This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Politics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Politics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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.
Redirect to Tom MacDonald (rapper): None of the sources here are reliable; they're mostly right-wing publications with clear bias which would never pass the smell test at WT:RSP, the Forbes article fails FORBESCON, and the rest are YouTube and social media. Found no additional coverage. Charting section is full of SINGLEVENDOR fails.
From my past experience, it is important to be wary of the potential for this to be swarmed with comments by biased editors. Hopefully they don't notice this one like they did the one I linked, but if they do, there may be a mess to pick through. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. CFA💬23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convention site selection process already occurred involving numerous bid cities. This article is not speculative. Its location is already selected, and planning for it is underway. SecretName101 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This short article is about an uncontested election, with no information that isn't already present at Lindsay Hoyle. The election itself was not unusual or particularly noteworthy. There have been other uncontested elections of the Commons speaker, but this is the only one with an article. — RAVENPVFF·talk·17:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The context of the campaign is irrelevant here. This article is explicitly not either of the two list articles that were created weeks ago because it covers a larger scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete/redirect to the main Biden 2024 campaign page, or at the very least, significantly overhaul the naming ("Biden crisis" is too vague/not clearly the proper name per secondary sources, "Joever" is just internet slang, not really used) Reflord (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with age and health concerns of Joe Biden. While I don't see this as an immediate WP:NPOV violation, there is merit behind the fact that there is a crisis among Democrats regarding Biden's electability – even among former President Barack Obama.
Comment — Users who are pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have not read the article. This is not a list of Democrats who have called for him to withdraw, this is an article about the internal considerations within the campaign. That includes campaign decisions and information on how such a process would occur, including the presumptive virtual roll call and Schumer's decision to delay it. Should he withdraw his nomination, this would be a great article to cover that. Nowhere in this article will there be a list of every representative, or senator, or news organization, calling for Biden to drop out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the title is not intended to be WP:NPOV. I have internal opinions that I have expressed before on Biden withdrawing, but I have set those aside for this article. The title is supported by three references, and there are additional sources—such as NPR—that have used the specific term "Biden crisis", with additional sources—such as Politico, CNNtwice, and The New York Times—describing this as a crisis in general. Google Trends data shows that this is not an arcane term. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No established notability. Additionally Broden, Terry, 2024 election subjects, and the Constitution Party all have their own articles that can handle what little notable content exists on this subject SecretName101 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with the current piece on Randall Terry or related topics. Terry's campaign itself is not notable. Broader articles can cover the details of his 2024 run for president, so a standalone article for this campaign is not needed. Merging the content would keep all the information, put it in a better place, and keep the platform concise and focused.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have definitely nominated it for a merge rather than deletion if there was any measure of content in the article.
Speedy merge Don't do this crap, just because the major candidates have separate pages for their campaigns doesn't mean any campaign needs its own article. Reywas92Talk14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A minor member of the extended Trump clan who has no history beyond a speech at the GOP convention. Probably ought to redirect to Dad's list of offspring given that except for the one sentence its all either very basic tabloid/royal-watcher detail or is about other people. Not seeing any independent notability and I don't see having a WP:BLP on a minor child on the basis of one public appearance. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Baron wasn't notable here at the last AfD and he at least has some sort of notability... A grandchild is even less so, they're still a high school student, no different than thousands of others, having a famous grandparent isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In itself it has no relevance. She's a golfer, and a lot of people are golfers. The only relevance is that she is Donald Trump's granddaughter, but by herself, I repeat, she has no relevance. --Luciérnaga de conocimiento (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's getting a lot of press for her speech, but her notability is currently based solely on being the grandchild of Donald Trump. SWinxy (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a joke. Her birthweight is in there? Because there is nothing else to discuss. I don't think a redirect to Family of Donald Trump is called for, but if someone makes an argument I would consider it. Walsh90210 (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps in time she will do more to distinguish herself to merit her own page. At present, there is not enough. She is still pretty young though. The RNC speech would be a good starting point for a page but more is needed to have one. Count3D (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Family of Donald Trump, same as Barron's AFD last month. I'm surprised at all these "delete" votes. It's not "delete" because it's an obviously viable search term, because WP:ATD, and because the Trump family article is obviously the place for content about granddaughter Kai. She received press coverage before her RNC speech (does anybody do WP:BEFORE anymore?), both as a member of the family and as a youth golfer: People (magazine)2007, Us Weekly2017, South China Morning Post2021, ¡Hola!2023, Footwear News2023, and of course now she is getting full write-ups such as this ABC News bio. Frankly, she is right on the border of WP:GNG-notable -- you know if she was a male footballer, there would be 25 "keeps! meets GNG!" votes here -- but while it's debatable whether a standalone is merited, there is definitely enough RS coverage here for a paragraph in the Trump family article. Due to her youth and WP:NOTNEWS, I'm voting merge instead of keep, but she will likely become notable enough for a stand-alone, quite possibly due to her golfing career and/or becoming an online influencer. But there is no way this is a "delete". Levivich (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe makes a good case for redirecting this until/unless there’s adequate RS coverage for a suitable standalone article, so I agree we should redirect it to Family of Donald TrumpDonald Trump Jr.#Family for now. Levivich also makes some good points regarding merging being preferable to deletion given that’s it’s likely to be a reasonable search term. 28bytes (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's a legitimate candidate, duly elected by the Green Party of Alaska. All the other past years Green Party of Alaska candidates have their own Wikipedia articles. I don't see how we can delete this candidate's article, if the Green Parity has nominated her. It could be argued to delete, but Wikipedia doesn't come across well if they disqualify the officially elected candidates. — Maile (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even have ballot access and have been decertified so I'm not even sure duly elected is accurate in this case. If you think WP:NPOLITICIAN needs addressing, I'd be thrilled to have that discussion somewhere appropriate, but that doesn't make a case for Sherman but rather for further cleanup. StarMississippi10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ETA on GPA OSE: Cynthia McKinney was a six term House member, Jill Stein received extensive coverage outside of her campaign and then we have Jesse Ventura and Ralph Nader. (David Cobb may need discussion, it takes more of a look than a quick scan). Jasmine Sherman has not yet attained coverage the way any of these have. I know you know this, you've been here approximately forever. But I still don't see merit here. StarMississippi11:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2024 Green Party presidential primaries. The AK state party's previous candidates were also national candidates or otherwise notable outside this nomination. All coverage is about her participation in the primary, for which she got a whopping 72 votes, rather than substantively biographical. Reywas92Talk13:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable, as is clear from the media attention she has received. This is not based on a single event, as WP:BLP1E typically applies to biographies of living persons. It's crucial to note that Babydog is not a person, and sources have featured her over many years. Articles from the New York Times and other sources confirm this coverage. The subject is part of public discourse, meeting the standards outlined in GNG. This justifies keeping the article.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely passes WP:GNG. Not to mention that BLP1E doesn't apply to non-humans, and she has coverage from multiple events from 2021 to 2024. It doesn't even make sense to merge into the 2024 RNC page like the nominator suggests, as this article only has two sentences about her appearance at the RNC. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Mentioned above this dog is notable per the recent and previous domestic media coverage, but now is viral sensation on social media, and has international attention from News Outlets in, Australia, India and more. This article has already gone above and beyond with suitable sources from multiple places in print, TV and video, including previous articles well before the recent RNC event in 2024, such as the "Do it for Babydog" Vaccine Lottery in 2021. As stated above by others, I agree that it meets the basic criteria for general notability. RedatopiaM (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Babydog's relevancy is greater than her appearance at the RNC, and ought not to be merged with Justice's article due to her involvement in state-wide schemes like "Do it for Babydog". She meets notability similar to other dogs of significant public interest.
