being articles by Baer himself, but that's another discussion that needs to be had first. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 16:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Almost every source is an opinion by the subject, or an opinion about him, but no facts about him. Film reviews about an actor are accepted, but not about someone who is essentially a talking head. Bearian (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. One book with published reviews isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR, although it could justify a redirect from this title to an article about the book. The journal isn't the kind of established scholarly journal that could pass WP:PROF#C8. (This is not really because of its topic; political science is a valid topic of scholarly discourse, but this appears to be more a magazine and publisher of position papers than a scholarly journal and publisher of peer-reviewed research.) His political appointments are far from enough for WP:NPOL. Being quoted in news media is not really itself a notability criterion for a political pundit (this is another one that could be different if what he were quoted for were scholarship or research rather than political opinions; that might fit PROF#C7 but Baer's work doesn't). So that leaves WP:GNG and depth of coverage of Baer himself in independent reliable sources, and I don't see evidence of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Politicians

Ugo Ferdinand Ukwueze

Ugo Ferdinand Ukwueze (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 WP:NPOL. Chairmanship of a local government area is a local office, below the sub-national level WP:NPOL presumes notable. Kqol • talk 21:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Africa, and Nigeria. Kqol • talk 21:08, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails NPOL and the GNG. I don't trust the sources enough. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Mohammad Hasan Ali Talukder

Mohammad Hasan Ali Talukder (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 am nominating this for deletion due to failure to meet WP:GNG. Firstly, the article relies entirely on a single routine source (an official parliamentary PDF). Secondly, this article is here in Wikipedia without any independent, secondary, in-depth coverage or even a basic biographical article. I think this content would be better served as an entry on List of members of the 1st Jatiya Sangsad. Ashfaqifaz (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: He meets WP:NPOL, which says, "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, [...] public office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". He was a member of Parliament.. Though a merge can also be reasonable per WP:MERGESHORT. But I don't think there's anything to merge into that list article, so I'd still say, Keep... — Raihanur (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• speedy keep as per Raihanur. Mehedi Abedin 11:07, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Mehedi Abedin: can you please clarify your !vote? Raihanur argued for Keep, which is an argument based on the notability of the subject, not "speedy keep", which is a claim against the nomination. Per WP:CSK, the nomination does not qualify for a speedy keep close. Owen× ☎ 11:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  @OwenX edited my comment to clarify. Mehedi Abedin 11:40, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! Owen× ☎ 11:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPOL. Members of a federal parliament are presumed notable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:NPOL as a member of a national legislature.--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  Keep meets WP:NPOL. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 01:35, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NPOL. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:07, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Make NPOL. Khalitate (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: per above... Aqsis Bey (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Jose Aristimuño

Jose Aristimuño (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)

Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. DanCherek (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. DanCherek (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Lean Delete - Doesn't qualify for WP:NPOLITICIAN being a Democratic Party official rather than a person holding public office. The listed sources look more like routine coverage of his appointment than significant coverage contributing to WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows all articles on him seem to have him either as a host or as a short blurb giving his own statement on current political situations. I'm not sure if the coverage of his appointment pushes him over WP:GNG or not, but I'm leaning delete since he seems to be a WP:MILL appointed party official. Bungle491 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This reads like a brief bio on Linkedin, mostly communications roles, office work for various campaigns. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't make NPOL. Khalitate (talk) 05:12, 26 August 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. 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)

Mukhtyar Ahmad

Mukhtyar Ahmad (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 GNG and NPOL Thilsebatti (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Rajasthan. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. A failed political candidate and a government employee does make someone inherently notable under an SNG. Lack of sourcing indicates this person fails GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Richard C. Ogden

Richard C. Ogden (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)

State trial court judge without any apparent significant coverage. No automatic pass under NPOL, and from what I have seen, there is no evidence of significant coverage of his legal career, time as a judge, et cetera. The article also seems self-promotional. I don't think there's an obvious redirect target, either. PA Uploader (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Oklahoma. PA Uploader (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Question. Could you clarify what you mean by "from what I have seen"? Where did you check? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Cielquiparle I ran a Newspapers.com search first, which showed a decent number of results in The Oklahoman (159 for "Richard Ogden" from 2010–present, 30 for "Richard C. Ogden"), but in reviewing them, I saw that the overwhelming majority of which were public notices, very brief and cursory mentions, or general listings. I confirmed that Newspapers.com's database of Oklahoma papers is sizable enough for the period I searched by running some searches for people that would be in the news quite frequently; he just simply isn't mentioned in any paper other than the Oklahoman to the best of my knowledge. I supplemented this with a Google News search, which also did not show very much—at most, local news coverage that included similarly cursory mentions. I then did a search on Lexis for legal news, using the search term richard w/3 ogden, which showed results similar to the Newspapers.com search. PA Uploader (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete, a soft delete. Oklahoma and Tulsa County district judges do not meet WP:NPOL, but may still meet WP:GNG. Ogden is an OK County judge and one of the few (possibly first?) gay judges in Oklahoma. That tends to add to his notability, however GNG still needs to be met. I also want to note this edit appears to be a Oklahoma campaign firm blanking and rewriting the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and keep improving as meets WP:GNG. Before becoming a judge, Richard Ogden had a successful career as an attorney and started Oklahoma's gay political action committee in 1995, and received national coverage in this 2005 article in the Advocate, "Gay in the Red States". There was also a big feature article about him in the Oklahoma Gazette in 2010, "An openly gay appointee to a government position says Oklahoma is making changes in right direction". As Oklahoma County District Judge, he has issued high-profile rulings in cases such as this 2024 dispute between the governor and the state attorney general covered in Oklahoma Voice (which has covered many of his other rulings), and a 2021 citizen petition to impanel a grand jury for the removal of a district attorney, which he initially rejected ("Judge Ogden quashes citizens’ grand jury application") then approved following amendment ("Ogden approves amended petition for grand jury to remove David Prater"), covered by NonDoc, which is operated by the Sustainable Journalism Foundation. As a side note, he was a named party in the 2026 Oklahoma Supreme Court case Chick-A-Fil, Inc. v. The Honorable Richard Ogden (which is still fresh so will take a while for law journals to catch up with relevant analysis). In summary, this is case of a biography of a notable living person that requires cleanup, but this can and should be done over the normal course of editing. Pinging TulsaPoliticsFan for reconsideration in light of coverage found; good job by the way spotting the possible COI/UPE overwrite in the article history. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Greg Pason

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Greg Pason
• Articles for deletion/Greg Pason (2nd nomination)

Greg Pason (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 Socialist Party USA because, as a party official of a very minor political party, he does not satisfy WP:NPOL and does not appear to otherwise pass WP:GNG. The coverage that he's received that might qualify as significant coverage has been fairly typical of most candidates. A previous AFD from 2021 resulted in no consensus, so this seemed worth revisiting. PA Uploader (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Jersey. PA Uploader (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Jiří Kopal

Jiří Kopal (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)

Translated version of article already deleted at different language. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PROMOTIONAL.

Article is almost identical translation of article at Czech Wikipedia w:cs:Jiří Kopal, that was already recently removed as a result of notability discussion at Czech Wikipedia. Deletion was assessed and checked by administrators at Czech Wikipedia. (Article was already deleted multiple times, as it was clearly created by Jiří Kopal (HIMSELF and sockpuppet account) and contains self-written sources, fabricated, self-granted awards etc. Failure of notability is proven in evaluations at Czech Wikipedia closed by administrators: Wikipedie:Diskuse o smazání/CSLI Lazarus Union Česká republika a Jiří Kopal (Deleted in 2020), Wikipedie:Žádost o komentář/Encyklopedická významnost Jiří Kopal (Failed encyclopedic notability from 17 August 2026, deleted). ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this request. I must confirm described problems on the Czech Wikipedia. Krabiczka (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Remove, same as the Czech Wikipedia ~2026-43057-50 (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep and improve

I don't think the deletion of the Czech Wikipedia article should by itself be considered evidence that the subject is not notable on the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has its own notability guidelines, and the relevant question here is whether there is significant coverage of Jiří Kopal in reliable, independent sources. One source that deserves consideration is the Českokrumlovský deník article “Věková struktura lékařů v Krumlově je alarmující”. The article is behind a paywall, but being paywalled does not make an otherwise reliable published source unusable for Wikipedia. Importantly, this is not simply a brief mention of Kopal. The article contains a substantial interview dealing not only with the situation of local doctors and healthcare, but also with political issues, and it includes a biographical profile of Jiří Kopal. Thus, the source provides independent journalistic coverage that can be used for the article and should be taken into account when assessing whether the subject meets the English Wikipedia's notability requirements. The fact that the article about Kopal was deleted on Czech Wikipedia is also not, in itself, a reason to delete the English Wikipedia article. The two Wikipedias are separate projects with their own policies, guidelines and editorial processes. A decision made by the Czech Wikipedia community does not determine the outcome of an English Wikipedia AfD. I therefore think the independent sources should be assessed on their own merits under the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, rather than treating the Czech Wikipedia deletion as decisive. The article could also be shortened and made more concise, while retaining the relevant, well-sourced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-45896-28 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. He is presented as a local politician, a medical doctor and a philanthropist, but he is not notable in any of these three areas per WP:BIO. Cswiki mentions as a problem that there are no multiple published secondary sources, which is probably true. The profile of a politician in a local newspaper, with whom an interview is being conducted, is not confirmation of notability. FromCzech (talk) 10:16, 24 August 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)

Jeremy Matlow

Jeremy Matlow (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)

Tallahassee, Florida city commissioner and mayoral candidate. Tallahassee is obviously a big city, but I don't think that being a city councilor in the 122nd most populous state in the country is enough for a Wikipedia page. I'm not seeing anything in the cited news coverage that would suggest he rises above the notability of any other city councilor. I'd support a redirect to 2026 Tallahassee mayoral election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per rationale provided in nomination. I'm not sure deletion makes sense here, because he has a decent chance of winning, and the existing page seems well-developed enough that it could be restored if he won. PA Uploader (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The sources cited in the article establish notability per WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:POLITICIAN: "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The subject of this article meets that standard. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Caroline Torosis

Caroline Torosis (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)

Requested at the Teahouse. Request reads:

The page Caroline Torosis is very promotional and not notable. She is a city council member who gets to be honorary mayor for a year, as do all city council members. The page is clearly emphasizing the honorary position and not that she works full time for one of LA’s district supervisors.. not an expert so need help.. ~2026-45286-26 (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2026 (UTC) (55 min. ago)

--ABx11 (she/they) 21:11, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep She is the mayor of a well known city with a population of nearly 100,000 people and the article seems to me to be neutrally written and well referenced. I was easily able to find additional coverage of her in reliable sources. If the temporary account can point out non-neutral phrasing, the article can be edited to improve the neutrality instead of deleting it. Press coverage pays more attention to her role on the city council and as mayor than her job as an aide to a Los Angeles County supervisor, and therefore so too should her Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I nominated her for primarily for failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Caroline Torosis is a Santa Monica City Council member (elected 2022) who previously served on the Rent Control Board. The “mayor” title is a one-year rotating position selected by the council based on seniority (longest continuous service, with vote totals as a tiebreaker for those elected in the same cycle), not a separately elected strong-mayor office with independent executive authority. Santa Monica operates under a council-manager form of government; the mayor mainly presides over meetings and serves in a largely ceremonial/head-of-city role. The city’s population is approximately 93,000 (2020 census). WP:NPOL is clear: politicians who have held international, national, or state/province-wide office are presumed notable, and “major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” may be. However, “Just being an elected local official… does not guarantee notability,” although such people can still qualify under the general notability guideline (GNG) if they have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Routine local election results, council votes, city meeting coverage, and local-government reporting do not establish this. Most sources in the article (and easily findable coverage) are local outlets such as the Santa Monica Daily Press, Santa Monica Lookout, city/YouTube records of meetings, and similar pieces about her election, swearing-in, housing votes, or routine city business. These are expected for any council member in a city of this size and do not constitute the in-depth, independent biographical treatment GNG requires. Minor local awards or selection for a fellowship do not bridge the gap. The article leads heavily with the temporary mayor title and under-emphasizes that this is a standard council rotation and that her other professional role is as a policy director for an LA County supervisor.City council members (and rotating mayors) of mid-sized U.S. cities routinely lack standalone articles unless they have demonstrated broader impact or sustained non-routine coverage. Creating an article primarily because someone currently holds the rotating chair is not consistent with policy; the content can be covered on the Santa Monica or Santa Monica City Council pages if needed.