Keep - Should be closed as a speedy keep. Little merit in this discussion continuing for a week as there is a snowballs chance this ever turns about. Significant coverage in the NYT, Independent, and countless other perrenial sources giving full page articles to this dog in detail. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree. From news coverage starting in 2021, to national news coverage in 2022, with additional news coverage in 2023 and 2024, articles about Babydog herself have been rather prevalent. As a West Virginian as well, I think this fits the bill for coverage as an article (especially noting there are articles dedicated to other politicians who have appeared in fewer media stories), and believe this ends discussion on whether this article should be kept or not. Ocarina2020 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Justice and the Republican National Convention. I say this as a West Virginian, an animal lover, and an inclusionist who likes quirky subjects: even though there's a lot of coverage in major outlets, it's all trivial. Babydog hasn't done anything noteworthy, and is at best a minor, local celebrity whose national fame is likely to be fleeting. If it persists for a few years, then we would have a reason for an article, like we do with important memes. But it's too soon for that, and I suspect that Babydog will quickly vanish from the national spotlight, as Jim Justice won't be able to bring him onto the floor of the U.S. Senate every time he wants to make a silly point (assuming he wins—Jim Justice, I mean, not Babydog). I will overlook the possibility that the nominator's real name is "Catsprings", and that he or she is motivated by personal animus toward canine politicians... P Aculeius (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Babydog has coverage from 2021 to 2024, so I don't really see how "if it persists for a few years we would have reason for an article" makes sense considering her coverage has persisted for a few years. As an aside, I recognize that the comment about the nominator's username was probably a joke, but jokingly accusing a nominator of personal animus could be easily construed as casting WP:aspersions, so perhaps don't make those kinds of jokes in discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of Babydog prior to her appearance at the convention was plainly trivial—she appeared only in announcements or press appearances by Jim Justice, and nothing of her own, and has never been anything but a prop for Justice. She would be better covered under Jim Justice and/or the Republican National Convention. I don't think that anyone would construe my remark about "Catsprings" (not Casprings) nominating "Babydog" for deletion as a cast aspersion. You evidently knew it wasn't, and unless someone else believes it was, I would refrain from scolding editors for obviously humorous asides. P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Purr, purr. In the spirit of friendliness, I accept your apology and proffer my own for overreacting. I also present myself for a conciliatory stroking. P Aculeius (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Socks and "Obama's dog" (pretty sure that's not the title of the article) belonged to Presidents of the United States, not state governors. And they received fairly substantial and national coverage over periods of several years, not just passing mentions of their use as physical props when Presidents Clinton and Obama were grandstanding behind them. Socks received a lot of mail from children, which even became the source of a newsworthy book; and a nationwide search for a hypoallergenic pooch helps explain why "Obama's dog" got so much coverage, aside from belonging to the president's family.
If you want a more apt parallel involving a presidential pet, consider that we don't have articles on Lyndon Johnson's dogs, which gained attention solely because of the way he handled them, and not because of what they did; and we have an article about Nixon's Checkers speech, but not about Checkers, the dog (noting that Nixon was only vice president at the time, but due to the speech, Checkers is one of the most well-known pets that ever belonged to someone who became president). P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles cited on this page are either pages from PDA's own website or articles about its founder. I can't find anything much better on Google; most coverage of PDA is passing mentions of it, usually when PDA teams up with a bunch of other progressive groups to release a "__ progressive groups call for __"-type press release. Previously nominated for deletion 18 years ago; I think it's time to reassess. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTSTATS - not really clear what purpose this page is serving. It's a series of transclusions (mostly unsourced) from pre-existing results pages. Have read a few biographies of Hughes and as far as I'm aware no one has analysed his electoral record as a discrete "topic". ITBF💬17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems to be a reasonable approach to split-for-size. If there were only half-a-dozen election results, this would be appropriate content on Billy Hughes; with 25 election results it would be excessive. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Hughes was one of Australia's most notable politicians with a convoluted electoral history across multiple parties, parliaments, and electorates, it is handy to have the details set out clearly like this. I concur it would be excessive to put it in his bio page and makes more sense as a separate page. Axver (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.
See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record.TNstingray (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [2]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. There seems to be a lot of non-policy based arguments for deletion of articles based on their current state, regardless of their notability, which is really the only concern here. "Keep" arguments like the user is biased are exactly as meaningful as "delete" arguments like a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates: zero impact. Full length stories on this assassination plot are currently found at all tier 1 news sources including The New York Times, AP AP, Reuters, CNN, and a "live updates" sub-site at NBC News. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or merge per MVBW. It sounds like this is already mentioned in the background section of the Qasam article, so it could also just be Deleted. However, there is not enough prose to support a full article at this time. Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough content to support an article yet. The details are fairly vague at this point, even with the above sources. Reywas92Talk14:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.
In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.
If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.
That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSEsigned, Rosguilltalk12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyerT·C10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. There are no references much less GNG references on the subject of the article. The references are all on Pakistan politics in general, not on the subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2022 Azadi March II It seems WP:BEFORE wasn't followed as there is already coverage of it such as this and this. However, it seems unnecessary for this topic to have its own standalone article. Therefore, the recommendation would be to merge the content and redirect it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet another WP:NOTNEWS article created about Biden's cognitive wellbeing through WP:RECENTISM. A press conference, no matter how few he has held, is a WP:ROTM event that will not pass the WP:10YT. Not every thing that is said or done needs to be documented on Wikipedia, let alone receive its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. If sources eventually indicate that this was historically significant to the presidential campaign, then we can describe it in the article on the presidential campaign. As it is, it's a pile of news-cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Washington summit and add section As most of the point of the press conference was it was a part of said summit and other leader comments should be added as appropriate, but this needs a shorter summarization. Nate•(chatter)16:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonder how many press conferences there have been in history. Did we declare war or did Nixon resign again? OK with a section in 2024 Washington Summit if it focuses on the summit, or the presidential campaign if it stays in the news. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we need an article on President's Trump statement about COVID, bleach, and UV light because the exact details are being confused by various external articles, social media posts, and so on. There is a midpoint between two polar opposite views on the strange statement. Starlighsky (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a solo press conference that connects to earlier historical events where a U.S. president had made mistakes as well as the issue of presidents who did not run for the next term, which has happened twice so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 17:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 Washington summit as others have said. The press conference is one of the biggest headlines out of the Summit, so a mention is warranted there, but as it currently stands there doesn't seem to be enough for a standalone article. If this particular press conference eventually seems to have a significant effect on Biden's campaign/the upcoming election, then a separate article could be warranted, similar to Dean scream. Sewageboy (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article about the press conference isn't really about the content of the conference but about Biden's health. The NATO summit is its own topic, notable for reasons unrelated to Biden. A very brief mention might be appropriate, but the bulk of this article clearly doesn't belong there. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Merge whatever you want, but people need to stop making separate pages for every thing that happens in the news. Reywas92Talk14:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable event. One out of many press conferences given by the President; had he not flubbed so much during the debate with Trump, this wouldn't even be talked aobut. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: editors are divided between Delete and Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article needs to go for two reasons:
(1) The article's subject (i.e., threefourtwo foreign trips), is not independently notable. Foreign trips are an absolutely routine matter for ministers, prime ministers, presidents and other heads of state. Since Orbán undertook those trips as the prime minister of Hungary, they can of course be mentioned in Fifth Orbán Government or similar.