~2026-45286-26 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. As the nomination explanation said, her position as "mayor" is a rotating position that city councilmembers hold, and with very limited powers. This is a city with a population under 100K run under a council-manager system. I can recall several recent past deletion discussions where the consensus was that serving as mayor in those circumstances fails to adequately establish notability, and she certainly fails NPOL in any event. As written, the article primarily cites local news outlets that provide information about the subject only tangentially, i.e., without a focus on her biography. Deleting absolutely makes sense here. PA Uploader (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• The article says she first was "mayor pro tempore" for a year, and now is just mayor. Are these both honorary positions or what exactly is the situation? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Maddy from Celeste, per the Santa Monica City Council website: The Santa Monica City Council is made up of seven members elected at-large for staggered four-year terms. Every two years, after each election, the City Council selects one of its members to serve as Mayor and another to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore. PA Uploader (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  I also read the rules of order on that website. It seems like the mayor pro tempore is essentially a vice-chair of the council, but freely elected as opposed to the mayor? In that case, agree that there's no presumption of notability per NPOL. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:43, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  They are both honorary city council positions that go to the most senior council member who hasn’t been mayor. They chose them every two years, one become the mayor for a year and the other is “the mayor in waiting” until they become mayor next year. Basically they get to lead the city council discussions and still make the same $18k a year regular city council members make. The city council members aren’t full time employees. ~2026-45286-26 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Since I created the nomination, even though it was on behalf of someone else, am I free to vote or does my nomination count on my behalf? --ABx11 (she/they) 19:09, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not voting because I put it in the tea house so you can vote imo. ~2026-45658-57 (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Strong keep. For full disclosure, I am a significant contributor to this article. The subject very clearly meets WP:N and WP:BASIC. Torosis has received WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources WP:RS, including the LA Times, the Los Angeles Business Journal, MSN, the Santa Monica Daily Press, and others. Some prior commenters have criticized the Daily Press for being a "local" paper, but its circulation and readership show that it is a significant news source (see ). In the media landscape of Los Angeles, it's not possible for the LA Times and national news to cover events in large LA-area cities like Santa Monica. I will try to add more news coverage to the article. Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Can you point to the articles of significant coverage that cover her life or activities outside being a city council or rent control board member? I couldn’t find anything but city council coverage and WP:POLITIAN says no local politicians so those opinions and coverage shouldn’t count. ~2026-45286-26 (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:POLITICIAN doesn't say that you need sources that discuss a person outside politics. That notability guideline just says that a person isn't presumed to be notable just because they are involved in local politics (state-level politicians, by contrast, are presumed to be notable). Indeed, the whole point is that a local politician can be notable per WP:N and WP:SIGCOV if they have "received significant press coverage" of their work in local politics. And that's exactly the case with Torosis. Here are a few examples of the significant coverage (all of these are cited in her article):

• Canyon News (full profile)
• MSN (full article discussing her and councilmember Jesse Zwick)
• Fox News (full article discussing her and the mayoral transition)
• Santa Monica Daily Press (full profile)
• Santa Monica Daily Press (an earlier profile of her and another commissioner when she was on the Santa Monica Rent Board)
• Another Santa Monica Daily Press profile (this one about her 2026 state of the city address)
• Los Angeles Business Journal (short profile)
• Patch News (several paragraphs profiling Torosis)
• Santa Monica Lookout (profile comparing Torosis to prior mayor)

I think all these sources satisfy the WP:100WORDS principle. A google search will show other examples. The text in footnote 8 in the guidelines for local politicians in WP:POLITICIAN says gives an example of a local politician who meets the WP:N: "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The articles cited above show that Caroline Torosis clearly meets this standard. Notecardforfree (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: The sources presented above do not resolve the general notability issue. Most are local reports about Torosis becoming mayor for a one-year term—the same type of routine transition announcement published whenever Santa Monica installs a new mayor. Although being local does not automatically disqualify a source, these articles principally verify her title and succession; they do not provide the substantial, subject-focused analysis required to demonstrate significant coverage. Routine announcements, brief mentions, quotations, awards, and coverage of City Council actions are not equivalent to in-depth coverage of Torosis herself.

MSN item does not constitute an additional independent source because it is a republication of an article from the Westside Current, a small local publication. Republishing the same underlying reporting does not create a second independent source for the purpose of establishing notability. The only clearly substantial coverage centered on Torosis appears to concern the Ocean Avenue housing controversy and questions about her prior knowledge—yet that controversy is largely absent from the article. Even that coverage is associated with a single local controversy rather than sustained, independent coverage of her broader career. The sources presented establish that she holds local office, but they do not establish standalone biographical notability under the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for politicians. Delete or redirect to Santa Monica City Council or MERGE to a page about the position of Mayor of Santa Monica would be more appropriate in my opinion but I’m not voting. ~2026-45658-57 (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The quality of those sources, and the level of coverage they provide, is typical of virtually any mayor of a city with a population of more than 50,000 almost anywhere in America. My read of these deletion discussions is that we've been very careful about extending too far into municipal officials because there are just so many of them, and very, very few of them attract meaningful coverage. I am still voting to delete. PA Uploader (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Honorary position, local coverage, only additional notability is locally covered scandals having to do with her position on the city council. ~2026-45658-57 (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Reply to IP 2026-45658-57 and @PA Uploader:: The sources cited above (and the sources cited in the article) very clearly discuss a range of topics related to Torosis’ tenure as mayor. They are not just routine announcements. The sources show that she has been “written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists” (quoting WP:POLITICIAN). Indeed, they discuss in depth her policies, goals, experiences, history, and future ambitions. This establishes notability per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. It sounds like you both would like a more restrictive notability standard for local politicians, and that’s fine, but that discussion should be had at the WP:BIO talkpage, not here.