(2) The article's topic is overly vague. Article was created four days ago under the undoubtedly POV title, "2024 peace missions by Viktor Orbán", focusing on Orbán's three foreign trips: to Ukraine, Russia, and China. Then yesterday, his fourth trip, to the US, was added.[3]. After the article, and in particular its title, was challenged via PROD,[4] the US and Ukraine trips were removed and article renamed to its current title. This even further reduced not just notability but even WP:SIGNIFICANCE of these WP:RECENT events.
Overall, I see no reason for Wikipedia to have a separate article on Orban's two foreigns trips, which will be all barely remembered in a year from now.
Keep: It's at least 20 sources, with an extensive analysis for each point made, I'm not sure what else you could want at this point. It meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was clear: it's not notable for a standalone article. See, for every news event, you'll have dozens of sources. For every speech of a US president, you'll have possibly hundreds of rolling news reports. But this doesn't mean that each speech should receive a standalone Wikipedia article. Same concern here: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. — kashmīrīTALK00:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a broader article covering the Fifth Orbán Government or Viktor Orbán's diplomacy. The article covers the trips in some detail. Yet, they do not appear to meet the threshold for standalone notability due to their routine nature as part of a head of state's duties. Adding this info to a broader context will keep the relevant historical record. Yet, it will avoid giving too much weight to events that may not last. This approach will also streamline related content. It will strengthen the details of Viktor Orbán's political movements. It will also make the new article more complete.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Many of the sources in the article do treat the three visits as one cohesive topic, but for now, we have no knowledge of what lasting significance these visits may have. I cannot find any real effects that have come of these meetings except reactions from various countries, but that does not constitute stand alone notability in my mind. Instead, this can adaquetely be covered in an article like the Fifth Orbán Government. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:NEVENT. It's hard to think how a single state visit by a political leader could be notable given that anything of significance in a visit would be an event (or events) *during* the visit, not the visit per se. For the visit to be notable it would need to rise to the level of something like the 1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Indeed, these two visits were subjected to an almost unprecedented spotlight, especially his visit to Moscow, and recently even the European Parliament condemned it! It can be kept now and wait. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sources indicate the visits received "almost unprecedented" coverage? There needs to be sourcing that indicates why the trips in and of themselves are notable separate from the long-standing policies reaffirmed by Orbán on the trips. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the visits were a subject to significant media coverage, enough to justify a standalone article. It also has 25 reliable and verifiable sources. Overall I fail to see how it would fail WP:NOTABILITY.
In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per above, I think we can re-scope this into a list with a table and sources. Agreed that the First International congresses should be described as precursors rather than anarchist congresses. If the list doesn't shape into anything coherent, I think we can revisit deletion. czar02:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the Google Scholar results Loki has linked to, I could not find any detailed discussion of the Burr dilemma. Many of the articles do not use the phrase "Burr dilemma" and seem to be included in the search solely because they include Jack Nagal's paper in their list of references. Mgp28 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please identify an existing target article when proposing a Merge or Redirect or your argument will be pretty much dismissed as it can't be realized. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I checked through the first dozen articles listed as citing the relevant study [5], and about half of those contain a statement of the type "Nagel (2007) refers to this as the Burr dilemma" or "Nagel offers a critique of this type of voting by [minimal summary]". That is not exactly grand notability but I think it suffices to show a certain amount of uptake and acknowledgement in the field. A merge would certainly work as well though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, if you are seeking a Merge, you have to identify an existing target article. It's not the job of a closer to make a judgment of which article is most suitable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are additional citations, yes, but they're very limited (the link above only has 25 results, of which 2 are the main academic articles, and include other irrelevant topics), and don't provide any additional secondary discussion of the original articles. It's basically a non-notable neologism. SportingFlyerT·C10:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if this is mentioned in another article, either. It doesn't necessarily need to be a merge. But it shouldn't be a stand-alone. SportingFlyerT·C10:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as basically something thought up by one author. The development of that into an article with wholly uncited 'History' and 'Solutions', tied together into a story with pure WP:SYNTH, is simply WP:OR. The 'Solutions' in particular would remain as OR even if its components are cited, because their assemblage as solutions to this particular problem will remain completely in the mind of the synthesising editor. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is little to indicate that this one-time 2024 event has notability. There is a lot of sourcing but little of it is reliable. Of the few RS that are cited, they make off-hand one-sentence mentions of this event or they explain the insignificance of the event. thena (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the cited sources may have a pro-Russia slant, but it also cites some directly critical sources under "criticism" and just looking it up on google I also found this bit of sigcov from a more generally anti-Western Turkish source; ONEEVENT is certainly a concern but it is also possible the sources required are simply spread out over many different languages that we only need more time and input to compile. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple sources available which indicates that it meets WP:GNG. The only issue with the article is WP:Toosoon but this will not affect the article because it is a multinational inter-party movement and it is not likely to die down soon, will rather gather more momentum. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think this event is sufficiently notable. It may be a little early to judge ref WP:SUSTAINED but, @Amigao it’s import to pay due regard to WP:NTEMP. I agree with @Thena and @Orchastrattor that the references are poor and fall short of the standard described by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. I’ve done some cursory research and there are some western perspectives available that could compliment the pro-Russian sources currently in the article. (NB - Orchastrattor is being generous when they say. ‘May have’)
Absolutely tendentious rationale, just about every worthwhile article I've ever seen on AFC has come from a brand-new account or an IP. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge with War on terror. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now I don't see any consensus for any outcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not having enough sources isn't a good reason to delete a page of an organization, especially since it attempted a coup against the DRC Government. If people want to learn about said coup they would also like to learn about the organization that did it, deleting this would not be helpful. Eehuiio (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above, but only secondarily sourced prose and perhaps the image. The primary sourced prose seems OR, the infobox is entirely unhelpful, and the secondary sources while noting the topic do not show independent notability. The next step up to merge to is United Congolese Party. In the case this also shares similar notability issues, that could all be merged to Christian Malanga, but that may be a separate discussion. CMD (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If you are arguing for a Merge or a Redirect, please provide a link to the target article you are proposing so that editors don't have to go searching for it. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete. It meets all notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F1A4:4A00:1102:5373:5075:6C13 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe the sources establish notability, please mention specific sources you believe achieve this. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Repurpose Dratify EDIT: vote changed since one source shows potential, see below;/ @Flyingphoenixchips, moving the discussion here in the appropriate discussion channel. The movement for an independent Assam might pass WP:GNG and be worth an article. However, it should be an article about the movement, not a proposed state- and it needs to be supported by sources that talk about "Swadhin Axom" as an idea specifically rather than as an alternative name for Assam used by those who want independence. If you believe there are many sources in Google, then WP:DOIT and fix this article. We don't do original research on wikipedia. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In no way was the article I have written am original research. Additionally many such articles on proposed states exist, and a separate category in wikipedia exists as well. Will those pages be deleted or just this, since its against a particular POV Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swadhin Axom was never used as an alternate name for assam. Swadhin means Independent and the proposed independent state is just refered to as Assam or Axom- both are the same literals. Swadhin axom is used by academics to describe this proposed state. Ref: Prafulla Mohonto, Proposal for Independence. Would suggest you to read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To maintain neutrality, would suggest editing existing articles based on your arguments, using credible sources, instead of plain WP:I just don't like it. Wikipedia should never become a battleground of political ideologues. If you read the article its neutral, you can add additional pointers in the article, if you have sources for the same. Thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me baselessly of just not liking it.
You mentioned a google search, another wikipedia article and its sources on the Talk page- that's not enough when the question is whether "Swadhin Axom" as a concept should be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Assam. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is not about giving equal weight to every political opinion. It also doesn't say that we should have a different article for every political way of looking at something.
Sources and GNG
Now let's look at the actual sources in this article:
Source 1 - Ivy Dhar has extensive discussion of the idea of Swadhin Axom, specifically in relation to the ULFA and nationalism
Source 2 - Nipon Haloi only mentions it once
Source 3 - Dutta & Laisram only mention it once
Source 4 - Udayon Misra only mentions it once
Source 5 - Not only does Santana Khanikar only mention it once (outside of the glossary), she proceeds to call the proto-state as simply the ULFA instead of Swadhin Axom.
Source 6 - Swadhin Axom is only mentioned as part of the title of a speech
Source 7 - Does not mention it
Source 8, 9 and 10 - Does not mention it- all about the 1970s Assam Movement
Source 11 - Does not mention it
Source 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 - Does not mention it, not even in the entire book of Source 17. These are all about the 1970s Assam Movement
Source 18 - cannot access myself but also looks like a book entirely about the Assam Movement
Source 19, 20, 21, 22 - Does not mention it
etc. etc.
Now, I couldn't keep going through the remaining 40+ sources but this is only to highlight one issue: the article doesn't really meet WP:GNG standards. Not every sources need to meet WP:GNG, but there should be at least one to establish that the article is notable. Source 1 is a good source for this article, and there may be more in the 40+ citations I couldn't get to.
However, I would still delete this article and draftify it (I changed my vote) because:
WP:V - Verifiability
Just from the first 20, I suspect a lot of these sources were thrown on there because they came up in the Google Scholar search for "Swadhin Axom". Wikipedia requires that the content be verified based on the content of the sources. We don't do original research by giving our own analysis of the source.
For specific example, let's take the sentence "Figures like Bishnu Prasad Rabha, a multifaceted artist and social reformer, Tarun Ram Phukan, a prominent political leader, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, a key figure in the Assam Movement and a former Chief Minister of Assam, have played crucial roles in advancing the cause of Swadhin Axom" It's supported by Sources 14-18. If you will recall from my list above, these are all about the 1970s Assam Movement that don't mention the idea of Swadhin Axom. If Swadhin Axom is really not just a local name for the English phrase 'independent Assam', then you would need a source to connect Swadhin Axom and the Assam Movement, instead of providing the original analysis that the Assam Movement was an important part of the Swadhin Axom proposed state.
I will reiterate that I think that the article Assamese nationalism would make more sense for the sources you are using. If the article is just about providing more WP:NPOV perspectives about Assam- those should go in the Assam article. If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state. From what I see, it might be better focused on the ULFA explicitly, their governing structures etc. In its current state, this article is not fit for mainspace. And it's not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your careful work in checking all the sources. But I am not convinced that the single source (Ivy Dhar) that you mention can save the article. First of all, the source is a Master's thesis, which is normally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Secondly, it is only a small section (4.04) that discusses the concept, and it does so in the context of Assamese nationalism and most of the section deals with ULFA, both of which already have their own pages on Wikipedia. I don't agree that this source establishes "Swadhin Axom" as an independent topic that merits its own page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- I'm saying that it can be draftified and potentially reworked into an article actually about the specific idea- based on assuming good faith that maybe one of the 40 sources I didnt check have something useful. Not particularly opposed to deletion, and if there are no other sources this should be a section of Assamese nationalism as you propose.
A master's thesis is a reliable source- the policy you link to cautions against blimdly accepting since many theses do original research and are therefore sometime primary sources. But that's not the case here where the author is describing existing sentiment, not coming up the idea of Swadhin Axom outright. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me have a look a this article again, and try finding secondary articles on the idea. However i don't feel this should be merged with the ULFA page as its solely not connected to ulfa, and is something like Dravida NaduFlyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree, since the idea of "Swadhin Axom" (Independent Assam) deserves nuanced understanding and should not be exclusively linked to the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA). While ULFA has prominently championed this cause of an independent Assam through armed struggle, the concept of Swadhin Axom encompasses a broader spectrum of historical, cultural, and socio-political aspirations that predate and extend beyond ULFA's formation. Also both Axom and Asom are used, you will find articles using both the terms.
Pre-ULFA Aspirations: The desire for a distinct Assamese identity and autonomy can be traced back to the colonial and pre-colonial eras. Movements and sentiments advocating for Assam's self-determination existed well before ULFA's establishment in 1979 (Guha, 1991, 56). Cultural and Ethnic Diversity: The idea of Swadhin Axom also reflects the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of the region. It includes the voices of various indigenous communities who have sought to preserve their unique identities and heritage (Baruah, 2005, 112).
Political Autonomy Movements: Throughout Assam's history, various groups and political entities have called for greater autonomy and recognition of Assam's distinct status within India. These movements have often been peaceful and democratic, emphasizing dialogue over armed conflict (Misra, 2012, 143).
Both of the 3 papers are important sources
Therefore, I propose renaming the Wikipedia article to "Proposal for Swadhin Axom" instead, because it is of relevance to the geopolitics concerning greater southeast asia as well
Ref:
Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Dutta, Anuradha. Assam and the Northeast: Development and Conflict. Guwahati: Eastern Book House, 2010.
Goswami, Priyadarshini. Ethnicity, Insurgency and Identity in Northeast India. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2001.
Guha, Amalendu. Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research, 1991.
Misra, Udayon. The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-State in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2012.
@Kautilya3and @Walsh90210 @EmeraldRange Hey also wanted to point out 3 volumes of books that looked into this topic. Swadhinataar Prostab & Economics of Swadhin Axom. I feel these sources
You mentioned the following:
" If this article is supposed to be about a proposed state it needs to show that the proposed state is a proposed state."
I was only looking at english sources, and there is a lack of literature when it comes to Northeast India.
I am offering a brief translation below from assamese :
However, the proposal or demand for independence is not limited to generations. After the Greco-Roman period, proposals for independence were raised. Buli commented that Tetia's memory is still alive today due to Dr. Mishra's agitation in the Indian freedom struggle. But that freedom was not real freedom, many people raised the issue of muklikoi quora during this period.
Teon Koy, 1947 The freedom that was gained in Chant country was not real freedom. That freedom was in political freedom. Without social freedom, there will be total freedom. Therefore, many of those freedoms are not complete freedom, many of them were promoting social equality and elimination of discrimination in order to achieve complete freedom.
The disillusionment was largely disillusioned with the passage of time after independence. All those who hoped for independence were disappointed. During the 60s and 70s, the common people were angry about the socio-economic inequality. About which the movement was started. Protests were held by university and college students. Around that time revolutions were starting in different countries of the world. Apart from political freedom, social freedom, social and economic discrimination, women's freedom was also raised.
This movement started in Europe and reached America. The Vietnam war was forced to end on the basis of this protest. In the next period, the black people's movement was influenced by this movement, which was the global judge. Kakat also made posters on this topic in Indian schools, and propagated about this movement through discussion.