There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles about politicians with similar (and in some cases much less) coverage from comparable cities. Check out "Category:California city council members." To give just a handful of specific examples, see Konstantine Anthony (Burbank); Bill Cole (Montana politician) (Billings, MT); Victor Gordo (Pasadena); Adena Ishii (Berkeley); Eduardo Martinez (politician) (Richmond); Sharona Nazarian (Beverly Hills); Will O'Neill (politician) (Newport Beach); Skylar Peak (Malibu); Eric J. Perrodin (Compton); Albert Robles (Carson); Helene Schneider (Santa Barbara); Danny Tabor (Inglewood); and others. Again, if you want to change the notability guidelines for local politicians, let’s have that discussion on that talk page. But the evidence clearly shows that Torosis’ article meets the existing standard to keep it. Notecardforfree (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Follow up note: Since my last reply, I've added additional sources to the article that provide additional coverage and discussion of Torosis' work. I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly two decades, and I don't think I've seen a subject with this much coverage be deleted for failing WP:GNG. Notecardforfree (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this is just case of .WP:TOOSOON. If you have been editing for so long you would know that other pages do not prove notability and it’s incorrect to reference them in AfD. Your additions only confirm that you can only find extremely local sources which barely mention her at all and I found at least one stuffed in there from the Santa Monica Lookout that didn’t have any mentions at all. If you can find find articles outside of her one year ceremonial ascension to mayor, outside our very local press, which she is the focus of or covered in detail, I would be happy to look. The place to put you references is here so the editors do not have to search for them. I tried to add some content about the independent press outside her ascension to mayor and you promptly decided to re-edit it as if you were part of her PR team, which take me think you might have a connection? Also, this was created literally the day she could call herself mayor which should be considered imo. ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't create this article (and I don't know who did). And no, I'm not on her PR team or anything like that. The COI banner that you put on the page is unwarranted. But I do have an academic/intellectual interest in California politics, and want to make sure our coverage of all California politicians is fair and balanced. I did some cleanup in this article earlier this year because it was extremely biased against her (in fact, it felt like the person who created the article wanted to use it as a platform to criticize her). The content you added about the Ocean Avenue project was not in line with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT, so I took the initiative to revise it. As for whether the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines, I don't think you and I are going to reach agreement on this. I've explained my reasons, and you've explained yours. I respectfully disagree, but we'll need to let this AFD process play out. Notecardforfree (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not intend to make it "biased" against her, however I tend to be blunt in my wording.

From my quick google search while looking for sources

There was notability.

She was mayor.

She had a controversy.

And then leave the rest to anyone else who may want to edit. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I included the controversy bit because not saying something because it's bad is effectively a WP:NPOV vio DarmaniLink (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: DarmaniLink is the creator of the article. --ABx11 (she/they) 06:15, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t blame her directly for the page creation, I just said it should be noted. To me this last rewrite confirms this is just local political advertising and reference stuffing to promote her local political reelection to the city council, if she shouldn’t have a page since most other mayor’s have not gotten one without significant contributions outside of the position, it gives her an unfair advantage against other opponents. WP:POLITICIAN should be applied since her page is all local politics and press.. one big extra thing to consider, this is a ceremonial position for a year, that is why there is no election or real policy coverage outside the city council. In fact, as Mayor she isn’t even allowed to direct city employees, the city council votes and the city manager disperses commands. It’s WP:ADVERTISING at this point.. there certainly seems to be a COI as well given the recent changes to the article. Also stuffing the alpage with articles that do nothing but quote the “mayor” does not meet the in depth coverage requirements outside routine city events. Now this article is filled with tons of political quotes stuffed in to make it look credible.. it’s all very local and PROMO.Has anyone been able to identify and in depth coverage outside her ceremonial ascension to mayor for the year? ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Reply to anon: To be clear, WP:POLITICIAN says that you can be notable for being a local politician (like a mayor). The WP:SIGCOV of Torosis’ mayorship satisfies WP:N. In any event, you’ve asked for sources that discuss torosis outside her ascension to the mayorship. Here’s a partial list:

• Coverage of her work on the rent board before being elected
• Coverage of her work on the rent board in 2022
• 2023 Coverage of her work on council shortly after being elected
• Coverage of her receiving the Just City Mayoral Fellowship at Harvard
• Short coverage in her selection for 500 most influential people in LA
• Coverage about her and the Ocean Ave housing project here and here
• Coverage of her work on economic development and other things
• Interview with Torosis about her restorative justice work

And, again, I don’t think you and I are going to agree about whether this article should be deleted or not. We’ll need to leave that to whomever has the fun task of closing this discussion. Notecardforfree (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for providing the specific links. I agree that coverage does not have to concern activities outside politics, and a source is not disqualified merely because it is local. The question under the basic biographical notability criteria and the general notability guideline, however, is whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are intellectually independent of one another and independent of the subject.

Examined individually, most of these links do not meet that standard:

• The 2020 Santa Monica Daily Press article is a joint post-election policy article about Torosis and Anastasia Foster. It quotes both officials but is not an in-depth profile of Torosis.
• The 2022 Santa Monica Lookout article is about a proposed charter amendment. Torosis appears as one Rent Control Board member advocating the proposal; the article covers the Board’s action, not Torosis herself.
• The 2023 Santa Monica Daily Press article is the strongest pre-mayoral example, but it is still a joint “first 100 days” interview with Jesse Zwick, much of which consists of the officials’ own statements. It does not constitute multiple independent coverage by itself.
• The fellowship article is a selection announcement, while the Los Angeles Business Journal item is a brief staff-authored list entry. The “one hundred words” page is an essay, not a notability guideline. The essay itself acknowledges that reaching a particular word count does not establish significant coverage when the material is off-topic or is not genuinely secondary coverage.
• The two Ocean Avenue articles are the clearest subject-focused coverage, but both were written by the same reporter for the same publication about successive developments in one local controversy. They form a single coverage cluster, not sustained, intellectually independent coverage of Torosis’s broader career.
• The State of the City article covers a civic event and largely summarizes Torosis’s official speech. The KCRW report is about Santa Monica’s restorative-justice fund and uses Torosis as an official source; it is not a profile of her.

Thus, this list does not demonstrate “multiple news feature articles” providing sustained biographical coverage as claimed. At most, it identifies one joint interview and one substantial single-controversy coverage cluster, surrounded by routine reporting about governmental actions, a selection announcement, a list entry, a speech and an official interview.