Dr. Mishra thought that period of 60-70s was the golden age. Because there was a lot of hope in this demand or movement at that time. The literary majesty of that time was influenced by this movement. A new curriculum was being prepared with the support of intellectuals, college teachers and others who supported the movement to raise the demand for curriculum change. Slogans were being written for the liberation of poor women.
ofc the two books would be the primary source for this article, and there are several sources - secondary analysis done on these books which can be taken as the secondary supporting sourcesFlyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that "Swadhin Asom" (there is a misspelling) literally means Independent Assam, and this should be the article instead, an article that describes the motives for an independent Assam. as there are many different sources that describe this movement as a whole. — Karnataka09:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon review, I don't think the sources in the article necessarily support an article on this specific topic - it does not mean that there should not be coverage of those wanting independence in Assam, but this appears to be possibly about a geographical region and the sources do not support that. WP:NOTESSAY also applies. Drafitfying is fine, but I'm not sure there's a clear topic here after a BEFORE search. SportingFlyerT·C12:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Assam separatist movements or United Liberation Front of Asom. These appear to be the appropriate places for discussion of the causes for an independence movement and related activism, but there doesn't need to be a separate page for the proposed state like this. Flyingphoenixchips's sources and some of this article's content belong in those articles.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A fuller deletion rationale is preferred rather than a brief reference to a general policy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modifications As others pointed out too, the topic is not suitable for just under ULFA or Assam separatist movement, and I had pointed out to two books whole volumes that talk about this topic. Modifications can always be made to this article itself. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: It's likely there's an article here, but the article in its current form seems more aspirational than factual. There are geographic and social issues here not easily resolved. I'm also okay with a merge, possibly to Assam separatist movements. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Endorsing politicians, and speaking on TV can make you appear on the news but the coverage may be your statements and quotes; same issue here. I want a community consensus on this. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!01:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello safari, this man here is a notable man being discussed in schools and very popular. for some reason, he has no social media presence. 70% OF the articles i cited are all on the WP:NGRA. there are far less personalities who worked under this man such as Theodore Orji , Orji Uzor Kalu and many more who have wikipedia articles. and as a young 19 year old girl studying history i ran into this mans story in a book called "Ibeku in igbo History", which i am not sure i can cite on the internet because it's an ancient cultural hard copy book.
If you want this book i can scan it to your email. the book is uploaded on scribd.com by someone and in it, this man was mentioned, but i'm not sure if i can cite that since its a Scribd upload done in 2020 or so.
Some articles i cited also spoke about him as a person and every person growing up here in eastern region of Nigeria knew BB Apugo. You can do more research yourself on this person to see i have put in the work before submitting to wiki and my goal in wiki is not bringing people with huge online presence, but working as hard as possible to include articles that are known about in real life but not spoken about on the internet with every possible info i have.
I will continue to cite more sources and keep working to make sure i include more info and I am sure other people will to by the time they see the article on him. Yinka Williams (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated (diff) by 173.175.200.238 for the following reason: Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed. In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. I have no opinion of my own at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close. With respect to WP:NPOL the fact that he did serve is backed up by reliable (yet primary) sources in the article. With respect to the other reason the subject is known, I'll give the best[a]WP:THREE so far:
Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today,[b] there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.
Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."
^While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.
Non-notable local official. His city council position doesn't satisfy NPOL and he doesn't seem to meet GNG otherwise. Of the 6 sources cited on the page: one is his page on a database of registered lawyers, one is the Ohio Birth Index, one is his resume, one is his campaign website, and one is his bio on the city of Glendale's official website; the only actual news article cited is a WP:ROTM article about an election he ran in. I can't really find anything better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely WP:GNG. (And a little worried that there has been insufficient WP:BEFORE, possibly because there is also a Los Angeles Times sports writer with the same name, so it generates a ton of irrelevant coverage if you don't use additional search parameters.) Najarian has been vocal about advocating Armenian-American issues – Glendale has one of the largest Armenian communities outside Armenia (and this Los Angeles Times article where he is quoted is just the tip of the iceberg) – and an initial 15-minute search yielded coverage of his meetings with the prime minister of Armenia, and he is also frequently covered in the Armenian-American community press extending beyond Glendale. It will take a long time to sort through all the coverage to identify the "best 3", but this is more a case of having to spend time to search, sort, assess and improve, rather than agonizing that this four-time mayor and councilmember of Glendale has been completely ignored by the media outside of Glendale.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every local official is automatically notable. IT's absolutely worth pointing out that he's received no coverage outside of Glendale. His meeting with the president of Armenia helps, but it doesn't automatically entitle him to a Wikipedia page (even if this meeting was extremely notable, which doesn't seem to be the case, it still wouldn't make Najarian himself notable, per WP:1E). Him being "mentioned" in an LA Times article is also not especially convincing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly WP:1E if his official visits to Armenia were covered in both 2010 and 2018. Anyway in future I would recommend trying search engines other than Google. A quick Google search will tell you it doesn't function very well anymore as a search engine. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that it was in-depth, I said that it was more in-depth than mentions. I'm not sure whether he's notable or not, because I haven't really looked much. That's why I didn't write "keep". toweli (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local official and U.S. Senate candidate. All sources cited on the page are WP:ROTM coverage of his mayorship and Senate campaign. No real in-depth coverage of him as a person, and no indication that either his campaign or mayoral administration were considered especially notable by media outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created on July 13 2024, enough time has not passed to allow for adequate information including references to be added. Lombardb21 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As the mayor of one of the largest cities in his state, Elliott is a notable offical. There is a high amount of coverage dating back to several years. The Senate race page does not mention much of the information in this article, so a redirect would not really benefit anyone. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refrain from suggesting that other contributors have not read the relevant policies. There is no policy stating how large the population of a city must be for its mayor to be notable, and there are other factors here, because the subject is a major party nominee for national office—not, as you suggest below, the state legislature. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as mayor of Wheeling and the Democratic Party's nominee for U.S. Senate in 2024. There certainly will be substantial coverage of him in news sources, both during his two terms as mayor, and since declaring his candidacy for the Senate. A redirect to an article on the 2024 Senate election would only be appropriate for minor party candidates, or those who were defeated in the primary elections. The suggestion to redirect his article to the West Virginia Senate should be withdrawn; he is not a candidate for the state legislature, but the United States Senate. P Aculeius (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOL, which states that "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." I heavily disagree that Elliott is guaranteed to receive in-depth national coverage, and even if that were true, it still wouldn't be a valid argument--we can't maintain a Wikipedia page on the basis that the subject might eventually become notable. Also, it should have been obvious that "the WV Senate page" meant the page for the 2024 Senate race in WV. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA before you tell people that they need to read policies they're already familiar with—as you've already done twice in this conversation. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for disagreeing with you besides pure ignorance. And it's not at all obvious that you knew what you were talking about, since "the WV Senate page" presumably refers to the page about the West Virginia Senate.
U.S. Senate races are not "run of the mill" items of no interest to most readers; that suggestion is not worthy of rebuttal. And I wasn't referring to potential future coverage, but to current and prior coverage. Mayors of major cities in a state and U.S. Senate races tend to generate a fair amount of news coverage; your nomination suggests that you haven't looked beyond the currently cited sources, which would mean that the nomination doesn't comply with WP:BEFORE.
You seem to be under the impression that only national news sources are relevant, while the Wheeling Intelligencer is not; but that is one of the main newspapers in the state, and in excluding its coverage from consideration, you're the one applying non-existent standards to reach a conclusion of non-notability. The notability guidelines expressly state that state and local politicians may be notable; they do not say that their notability depends on the existence or quantity of nationwide coverage. P Aculeius (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say that "any mayor of a small city is automatically notable"; I said that "this two-term mayor of one of West Virginia's largest cities who is now the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate is sufficiently notable to keep." Please don't speak for me or, for that matter, for other editors—let them express their own opinions.
This article is not comparable to "Manny Cid", who is only one of eight candidates running for mayor of Miami-Dade County, having previously served as mayor of the unincorporated town of Miami Lakes, the 89th largest city in Florida, which has a council-manager government. There as here, the argument that local news coverage cannot be used to establish notability was made, and refuted. Why it's being asserted again here defies all reason. Some of those who voted to merge that article into the 2024 mayoral election for Miami-Dade County indicated that he would be sufficiently notable if he won—and became mayor.
It is more comparable to the example of Tim Sheehy, but with key differences: Sheehy is the operator of a small company in Montana that fights fires with planes and drones, not the two-term mayor of one of Montana's largest cities. The main contributor to the article had a close connection with the subject, while the second-biggest contributor concurred with redirection. Glenn Elliott has news coverage dating back to 2016 already cited in this article. P Aculeius (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: I don't know where you got this idea that a mayor of a small city is automatically notable if that city happens to be located in a small state. That just doesn't make any sense. The Hill article you cited is WP:ROTM coverage, while the AP article is a little better but not proof of notability. Also, U.S. Senate nominees are not automatically notable; again, you are depicting your personal interpretation of the rules as fact. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hung Cao (2nd nomination), where numerous editors used "U.S. Senate nominees are not automatically notable" as their reasons for favoring deletion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat—stop putting words in people's mouths. Nobody in this discussion has said either of the things that you keep repeating ad nauseam. I didn't cite any articles either, so stop telling me that what I didn't say can be ignored for reasons A, B, and C. You also shouldn't be relying on WP:ROTM as though it were policy; it's only an essay. And this race has significant national implications, since its outcome will help determine whether the Republican Party is able to gain control of the U.S. Senate. The coverage is not, "person nobody's ever heard of announces candidacy," but "prominent national figure endorses candidate for his successor; control of U.S. Senate hangs in balance". So this is far from "run of the mill", even if that were a policy—which it's not.
You should learn to respect other people whose opinions on how policies apply to a set of facts differ from yours, and to accept that yours isn't the only valid point of view. If other people disagree, it doesn't mean that you need to keep bludgeoning them with the same arguments over and over, as though you can negate someone's opinion by explaining that they're wrong and just don't understand the rules as well as you do. P Aculeius (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: You're making an argument that the Senate race is notable, not an argument that Elliott is notable. Every Senate election in history fits the definition of "will help determine whether the Republican Party is able to gain control of the U.S. Senate." Have Elliott or his campaign received extensive, in-depth coverage? If he loses, will people still be searching for him in 10 years? Your uncivil, angry tone isn't helping your argument. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, just stop—I already said I considered the facts sufficient to satisfy notability, I explained why when you argued I was wrong, and I replied to your arguments when you insisted I was wrong to continue to disagree with you. You're just not listening: you can't negate people's opinions by telling them why you think they're wrong over and over. Stop telling people they need to read the policy, stop putting words in their mouths, stop filling the discussion with straw men, and stop pinging people every time you reply, as though nobody can be expected to check on a discussion they're participating in. I gave my reasons, and I don't need to keep doing it over and over and argue with every reply you keep adding without anything changing. P Aculeius (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and activist is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSEsigned, Rosguilltalk12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyerT·C10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he changed his name [13] and he's done things people don't like, [14], but nothing notable found. Local coverage of the mayor only. I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TejalGraphics The point is that he contested but didn’t win. Politicians aren’t presumptively notable by virtue of their candidacy in an election. They have to, at least, win the notable position they contested for. If they don’t win and they pass the general notability guideline, then that’s a different case. Neither is the case for Danga. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and farmer leader is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. There is no in-depth significant achievement notable. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bussing isn’t presumptively notable as a politician WP:NPOL. Mayors from Compton shouldn’t be presumptively notable by virtue of their positions, they have to pass other criteria. Bussing also fails WP:NPOL since he didn’t get elected for HoR. Also fails WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Errol Musk is not in any way notable independent of his relation to Elon Musk. He ran for public office, but was never elected, but was only elected once to a local city council, he was an engineer, but didn't do anything of note. There is nothing about him is notable other than that he was the father of Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He ran for public office, but was never elected That's actually not correct, he was elected in '72 and served until the 80s. His 1983 resignation was front page news. Feoffer (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well he wasn't "just any" councilman, he was a vocally anti-apartheid English-speaking South African politician in 1972 Pretoria! Per Isaacson and many others, that's actually a really big deal in his time and place, but damned if I can find really good English-language sourcing which actually deep-dives into that part of his life story. Feoffer (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a wikipedia page on even the contents of that 1972 city council? Did that 1972 city council do anything of note? Ergzay (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Errol Musk does not meet the notability guidelines despite his connection with Elon Musk. His career achievements and political work are not notable on their own. His main claim to fame is that he is the father of Elon Musk. It's crucial to adhere to WP:BLP, and keeping a separate article about only Musk's family does not meet these standards.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's like when we do "Death of so-and-so" for notable deaths. It's a reminder to readers that the current article doesn't (yet) cover Errol's political career in the depth required of a true BLP. Feoffer (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A familial relationships article for Elon Musk would be more sane, in which case Errol Musk could be mentioned there, though I'd think it should still be just part of the Elon Musk article. Ergzay (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's an excellent point. I definitely think of it as a Elon sub-article: we don't need to litigate emerald mines and spousal abuse and false claims of funding or abandonment on Elon's literal BLP. Feoffer (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Elon sub-article". If it's not valuable enough to put on the page on Elon Musk then it's probably not valuable enough to put on any page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure on this last point, but I think "biography of living persons" policies apply even if it's a spin-off of the main article. That's not a loophole of the rule. Ergzay (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
BLP absolutely applies to ALL articles, I just meant we shouldn't be covering a notable abuser on one of their victim's biographical articles. Feoffer (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. GNG is met, he's been covered extensively in the press and in-depth in at least two different books. Ultimately, it's not fair to Maye Musk or Elon Musk to document Errol's extensive controversial public behavior on those articles, but neither is it fair to them for us simply to delete that verified information from the project. I haven't found fulltext access, but Afrikaans newspaper archive searches and the Isaacson book show Errol was a VERY notable person during his political career, long before Elon was an adult. Errol has a second claim to notability for his allegedly abusive relationships with Maye and Elon. Finally, Errol again became controversial for a marriage to a former stepdaughter (cf Soon-Yi Previn). Feoffer (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this was notable, having it as a "familial relationships of" article makes 0 sense when it is basically a biography of him (focusing on his relationships because that's all the sources talk about!)
The only thing here that's not directly related to, or from publications about, Elon or his ex wife is the "having a child with his stepdaughter" thing which is not enough to have an article on PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your words carry lots of weight with me. Are you saying we should just move this content into a BLP titled Errol Musk? And if not, do you have an opinion on where we SHOULD cover what is known about Errol? We've got4differentBLPs from folks reliably alleging abuse at Errol's hands. I know @Ergzay: expressed a preference for covering it at Elon's BLP, but it seems unfair to me to single out one victim like that, when it's a multidecade pattern of abuse that pre- and post- dated Elons interactions. Errol's later promotion of conspiracy theories and admission of fathering multiple children with a stepchild obviously lend credence to their prior allegations. Feoffer (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if there's to be something here, it should be a BLP. The content in this article is basically a BLP already. I believe there was already an AfD for the initial Errol Musk article though.
An alternative could be some sort of... Musk family article? I mean, his family's certainly discussed and he's certainly not the only notable member. Singling out his dad, who does not have his own article, for an article to be based around, doesn't make much sense. But if it's notable as part of his whole family then maybe, idk.
I'm not sure if either of these ideas are good, though, or if either is notable. Your point about his political career making him notable is a possibility but until sigcov related to that is presented the jury's still out. Not impossible though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this feedback.
I probably should have said somewhere that this article was created to hold content removed in Musk family (which was deleted on June 1) which had been merged from Errol Musk (merged into Musk Family in Sept 2023). I concur that a full BLP should wait for the South African source, but in the mean time, the victims really do deserve for it to be SOMEWHERE in Wikipedia.(/?) Feoffer (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol fair enough, I'm not on a crusade. but it's still verifiable content with exculpatory BLP implications for Elon and Maye. Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this content may belong somewhere on Wikipedia, but the current article is too flawed to stand. If it is really about "familial relationships", why does it discuss his business career, his election to city council and his game lodge? Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system? Astaire (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone care that Errol claimed that Elon upgraded his home security system?
Because it contradicts the false claims in media (sourced to Errol) of Elon's supposed abandonment of a disabled parent. Feoffer (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any answer to your question about "why should anyone care" would be OR to put in article unless it was explicitly noted in RS. Feoffer (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Weird article. Creator claims that there is more coverage of him out there, so I don't think a full delete is warranted. Either way, the article is not ready for mainspace. If the consensus ends up being to delete, that would be fine by me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete I'm the one who submitted this, but I'm fine with either option. It doesn't make sense to have it as an article though. I'm not sure what moving it to a Draft could fix though. Ergzay (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret draftify calls as me having jumped the gun by publishing it in mainspace before we got access to the sources on political career needed to make a full balanced BLP. I get it's an unorthodox title, but it's also a little bit of a blpvio to not document Errol's verifiably-checkered past somewhere, given his public attacks on family. I don't feel good about stuffing it all into the BLP of one of his victims. Feoffer (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The title is probably the biggest problem. Having an articles about the familial relationships of someone without having an article on the person themselves is a bit ridiculous. But there's lots of other issues beyond that, even if the page was moved, like the noteworthiness of the man himself and of anything he thinks beyond it's relation to Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Errol Musk - Numerous sources discuss his own life, so that his bio would easily pass GNG. Surely his son's fame directed attention to him, just like Maye Musk, Kimbal Musk and Tosca Musk; we've got plenty of coverage for those individuals as well, who arguably wouldn't be notably featured in the press if Elon's life hadn't attracted so much scrutiny. Ironic that notability is not inherited, though in this case the hyper-notability of one person did engender notability of various family members... — JFGtalk10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as the article stands it would warrant deletion, but I think the issue is article worthy in the wake of his debate performance. This is the most embattled a (presumptive) nominee has been since the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape incident in 2016, which has its own article not to mention that Biden has been dogged with questions about his cognition since even before he ran in 2020 and up until recently was dismissed as bad faith attacks by his opponents. In the last week, that is no longer the case.
Comment - Is this article going to have any staying power? If anything else develops on the subject, perhaps more can be added. I support Draftify at this point until/if more can be cohesively developed on this subject. BarntToust (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think life (events) will quickly develop this article. Unless Biden resigns, the days and months will roll on and every health incident will be scrutinized. When he resigns, health problems will be the reason for his resignation – an important event and also a detailed analysis. There is no need to rush into deleting the article. Then we will need to restore. Wikipek (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creation was a bit hasty and puts us in news territory, which is not great, but if GnocchiFan keeps adding 1-2kB a day it will be hard to justify deletion(they're the one who created it). The Trump matter needs its own discussion, it's an old one and tit-for-tat is a bad look. Trump doesn't have the media jumping on him for this, and he didn't stand gerbil-eyed with his mouth agape at the recent debate. [17]SmolBrane (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmolBrane: The significance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump is not with respect to the tit-for-tat issue, but with respect to the specific points of discussion raised there that are applicable to this discussion, specifically the assertion made in that discussion that we should not have any freestanding articles on the health of current public figures, and that Wikipedia should follow the Goldwater Rule prohibiting medical professionals from commenting on the health of public figures who they have not personally examined. A great many participants in that discussion supported imposing such a rule, which would obviously vitiate inclusion of comparable medical opinions about Biden absent personal examination. I opposed the imposition of that rule in the Trump discussion, and would oppose it here equally. We are in an historic moment of having two octogenarian presidential candidates, and the Trump article, at the time of its deletion, had dozens of high-level sources commenting on issues with regard to Trump's health, so it is a fair bellwether for the admissibility of the Biden article. BD2412T18:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply uncomfortable turning this AfD into a discussion about that other guy's AfD. WP:WAX applies and I'm not convinced the situation with Biden is adequately symmetrical for Health of Donald Trump !votes here. Once this discussion closes we could have a similar one regarding Trump imo. Note that Biden wasn't mentioned once on the Trump AfD. Regards SmolBrane (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmolBrane: The shared underlying questions remain open, however. 1) Should Wikipedia have articles on the "health" of living public figures at all? 2) Should Wikipedia be bound by the Goldwater Rule, which prohibits reporting opinions on the heath of individuals by persons who have not conducted an examination of those individuals? BD2412T02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The irony being--the Goldwater Rule article on this wiki allocates its largest section to a particular former American president(and no one else), observed by someone on the talk page as essentially a coat rack. The goldwater discussion should occur elsewhere if it's going to be a policy. This is headed for a speedy close. SmolBrane (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the insistence that it be improved to the point of being brought in line with the encyclopedic nature and aims of Wikipedia. I was a proponent of the creation of this article, but it really was launched too quickly and improperly. As I said on the talk page for Mr Biden's campaign, it's good if it enables us to analyze his health and its implications quickly and in real time, in a way that wasn't possible in the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the highly consequential nature of his health, but it can't be treated as a joking matter. At the very least, better must be done for a leading image than to employ a picture of Mr. Biden standing before his lit eighty-first-birthday cake. 216.255.100.62 (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's representative of a strategy from the administration and campaign - treat the age issue with humor. We aren't saying it's funny or not funny, it's just emblematic of part of their strategy and consequently part of the page. Maybe not first image, though. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is part of a research project, not a marketing campaign.
I will move this image further down to the part of the article which refers to the White House response (I think the joke birthday is relevant there). Feel free to choose another image for the lead and add some further detail if you see fit. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rubbish at image procurement and insertion. Anyway, wouldn't the thing to do for an article like this normally be to use a picture of him that would normally be used otherwise, his official portrait or a picture of him stumping, or something of the like? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, it really looks like we're are playing politics in favor of other candidate. However, after making the article more neutral (adding opinions about the lack of health obstacles, of which there are many) and perhaps changing the title ("Age and health of Joe Biden"?, "Health of Joe Biden"?), the article can be kept. The topic is very widely discussed, attracts attention and causes consequences at the center of the election campaign, unlike in the case of Donald Trump. Wikipek (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the course of the conversation concerning the health of Mr. Biden is such that discussion on his age is going to be part of and in tandem with discussion about his health, since the end she has already attained has implications for his current health, and maintaining it is key to furthering his age. Since the two subjects have been introduced as a duality, the thing to do is to build both aspects up, so that each can facilitate the furtherance of the other. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those subjects don't have a whole lot to do with one another. How can they stand as a solid unit together, and how would it not eventually makes sense to split them as the topics are grow too big to fit into one article going forward? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without the media coverage and analysis that has transpired over the past 2 weeks, this topic would not be notable enough to warrant an article under WP:GNG. The reason why this article would be considered notable is because of the June presidential debate, and the flood of consistent news coverage, discussions, and analysis that transpired after the fact. This is plainly evident in the fact that 12 of the 34 citations in this article were written in the past 2 weeks alone. This article is also relied upon to provide the background for Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign. Therefore, it makes sense that these articles should be merged, with this article serving the purpose of providing appropriate context. If the article becomes too unwieldy, it would likely be due to the constant stream of new calls for Biden to step aside, which could remain separate in an article reminiscent of List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Baldemoto (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article will continue to be improved with the increasing amount public interest in his high-profile gaffes both domestically and abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZR1748 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is more than sufficient independent sources and coverage now for this. It is impossible to miss, but the original section should still be retained, at least in large part, on the Public image of Joe Biden page. That should not be entirely removed from that page for this page's creation. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an excerpt from this article on the public image of Joe Biden page, which I think is appropriate if this article stays. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is a big deal--involving not just Biden but many Democratic leaders, and Republicans too, as well as a lo of reporters and physicians. I think it will permanently change how Americans evaluate older politicians. Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only has concerns regarding Biden's health been around for a good while now through reliable coverage but this matter has only increased now that many Democrat leaders have called for him to drop out of this year's US election following the June debate with his health being the common denominator and rationale. I propose bringing back the Health of Donald Trump article for the same reasons that I have already described. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the article about Donald Trump's health should have been deleted either. In this case the coverage is even more universal, and until the election will probably get too extensive to just merge it into the main article without bloating that one. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a distinct and separate topic, and should not be deleted or merged with the article on his calls to drop out. Both should be kept as articles, as the latter is a recent phenomenon, while his age and health has been an issue/discussion for multiple years. (Ageofultron17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As just an occasional contributor to English-language Wikipedia (active mainly in German-language WP and on Commons), I will formally abstain here (as I'm not familiar enough with en-WP's practices), but my impression is that this article as well as Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign are rather short (when compared to the Joe Biden main article), not many language versions of Wikipedia have decided to split these topics into separate articles (in this case, only French and Finnish Wikipedia, and in the case of the other article, only Icelandic), and it would make more sense IMHO to incorporate them into the main article and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the correct place for this information as well. I think I remembered hearing that Ronald Reagan had age and health concerns at the end of his presidency, but I can't see that article being kept if it were created now. SportingFlyerT·C09:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic was already a subject of discussion in the media before the June 2024 debate, but this topic & the closely related topic Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have been sucking all the air out of the room ever since then. At least in America's news media, concerns over Biden's age (and by extension his political future) even managed to palpably overshadow the news about the stunning election results in the UK and France. It's hard to argue this is a non notable subject. I'm surprised this is even at AfD. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just an essay. There's no reason why this shouldn't be included somewhere on the site, and some of it can be merged, but I think we're confusing news and political commentary with encyclopedic content, and I think this fails the 10 year test. SportingFlyerT·C09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with preexisting pages on the topic, most notably on the Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign pages, or any of the other pages mentioned by previous commenters. BootsED (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article wouldn’t be super noteworthy had it not been for the June debate performance. The president had experienced widespread questioning from those on both sides of the aisle as to whether or not he is fit to continue holding office. NathanBru (talk
Delete - severe violation of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEUTRALITY to dedicate an entire page to a right-wing political talking point and treat it as fact. There's no page about age and health concerns of Ronald Reagan, who was reported to be senile in office and actually had Alzheimer's. Jaydenwithay (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge Where Necessary There's really no context to this article. It's definitely an important note in the conversation of Biden's current term and campaign, but in a vacuum it doesn't make any sense other than as an extension to those other articles. What happens to this page when he eventually dies? Doesn't pass the time test here. ⠀tomástomástomás⠀talk⠀04:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic meets GNG. Biden's health and age concerns is squaring up to be a major issue in the 2024 election and thus has been subjected to significant attention in reliable sources, especially post-debate. There's no article where this can be comprehensibly covered without creating undue weight. Therefore, this fork is appropriate. R. G. Checkers talk05:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: Not to belabor the point, but the last version of the Health of Donald Trump article that is proposed to be restored in tandem with this article being kept had some discussion of armchair evaluations of Trump having narcissistic personality disorder, as well as commentary on Trump's own estimations of his genius. I think this would qualify for your "similar article" proposition, but for the title. BD2412T17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this article has received steady coverage for quite some time now. Concerns over Biden's health have been raised since the start of his 2020 campaign, it's hardly "news-of-the-hour". Additionally, Wikipedia is built off consensus, not precedent. The deletion of a similar article on Trump is irrelevant.
Keep. There is so much independent coverage of this that it clearly passes WP:GNG as a standalone topic. I am not concerned that this falls into WP:NOTNEWS as this has been an ongoing concern since the previous election, and as BD2412 pointed out, there are articles on the health of other leaders whose time has long passed. The last concern is whether this ends up being a WP:POVFORK, but I don't see why careful editing cannot end up in a balanced take on the subject, and merging with another article does not really change this. Overall, I do not think there is a strong policy rationale to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk)15:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely factual information such as Biden catching Covid and coverage of his performance at the debate can, and should, be included in his page backed up with impartial citations. These matters do not need a separate article and nor does there need to be one about Trump's health. Wikipedia is in danger of becoming so American-centric and partisan that it will lose further credibility with the wider world. There are plenty of forums on the internet to compile opinions on Biden, Trump and whoever else. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia for the world not an online battlefield for American politics. Shrug02 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, this article offers little information but a lot of text. We all know about his gaffes and general mental decline. Yet, this article cites the same points over and offer and lists an endless amount of examples. All of this can be presented in small and condensed form and give the same amount of information. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some coverage [18], others around being the youngest candidate and an LGBTQ individual, both of which are fine, but I don't see quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat surprised by this nomination. The article has six independent sources that deal with the subject at some depth. Why would that not be enough for GNG? Schwede6601:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage cited here, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy GNG. There are thousands of people who meet the definition of being the youngest person to run for a specific office in a specific city, they aren't all going to be notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over the value of the sources in establishing notability. A review of them would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What elements of the article are inadequate in their sourcing? Let's work to improve them before we move to scrap the page outright. Dan Wang (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Wang What is your connection with this person and the political organization in which this person is active? (National resistance front) Your focus is only on the National Resistance Front and its individuals. Almost all your edits are related to this organization and its affiliated individuals. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. I would like to draw the attention of the respected admins to this issue.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which policies am I violating (the ones your Talk page is littered with reprimands about)? In the last week alone I've edited a half-dozen different pages, ranging from musicians to American political events. A lot of my edits are indeed on Afghan topics, because I think it's an interesting subject area that merits documentation, and one I've been trying to improve the sourcing for. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the original creator of this article (I've created several over my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor), and I do want to see it preserved—not out of any inordinate attachment, but rather because I believe the de facto foreign minister of a major party to the 50-year-long Afghan conflict meets the notability standards for a Wikipedia page. Dan Wang (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think if that is why you are creating an article about this man, the topics that should be discussed is his involvement in the conflict, not his early life and schools he graduated from 77.103.192.51 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I wanted a good base of non-contentious material for the article (since pages touching the Afghan conflict have seen edit wars), but you may be right the ratio of past to recent experience might be a bit off. Dan Wang (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