These sources verify her public activities, but the notability guideline for politicians expressly states that being an elected local official does not guarantee notability. Given that the Santa Monica mayoralty is a rotating council position without independent executive authority, I still do not see the depth and breadth of independent coverage needed for a standalone biography.delete, redirect to city council page or merge to article about position of mayor of Santa Monica remain the more appropriate outcome. ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Anon, I'm not going to be able to convince you, but take a look at the source assessment chart I added below. Notecardforfree (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Canyon News	Appears to be echoing a press release from the city government	No editor staff listing	~ ~100 words, has a few facts, borderline significant coverage	✘ No
Westside Current via MSN		No byline, no masthead, no editorial policy		✘ No
Fox 11 2025	After removing the quotes, there is some secondary coverage		~ After removing the quotes, 200 words of significant coverage	~ Maybe
Santa Monica Daily Press - Fellowship		~ Has a policies and standards page. Ownership or editorial staff unclear. Articles have bylines.	The article is mainly about an award, with no	✘ No
Santa Monica Daily Press - Rent Control Board	~ The article subject is an interview subject and there is not much secondary analysis	~ Has a policies and standards page. Ownership or editorial staff unclear. Articles have bylines.	The one fact: the subject favors rent control	✘ No
SMDP State of the City 2026	Exclusively primary coverage, extensively quotes what the subject said without providing secondary analysis	~		✘ No
LA Business Journal			~ 121 words of coverage. It's from a "top 500" list so discount	? Unknown
Patch - sworn in as mayor			Not even WP:100WORDS	✘ No
Santa Monica Lookout		No editorial masthead, very unclear about quality	Very rudimentary coverage where the bulk of the content is in quotes. It lists election dates and summarizes the subject's style in one line.	✘ 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}}.

• Delete: I took a look at the sources provided by Notecardforfree and I don't think there's enough here. Many of the sources themselves are of suspect quality; the coverage is barebones and relies heavily on quotes and primary sources. I looked on Newspapers.com and there are some quotes in the LA Times, but no significant coverage. I don't think the subject meets the bar. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@PacificDepths: Regarding the Santa Monica Daily Press, my research has shown that it is a respected independent newspaper with significant circulation (certainly on par with other sources that are routinely considered reliable). You can read more about the newspaper here: . You can find their masthead on the PDF version of their newspaper. Here’s the August 20, 2026 edition, and you can find the masthead on the right-hand side on page 3: . According to its masthead, the Daily Press is a National Newspaper Association award winner. As I mentioned much earlier in this discussion, in the news landscape of California and Los Angeles, reporting from papers like the Daily Press fills the gaps left by papers like the LA Times.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about the assessment of some of the sources in your table. The Fox 11 one and the Daily Press’ “Rent Control Talks Shop” very clearly meet the coverage standards per WP:BASIC. In the Daily Press article, the author talks about Torosis’ perspectives on statewide efforts to implement rent control, market factors that were impacting Torosis’ work on the rent board, and trends in voter support in Santa Monica. The article about the fellowship also provides several paragraphs of coverage of Torosis’ goals and priorities as mayor and how those relate to the fellowship program (see also Footnote 7 in WP:BASIC, which compares substantial and trivial coverage).

Your chart also left out other important sources that also show that this article meets the standard of WP:BASIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:POLITICIAN. There’s the 2023 Coverage of her work on council shortly after being elected ; coverage about her and the Ocean Ave housing project here and here ; coverage about her efforts to study a fair work week law ; coverage from the LA Times about the work that Torosis and her city council colleagues are doing to turn around the city ; this LA Times article about Torosis’ vision for revitalizing the city through big events ; and other sources cited in the article

Here’s my “rebuttal” source assessment, which I’ve limited to nine sources that I think very clearly meet the WP:SIGCOV standard:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Notecardforfree

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.foxla.com/news/santa-monica-new-mayor-carolyn-torosis-sworn-in			The entire article is about Torosis’ ascension to the mayorship and the circumstances surrounding that event	✔ Yes
https://www.smdp.com/re-elected-rent-control-board-talks-shop/	see		The article talks about Torosis’ perspectives on statewide efforts to implement rent control, market factors that were impacting Torosis’ work on the rent board, and trends in voter support in Santa Monica.	✔ Yes
https://www.smdp.com/mayor-torosis-selected-for-national-fellowship-on-urban-equity/	see		Several paragraphs of coverage of Torosis’ goals and priorities as mayor and how those relate to the fellowship program	✔ Yes
https://www.smdp.com/caroline-torosis-and-jessie-zwick-interview/	see		Several paragraphs of commentary on the challenges faced by Torosis and her colleagues on the council	✔ Yes
https://www.smdp.com/new-email-claims-councilmember-torosis-worked-with-developers-on-controversial-housing-long-before-public-disclosure/	see		The entire article is about Torosis and her potential knowledge of the Ocean Avenue housing project	✔ Yes
https://www.smdp.com/new-emails-further-link-councilwoman-caroline-torosis-to-controversial-housing-development-despite-her-public-denials-of-prior-knowledge/			The entire article is about Torosis and her potential knowledge of the Ocean Avenue housing project	✔ Yes
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-28/a-troubled-santa-monica-outlines-turnaround-plan			The entire article is about the work that Torosis and her city council colleagues are doing to jumpstart the city’s economy	✔ Yes
https://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/story/2026-08-03/how-world-cup-became-great-dry-run-2028-olympics			About 200 words of analysis (excluding quotations) discussing Santa Monica’s strategy, how that aligns with Torosis’ policy goals, and her plans for capitalizing on big events in the future	✔ Yes
https://labusinessjournal.com/la500-2026/civic-leaders-2026/la500-2026-caroline-torosis			It’s short, and I know it’s from a “top 500” list, but the biographical information here is presumably vetted by the LA Business Journal’s editorial team	✔ Yes
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}}.

While I think we clearly have enough sources here to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, I’ll also remind everyone that WP:BASIC also contemplates that a wide breadth of less-substantial coverage can also satisfy the notability criteria: “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. I encourage readers to look at both the depth and breadth of coverage in the sources cited in the article. Notecardforfree (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I am convinced by the source evaluation table presented by Pacific Depths, that the subject does not meet our standards for notability. While stand alone pages about local elected officials are contemplated by NPOL, the standard for local elected officials usually requires analysis of their work: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. This frequently revolves around retrospectives of what the officeholder accomplished in office, but could also mean national or international profiles (especially for local elected officials representing smaller jurisdictions [but size of jurisdiction is not mentioned in our guidelines]). There is no city council page or list of mayors to redirect to, so this should be deleted rather than redirected. --Enos733 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Enos733: What did you think of my response to Pacific Depths? I noted that Pacific Depths' source assessment left out key sources (which are summarized in my rebuttal table), and Pacific Depths did not count any sources from the Santa Monica Daily Press (which I also addressed in my response). I will also note that the subject just needs to meet WP:BASIC. There is no requirement for retrospective coverage, and there is no requirement for national or international coverage. Notecardforfree (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I read your source analysis before commenting, and I do not change my opinion. While it is true that WP:BASIC does contemplate less-substantial coverage can also satisfying the notability criteria, I feel it is a weak position to hold on to. Fundamentally, the questions I usually have for local elected officials is 1) why is this person important for a stand-alone page in an international encyclopedia and 2) to what degree is the person extraordinary compared to all other similar elected officials? So, I see a mayor in a city-manager form of government whose coverage largely is about plans (that the subject cannot enact unilaterally). And then I look at other existing pages of Santa Monica mayors and see that most do not have stand-alone pages. While this is not an "other pages exist" argument, it raises the question to me of whether there is something about being the mayor of Santa Monica that means a page should be created. In this case very few Santa Monica mayors have stand-alone pages, which again to me suggests we should be looking for national coverage, or coverage that is above the norm (as opposed to routine coverage). Cobbling together a few bits of information from a variety of articles doesn't get to notability (for me at least). - Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify because you mentioned elected above, The mayor position is ceremonial, given to a new city council member each year. Local papers will cover it every year, for every mayor, as they did for the previous mayors. The city council is a very part time position that pays $18k a year. ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

We could always make articles for the other mayors, most of them are redlinked DarmaniLink (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep I looked up Caroline Torosis on google to learn more about her campaign. I found her Wiki and I found the Article for Deletion about her Wiki. I read the List of policies and guidelines for deletion debates. There's significant press coverage. The article isn't low quality. Don't delete it. Maybe politician Wikis should need special rules when there is an election. --Signed ~2026-46396-59 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia:POLITICIAN directly handles rules for politicians and no one is saying the article is of low written quality, in fact I am impressed at the editors ability to extract nearly every quote ever published as a local city council person and turn it into a substantially wordy page mentioning every political opinion.Unfortunately, in 3 months she is no longer the ceremonial mayor and if she is reelected, she would return to being one of seven local city council people. Taking advantage of creative writing and extremely local coverage doesnt meet Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. Remember votes don’t exclusively determine the outcome of AfD, it relies around the strength of the arguments within the discussion. ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I agree with Cullen328. Santa Monica is a large enough city and she has had enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass under the GNG even though she does not meet an automatic inclusion guideline in NPOL. Promotional language should be cleaned up. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this is heading for a no consensus, but let's give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Santa Monica is a large city, several former mayors have pages that aren't flagged for removal. See Kevin McKeown (politician) There is also significant additional information that can be added to this article if it isn't deleted, like Torosis involvement with the Ebony Beach Club reparations project that was covered in multiple articles. She seems much more noteworthy than several other politicians with dedicated pages. It's also probably worth mentioning the initial article seems to have clearly been written as a sort of political hit piece. It mirrored the writing of an anonymous mail campaign (that seemingly violates several political mailer and campaign laws) and is supposedly being investigated by the postal service for use of a fraudulent return address. To the extent maintaining the current page discourages a repeat of the initial attack piece I'd also recommend it as a "keep". Josiah Blessed (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2026 (UTC)— Josiah Blessed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are no article on the Keven McKeown page that meet the requirements that I saw initially. That page should possibly be added for an AfD discussion. Looking at the coverage of the last Mayor, Lana Negrete reveals almost exactly the same type of political coverage with minor differences based on the issues of their term. ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment for closing Admin I would be suspect of the flurry off keep votes and examine their history as one account was created specifically for this vote, one is anonymous and the others screen name suggests they might have a connection to the subject. Either way, together as a whole they look suspicious and perhaps checking the substance of the accounts on the delete side might reveal more established editors who participate in AfD. While I might be commenting, as an anon I am not actually submitting a vote. ~2026-45967-23 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Patrick Smathers

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Patrick Smathers
• Articles for deletion/Patrick Smathers (2nd nomination)

Patrick Smathers (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 GNG. The subject was the mayor of a small (~4K) city and ran for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina in 2008. He doesn't appear to have received significant coverage related to his time as mayor (or thereafter) and the coverage during the 2008 campaign was standard. A 2007 deletion discussion resulted in "keep" during a time of looser standards, so this seems worth revisiting. This could be redirected to either 2008 North Carolina lieutenant gubernatorial election#Primary elections or Canton, North Carolina as an AtD. PA Uploader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Carolina. PA Uploader (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Local/Municipal officials don’t automatically qualify for WP:GNG. This one lacks sufficient WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS media. Go4thProsper (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. There are plenty of sources that discuss Smathers in detail. I've added some more to the article, and there are more available online. The subject of this article passes WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:POLITICIAN. Notecardforfree (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep and keep improving per WP:HEY; easily meets WP:BASIC and arguably WP:GNG as well. There is enough coverage about Patrick Smathers' civic, community and entrepreneurial activities over time, beyond his 12-year tenure as mayor of Canton. Even if you discount the very large number of local newspaper articles about his activities as mayor (which we would expect), there is a 1976 feature article, "Smathers' Mission: Cash for Trash", in the Asheville Citizen-Times about his starting a recycling business, Pisgah Recycling, after graduating from Duke. More recently in 2021, there is local news coverage (Spectrum News 1) about his starting the Smathers Farmers and Public Market to revitalize the city. He has a lot of local and regional coverage from his activities as a lawyer and from his failed lieutenant governor race, and he received national coverage through the Religion News Service (recognized by Cite Unseen via WP:NPPSG as generally reliable) for his involvement in defending Hayward County Schools against claims made by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. No mention of specific WP:BEFORE search in the nomination. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the response. I probably won't say much more in this discussion, because I don't want to belabor the point, but I did want to offer several responses here:

  • First, just to be clear, I undertook searches before nominating this article for deletion and evaluated the sources cited in the article as it stands. I'm not sure what suggests that I didn't. My rationale for deletion was on par with most other AfDs and was entirely consistent with the suggestion in WP:AFD2 that a typical statement in an AfD is usually less than 150 words long.
  • Second, to respond to the claim that the subject meets WP:GNG, I do not see any coverage that rises to the level of "significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The overwhelming majority of sources discuss the subject in passing, or provide extremely routine coverage that is either not "direct" or "in detail." I have reviewed references in Newspapers.com to "Patrick Smathers" and "Pat Smathers" in North Carolina from 1998 to 2012. The majority of the references are entirely cursory, e.g., listing him as an elected official without comment. The overwhelming majority do not go much detail; I have not seen one that provides significant coverage.
  • Third, with respect to the sources you've provided, I respectfully disagree that they rise to the requisite level of significant coverage.
    • The 1976 Citizen-Times feature is a brief article about discusses his starting a recycling business. It has some, but not very much, information about the subject personally.
    • The Spectrum piece hardly mentions him at all. The piece just says that he's opening a market. There are plenty of fluff pieces in local media that describe someone opening a restaurant or something of the sort; this is just that.
    • The Religion News Service article simply quotes Smathers in his capacity as a lawyer representing the county school district. It's not "direct" coverage of him and provides no details about him whatsoever.

  At the end of the day, this is someone who was the mayor of a town of 4,000 people—and in a municipality with a council-manager form of government, no less—for a decade and placed a distant third in a statewide primary for a lower-level state office. Doing those things will certainly attract some coverage, but none of it seems significant. I am reluctant to invoke precedent, given that it is afforded limited weight in deletion discussions, but I'll point out the modern assumption is that we generally do not have articles for candidates who lost elections for offices that would entitle them to a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. It seems bizarre that someone like Eric Hovde would not have a page, or that the consensus to have a page for Graham Platner, which attracted spirited discussion and persuasive arguments against having such a page, but that this guy would. PA Uploader (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 26 August 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)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Science, United Kingdom, and England. Orange sticker (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 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)

Don Cooney

Don Cooney (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)

Two-time congressional candidate and city councilmember in Kalamazoo, Michigan (population ~74K), and does not appear to have received significant coverage in either endeavor. Does not appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Because he ran in two separate elections, it doesn't seem like there is an obvious redirect target, either. PA Uploader (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Michigan. PA Uploader (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2008_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Michigan#District_6. Cooney is closer to an edge case than most candidates, but his participation in the election does not pass any sort of 10 year test. I could see this being retained if his time as a professor of social work could meet WP:ACADEMIC. I am also open to the possibility his 28 years as a commissioner in a regionally significant city and his anti-apartheid activism could meet WP:GNG, but I was not able to confirm enough coverage outside of Michigan for this to be the case. 2008 was chosen because the won more votes in 2008 than 2010.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep When we look at local elected officials, one of the things I look for is if there are retrospectives of their time in office. In this case, there are profiles in Michigan Live and WWMT. This is in addition to the coverage the subject received as a candidate and on the Kalamazoo council. I do not think that a redirect to either of the House elections makes sense, per nom. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 18 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)} 04:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Enos733. The coverage that this individual has received meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted. Notecardforfree (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: In addition to sources from Enos733, here's a 1997 profile from the Kalamazoo Gazette on the subject's first election to Kalamazoo Commission. The other Newspapers.com sources are election coverage or passing mentions. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  I made some changes to this article to use the sources listed here. The article was terribly outdated and has not been seriously edited since 2009. There is still some work to do. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

  @PacificDepths given that the consensus is clearly trending toward keep, if the article is in fact kept, I plan to update the article, too—thanks for getting that work started! PA Uploader (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Naveed Hayat Malik

Naveed Hayat Malik (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)

Office of the Advocate General of Islamabad Capital Territory is non-notable. There is no WP:SIGCOV about him. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, Pakistan, and Punjab. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 04:46, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep. Naveed Hayat Malik is the incumbent Advocate General of Islamabad Capital Territory, which is a notable government legal position, and his appointment and activities have been reported by various independent Pakistani news agencies, like Dawn, The Express Tribune, Business Recorder, Pakistan Today, and HUM News. While the article can definitely benefit from more secondary sources other than LinkedIn pages and institution-related websites, there is enough information to justify the notability of the person based on his current governmental position and independent coverage. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept. Alazar202 (talk) 08:41, 15 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)} 06:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on what's available; passes my usual standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Dris Mohamed Amar

Dris Mohamed Amar (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)

Selective merge to Andalusi Party. Subject is not individually notable apart from his party. The small number of biographical details - being a mechanic, speaking for a neighbourhood association and a religious congregation - can be absorbed into the text on the party, instead of making a biographical section there. Subject is a politician in a city of 120,000 and has never polled 1% in an election there. If he was an elected official, there would be more chance of a page for party and founder. There is nothing saying his community work was independently notable, just that it happened. A contrast to this page would be Mothin Ali, whose community work is noted, who holds a council seat in a major city and is deputy leader of a major nationwide party. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. I am not against a very selective merger. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge as per nominator's rationale. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Chief Opposition Whip (Canada)

Chief Opposition Whip (Canada) (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 am also nominating the following related article:

Party whip (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has 2 primary sources and appears to fail WP:GNG. Chief Opposition Whip (Canada) was a long-standing redirect to Party whip (Canada), but that also likely fails WP:GNG. I did find one secondary source here. If more sources are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 05:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related AfD discussions. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 05:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• @Mariamnei: Leaning towards restoring the redirect from Chief Opposition Whip (Canada) to the general article, Party whip (Canada), and keeping the latter article given existing sources such as Whipped: Party Discipline in Canada (UBC Press, 2020). If not, redirect both to Whip (politics)#Canada (which already cites this book). Best, Bridget (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  The author of the above book wrote a piece on whips in G&M that may also be useful for the general article. Bridget (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Merge and redirect Chief Opposition Whip (Canada) to Party whip (Canada). Bridget (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

As it stands right now, the Chief Opposition Whip (Canada) article is mostly a list, which I modeled off of the UK whip articles (Chief Whip of the Conservative Party, Chief Whip of the Labour Party, Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats, Ulster Unionist Chief Whip. The Party whip (Canada) article already has a list of government whips. At the very least if this discussion finds that Chief Opposition Whip (Canada) is not notable enough, its list of opposition whips should be added to the Party whip (Canada) article. That said, I don't agree that this position isn't notable. RedBlueGreen93 16:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge with Party whip (Canada) article. It seems like both are being nominated for deletion. Based on the fact that other countries like Bangladesh, India, and Australia get articles on their whip I would agree it's hard to see the argument that it's not notable. It's also one of the most important jobs in the chamber. However, this article with only two primary sources and nothing else can't be allowed to stay but a section should be added to the Party whip article to bolster it. AadamentAardvark (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 11:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump

Colorado State Capitol portrait of Donald Trump (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)

Very brief coverage, fails WP:SUSTAINED.

Also: Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Xacaranda (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Visual arts, Politics, and United States of America. Xacaranda (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete literally no coverage, other the brief news cycle a year ago. NOTNEWS. This can be a one-liner somewhere, not enough notability for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep, easily meets GNG, and if the sustained coverage criteria fails on this painting then arguably 99% of Wikipedia's artwork articles, let alone the majority of all articles, also fall below the barrier. Note that the second nomination reason is an editorial essay, not a policy or guideline, and presenting essays as determinative evidence in the body of a nomination can mislead editors unfamiliar with the difference. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Randy Kryn, Are you arguing that the grand majority of visual art articles don't meet WP:SUSTAINED? I find that hard to believe. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Of course not, but most paintings or statues don't have articles about them every year or so. The coverage for the artwork being discussed here was pretty recent in terms of encyclopedic articles, a great deal of major news sources with 2025 cites sustained over many months. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Having coverage every year" isn't what Wikipedia:SUSTAINED is saying. It's saying that the work must have coverage over a long period of time. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)?

  Right, this 2019 artwork's coverage was sustained throughout most of 2025. How many other 2010s paintings have articles reporting on them for many months in 2025 are being questioned for "sustained" in August 2026? Since you've asked Wikipedians to merge this page, that's a serious question. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  1. I don't think you read my comment correctly, and 2. This is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Colorado State Capitol - Very much not WP:SUSTAINED. There may be potential for an article about Donald Trump in art or something along those lines. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete WP: NOTNEWS, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, no WP:SUSTAINED coverage by sources, has not attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time. Asparagusstar (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  So a 2019 painting with lots of major reputable sources reporting on it in 2025 is not enough attention? I'm glad that these type of discussions are not decided by head count (although some closers actually do that for some reason). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is no coverage of the painting from 2019, that's the issue. It doesn't really matter how old it is, it's when it got coverage. 2025 only. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oaktree b, your wish is my command (at least this once), the Denver Post, August 1, 2019. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oaktree b, you said "There is no coverage of the painting from 2019, that's the issue." I found a very good article from 2019, linked just above. Seems to meet your stated concern, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm still not sure the painting is notable. Other than being somewhat unflattering, it's not a notable piece of art. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your choice, but please consider striking your "There is no coverage of the painting from 2019, that's the issue" above as well as maybe correcting your opening "literally no coverage..." comment so as not to mislead readers, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep This is a portrait of a majot historical figure who illuminated it with his reaction to it. I feel sustains fails when any number of 18th-century portraits have sporadic coverage over centuries owing to the dint of fame of their maker. As people living in a modern period, and writing the art history of our times, we lay the groundwork for future historians. My recent series of official presidential portraits is part of this corpus. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I'd support a merge to the CO state capital article; the notability isn't really around the photo, it's Trump's grumpiness about it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very least merge the content as it was suggested above. Trump's reaction and the whole fiasco surrounding this portrait definitely made it notable as an object. Keivan.f^Talk 23:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete There was a brief burst of coverage of this in 2019, then again in 2025. This article is just on the edge of WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of everything Trump is so overwhelmingly prolific that we could easily write Hair of Donald Trump , and its notability would be far stronger and WP:SUSTAINED than that of this article. Small articles about irrelevant things like this that are only borderline notable are usually merged into larger articles. V. S. Video (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  God, someone actually tried that. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's hair. V. S. Video (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Colorado State Capitol. This is classic WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Whomever merges should take care to make sure to avoid undue weight. Frankly a photo of the image and no more than a paragraph is fine.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Seconded FineIllDoIt (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, just to clear up many editor's perception, this is not an article about Trump, it is an article about a painting. An artwork. Please remove Trump from the equation, both because of, and along with, citing an essay as a reason to delete or merge a existing painting which has a history of being displayed in a public place. For an artwork, it clearly meets GNG and the added source relieves the nominators SUSTAINED concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: it fails to meet WP:SUSTAINED coverage requirement & violates WP:NOTNEWS, the media coverage is limited to two brief news spikes in 2019 & 2025x Brodska213 (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge to Colorado State Capitol: The topic has been discussed quite a lot by various independent and reliable sources, so there isn't a clear violation of the WP:GNG policy in this case. Nevertheless, the evidence of independent notability of the particular painting is rather weak: almost all the major mentions of the painting have happened in connection with the controversy related to Donald Trump's critique and consequent removal of the portrait. The encyclopedic information provided in the article can be covered in the Colorado State Capitol article. Alazar202 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

The 2019 Denver Post article covers the artwork well, and, since as you say, it meets GNG, the emphasis on Trump's objections is notable but not the essence of this page about a painting. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Merge: I concur with merging it, wiki isn't the news, this had minor coverage at one or two discrete moments of time and isn't notable enough to deserve its own article. Not everything Trump whines about needs it's own article, and it ia undue weight to maintain a separate article for this incident. FineIllDoIt (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I remember sporadic statewide coverage of this portrait dating back to around five years ago. I wasn't always in Colorado during the early period of this portrait (and I'm there even more rarely now) but more recent nationwide coverage like this and this suggests that the painting is independently notable as a piece receiving substantial commentary and having repercussions for artwork in Colorado. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The coverage looks remarkably sustained to me. As well as 2019 and 2025, as mentioned above, I find 2024 and 2026. Thincat (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Categories

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget all