Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics (WP:DSPOL)

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. Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier. Removing a closed AfD discussion Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot. Other types of discussions You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politics. 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.  Related deletion sorting Conservatism Libertarianism   === List of Joe Biden gaffes === List of Joe Biden gaffes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Per WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX, this is not an appropriate WP:NPOV article. While Veracity of statements by Donald Trump provides substantial commentary and analysis of his outright fabrication and extensive lies, this is merely a list of times Joe Biden has made misstatements in speeches, with such mundane points as billionaires paying 3% in taxes rather than 8% or that prescription drug caps he passed had taken effect already rather than in two years. Is today's addition that he accidentally called a gun by the wrong name really such a purposeful blunder? There's a wide difference between a running list of fact-checks (in the latter case, the editor simply sourcing to a transcript and a separate news article rather than something calling it a gaffe) and actual encyclopedic discussion of a pattern of lying, so I don't believe this warrants a stand-alone article or list. Reywas92Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Reywas92Talk 17:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Plenty of coverage of these mistakes.  Whether he did it on purpose or not is irrelevant.  When he was younger he was caught lying as well.  The article mentions things he lied about back in the 1970s. Click the reference search at the top of the AFD and check for "Joe Biden Gaffes" and you get ample results. [1]  Dream Focus 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC) An honest politician? Wow, I've got a deal on swampland in Florida for you... Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Delete The top sources I see are Fox News (do I really need to explain why that’s a bad source) Bustle (not a reliable source, let alone a reliable political one) and a satirical book about his flubs. They’re famous enough in popular political culture to deserve maybe a section on his article or something similar but any kind of “list of failures of X” is inherently biased and BLP violating. The Trump article is about an overall subject (Trump’s habitual extreme dishonesty) where as this is a WP:SYNTH collection of inaccurate, not-completely-honest, or outright false statements— which all politicians make. Plus the title is terrible, insulting and sounds like something off of Conservapedia. Dronebogus (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Comment On the fence about this one, we have similar lists for Donald Trump, this feels like an attack article. To keep it neutral, I'd remove the less trustworthy sources (Newsweek sure isn't). I'd prefer a more critical discussion around these foibles than just a list of xyz silly things a person has done. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) remark: i have removed the Newsweek source per the concerns raised here. as for the remaining 59 refs, only five of them are from Fox News and i have no reason to doubt their reliability, but ymmv. .usarnamechoice (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC) See WP:FOXNEWS Dronebogus (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Reuben Solomon === Reuben Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete. Passing mentions are not enough for WP:NBIO. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Politics, United Kingdom,  and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Federal Women's Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia === Federal Women's Committee of the Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability, my googling seems to indicate there is little coverage of this organisation Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics,  and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Ben Padarath === Ben Padarath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:NCRIME. They weren't elected, so they wouldn't meet the SNG for NPOL. I haven't seen anything in my BEFORE that would indicate adequate WP:GNG coverage that could be used to write a more typical biography. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics,  and Oceania. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   === The future of Iran’s democracy movement === The future of Iran’s democracy movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV are the problems with this article, which is about a meeting that had no sustained coverage (far from WP:GNG). ParadaJulio (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  No Thanks. Delete it. Gharouni Talk  10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Delete, we don't need this. BenzoAid (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC) This is the most powerful reasoning to delete an article. "We" don't need "this". Gharouni Talk  09:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete or draftify  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 22:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC) On what grounds? Gharouni Talk  09:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC) KEEP as an article about the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran, for the reason's stated here: Talk:The_future_of_Iran’s_democracy_movement#Requested_move_17_March_2023, among others.  Jaredscribe (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. I'm not going to participate directly in this AfD discussion, as it might be seen inappropriate in circumstances where I'm involved in a dispute with one of the participants in regard to another article, but I would like to suggest that Jaredscribe's hand-waving at talk-page discussions elsewhere is contrary to the process laid out in WP:DISCUSSAFD. It is entirely unreasonable to expect a closer to read though material elsewhere in the hope of figuring out exactly what the 'reasons stated' are. Policy-based arguments for a 'keep' are generally simple to make (e.g. through demonstrating that sufficient third-party sources exist etc), and should be stated directly in the AfD discussion, where they can be assessed by all, and responded to if appropriate. If Jaredscribe wants his arguments for keeping the article to be taken into consideration, he should state them explicitly here. And if he isn't prepared to do that, the closer will, in my opinion, be entirely justified in simply ignoring them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Hi. At least his/her reasons are more reasonable in comparison to other two users that have requested to delete the article. It is even more reasonable in comparison to the reasons that the user who has nominated the article for AFD. This article is about  some important current events and as it was requested the title change is now necessary. This article will need to be completed and more information added to it gradually as they happen. I requested speedy deletion as creator of this article (it was declined as there are other users involved) because I was sure this article would never be nominated for any reasons, to be deleted, except for some other reasons that I can not say. Thanks for your comment. Gharouni Talk  06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Changing the topic of the article with forbidden synthesis is not a valid argument to keep the article. Jaredscribe also tried to do this in another recent AfD with a similar topic, which obviously ended up being deleted. AndyTheGrump is correct that Jaredscribe's approach here goes against policy. ParadaJulio (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === 2023 Carmel mayoral election === 2023 Carmel mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Election is of negligible importance. Carmel is as suburban city. It is a secondary city in its metropolitan area, being a satellite to Indianapolis. Therefore, its mayoralty is of this city is not as consequential a position as a number of cities of similar size in Indiana, as those cities are the primary political and population centers of their metropolitan areas. Carmel is an oversized suburb, in effect. Its population is a result of its massive 49 square miles of area (which is more than sixteen square miles more than the size of Manhattan Island and comes close to the area size of the entirety of Boston). If it were subdivided into separate cities the area size of a standard suburb,  none would be of substantial population. Carmel has the very low population density of 2,032.3/sq mi. Countless satellite cities and suburbs with substantially greater population density and importance than Carmel, such as Evanston Illinois (population density 10,041.14 per square mile and home to the prestigious Northwestern University) for instance, do not have separate articles providing coverage of its mayoral election, nor should they. There is no individual notability established for this election. And it should be clear that Carmel lacks the importance or noteworthiness for its elections to automatically warrant coverage on this projects. If the victor (or any candidates) become of enough notability to garner their own article, the election could be easily summarized as a section in their biographical article. If no candidates become notable enough, then that will be all the more reason why an article on the election would not be justified. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election contested by non-noteworthy candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America,  and Indiana. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Your point regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article. To put it into perspective other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Additionally, Evanston can be a skewed number because of Northwestern as you pointed out as college students who do not live there full time can inflate the numbers. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana. Would you prefer something like that for Carmel instead? The notability of this election stems from the fact that Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana and has a incumbent mayor who has been in office from 1996 retiring. Now the fact that it is the 5th most populated city in Indiana does not inherit notability in of itself. However, the race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources, an endorsement from someone who held a statewide office. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Grahaml35 I was framing/illustrating how Carmel is, in effect, a large suburb and not a conventional city. South Bend, as was noted about other Indiana cities of similar size with article, is the center of its own metro area (South Bend–Mishawaka metropolitan area), is a county seat, etc. It was also, formally, a major manufacturing community in the automotive industry.  And even then, only three  mayoral races related to a nationally prominent-politician have separate article coverage. The remainder are condenced into a joint article aimed at compiling summaries of all mayoral elections in the city's history SecretName101 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) An article of mayoral election history would not be warranted for Carmel. Carmel is a suburb that recently experienced a gain of population. Immense population growth in only a few decades. It has never been a major city center, however. South Bend, on the other hand, is city center of some historical and current stature. They are very different cases. South Bend had a population of over 100,000 as far back as the 1930s, when there were less than 100 US cities to exceed 100,000 in population. This garnered its elections going back decades some level of noteworthiness. Carmel doesn't come close to having any actual history of noteworthy elections.Election history going back to 1995 would be more appropriately be summarized within James Brainard's own article. Election history before him is of next to no importance anyways. Current election has not been established as notable.SecretName101 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === Amala Ekpunobi === Amala Ekpunobi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Non-notable individual, all coverage found is from social medial links. Perhaps too early in her career. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I would argue the page on Amala should stay, and be developed. Amala has a YouTube channel with 952k subscribers, and all of this has been done since January 2022. This is quite impressive, and I for one would like to know more about her background. 82.34.171.120 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC) For reference, I am the person who made the reply 20th March 2023 @ 17:55. or 83.34.171.120 Cobblars (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Amala needs coverage in reliable sources, has she been featured in any magazines or newspapers? Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: There is some stuff at: https://www.studlife.com/forum/2023/03/08/sympathy-for-the-devil-amala-ekpunobi-and-the-free-speech-dilemma https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/amala-ekpunobi-interview-prager-u/ And Google Books CT55555(talk) 20:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Student newspapers aren't generally a very good source. Second one seems ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC) you can buy subcribers, so youtube numbers aren't a good indicator. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Weak Delete I agree this is probably a case of "too soon".  I don't see sufficient coverage from outlets independent of PragerU. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Insult of officials and the state === Insult of officials and the state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails WP:NLIST and does not have WP:SIGCOV that are fewer sources had been cited. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and Politics. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep If the existing sources aren't enough to convince you, you can easily search and find additional ones. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/23/fact-check-legal-experts-say-swearing-president-not-illegal/5785903001/ https://time.com/5813215/presidential-insult-history/ for example.  Dream Focus 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I just found this. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ That references the information for most of the things on the list.  Dream Focus 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Search for the name of any nation listed and "insult law" and you can find results.  A website hopefully exist somewhere where you can search for the laws in each country.  Sourcing everything is going to be time consuming.  The article's creator did reference all the information they got to https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/8/303181.pdf  Dream Focus 10:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete.  The first two references by Dream Focus above are useless as for establishing list notability.  The third is better, but it's restricted to Europe.  You'd either need a pared-down list for that, or more widespread coverage.  It's also a bit moot at this point...essentially nothing in the article is sourced, and it's complete OR at the moment...you'd have to cut it down to basically nothing, leaving no article to keep.  Moreover, trying to compile this information into a table is ultimately futile due to all the different nuances in the laws of every country.  At best, you might be able to construct an article that actually goes into some detail for each country, but as a simple list, this fails on its face. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Question: Is it possible to move to Insults of officials and the state in Europe per the source that Dream Focus found? Lightoil (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using "insult" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars tc 16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Per the source Dream Focus found. Lightoil (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Merge with Lèse-majesté which is (quoting the lede) "an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state... or the state itself".  This article is about "Insult of officials, as well including the head of state or foreign heads of state, the state itself or its symbols, is a crime in some countries."  No daylight between the two.Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === List of Los Angeles municipal election returns === List of Los Angeles municipal election returns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST; list of election returns which doesn't have much notability about the list itself nor has an explanation of the elections. Most of the sources are mainly from the Los Angeles Times and are just the election returns that happen every election. I feel like if the data were to be used somehow, it could be spun off into separate articles (e.g. 2022 Los Angeles elections), be put into the politician's articles (under "Electoral history"), or be put into the district articles (under "Electoral results", much like Congressional articles). reppoptalk 05:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Lists. reppoptalk 05:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom, this is an indiscriminate collection of information. Ajf773 (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 09:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International ===  Parity Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)No refs on the page and I can't find anything which would be sufficient for basic verification of the facts on the page JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Comment @JMWt: per WP:NEXIST and the discussion at the 2011 nomination; what justifies a change in consensus? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891  Talk Work  12:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891  Talk Work  14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Previous AfD seemed to focus more on factors other than sourcing. However, the issue here seems to be a lack of available sourcing. The ultimate issue is the organization/group fails Wikipedia:GNG, and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Article contains no references and my own search turned up nothing of significance including in Google Scholar and in Wikipedia Library. Plain Google mostly turned up Wikipedia clones and one or two non-RS sites. At the end of the day, if we can’t establish notability, we can’t establish it. Unless somebody turns up some in depth reliable sources I’ve missed, I’m for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   === Liberalism and centrism in Iceland === Liberalism and centrism in Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)It's WP:OR and personal opinion. No refs on the page for many years, surely time now to WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iceland. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 20:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Unreferenced and looks like original research. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Move to Liberalism in Iceland. It seems that several "liberalism in" articles have been given strange names with "liberalism and centrism in" and "liberalism and radicalism in". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   === Kali Kumar Tongchangya === Kali Kumar Tongchangya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India,  and Mizoram. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. I originally tagged this paged as lacking notability. I still think that's the correct view. It does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He serves as Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council. WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability.". Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia.  (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable)​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Does it means that Wikipedia:NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) NSUBPOL is a supplement to NPOL; there are parts of it which are very clearly within consensus (eg the presumed notability attached to members of subnational legislatures of unambiguous federal states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Germany etc) and where there is less certainty (ie the issue has not been tested). Thus, NSUBPOL is meant to be a reference tool, but also one under development. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Comment: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep satisfies WP:NPOL, member of a subnational parliament.  See dicussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia for explanation and previous consensus on status of the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which establishes a low bar for politicians. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @BoyTheKingCanDance@M.Ashraf333@UtherSRG - can I ask you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, with specific reference to the points which elaborate why the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) can be considered subnational parliaments. Given this, can you please indicate how you interpret the sourcing differently which has been used to demonstrate the ADCs are subnational parliaments and thus accord presumed notability available via NPOL.  Many thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. ADCs have "less power than states but more than local governments", so they're in a gray area as far as NPOL is concerned, but I'm leaning against notability. The main issue is that state governments have a lot of authority over ADCs: governors (acting on the advice of their ministers) can dissolve councils, annul or suspend acts, and simply deny assent to duly passed bills. Importantly, that power to deny assent isn't just hypothetical: according to this article, there are numerous bills that have been awaiting assent for over a decade, creating the impression "that these autonomous bodies are treated as extensions of the government". There are also "structural arrangements provided in the constitution itself which makes ADCs dependent on the state government", and the councils have only a "paucity of resources" and "solely depend on the state government for grants". And, of course, the ADCs can only legislate within a handful of particular areas. That article concludes by mentioning "the overriding role played by the state governments on many matters", and I think that shows that ADCs are closer to local governments than to subnational legislatures. More generally, making all members of ADCs inherently notable would open up the floodgates to hundreds of people who don't even arguably meet the GNG, and I think WP:WHYN explains why that's a poor idea. Tongchangya thus doesn't meet NPOL, and since he doesn't appear to meet the GNG either, he's not notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: There is also an open discussion about member of autonomous council. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination). I request all editors that they don't do any vote until they read about Autonomous administrative division. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Draftify – The supplementary guideline states that politicians in ADCs may have presumed notability, not that they have presumed notability, so general notability should still be established.  This article has two sources, one of which is one sentence.  In other words, the source is a journalistic stub.Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'd like to respond to Extraordinary Writ's !vote.  There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power.  I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Comment I tend to lean more towards Extraordinary Writ's comments about the notability of ADCs than Goldsztajn. I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Robert McClenon makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Kenneth Charles Brown === Kenneth Charles Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The one source provided could be considered primary. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Ben Muller === Ben Muller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails GNG and BIO.  // Timothy :: talk  04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete. Even less notable than Piet van der Merwe! Athel cb (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Comment - Athel cb - There's no need to say something like that.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Delete fails WP:GNG. ABHammad (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === List of mayors of Pekin, Illinois === List of mayors of Pekin, Illinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails LISTN. Long list of nn names. Souces in article are primary, no other sources show this meets LISTN discussing this as a group. LISTCRUFT  // Timothy :: talk  10:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 11:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Though a small handful may be notable via service in the legislature, most are not. Fails WP:NLIST. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Sooppy Narikkatteri === Sooppy Narikkatteri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Non-notable politician/political person. Not meeting GNG, being the president of some local clubs or associations isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:GNG per nom. SuperSharanya (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Delete: Fails WP:GNG as stated in nomination. In addition to this, the article is poorly written, and an extremely large image is present resulting in me having to scroll to see it. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Brian Worrell === Brian Worrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL.  Would have restored the redirect, but that was contested, and due to discussions at ANI, that is no longer an option. Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Keep: It's been often held at AfD that city councilmen of cities of the size and international scope of Boston do indeed meet NPOL.  Obviously the article needs better sourcing, but with over 270 G News hits [2], I've a hard time imagining that there aren't at least a couple providing significant coverage to the subject; what measures did the nom take for assurance that there aren't any?  Also, would the nom care to link to any ANI discussion referencing this article?   Ravenswing      16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - I improved the article some, but it needs more work. Despite that, as it stands now, notability is shown with the existing sources. Therefore, it meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BASIC. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I agree. The individual and the sources show notability. All other existing members of the Boston City Council have existing Wikipedia pages. Therefore, this individual is no different. FranDoe16 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Ben Padarath === Ben Padarath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:NCRIME. They weren't elected, so they wouldn't meet the SNG for NPOL. I haven't seen anything in my BEFORE that would indicate adequate WP:GNG coverage that could be used to write a more typical biography. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics,  and Oceania. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   === Cyrille S. Oguin === Cyrille S. Oguin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Despite being ambassador to United States for 13 years, there is a complete lack of coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Delete Agree with LibStar, article would need additional notability contributions under WP:BIO MetricMaster (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked. Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   === 2023 Carmel mayoral election === 2023 Carmel mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Election is of negligible importance. Carmel is as suburban city. It is a secondary city in its metropolitan area, being a satellite to Indianapolis. Therefore, its mayoralty is of this city is not as consequential a position as a number of cities of similar size in Indiana, as those cities are the primary political and population centers of their metropolitan areas. Carmel is an oversized suburb, in effect. Its population is a result of its massive 49 square miles of area (which is more than sixteen square miles more than the size of Manhattan Island and comes close to the area size of the entirety of Boston). If it were subdivided into separate cities the area size of a standard suburb,  none would be of substantial population. Carmel has the very low population density of 2,032.3/sq mi. Countless satellite cities and suburbs with substantially greater population density and importance than Carmel, such as Evanston Illinois (population density 10,041.14 per square mile and home to the prestigious Northwestern University) for instance, do not have separate articles providing coverage of its mayoral election, nor should they. There is no individual notability established for this election. And it should be clear that Carmel lacks the importance or noteworthiness for its elections to automatically warrant coverage on this projects. If the victor (or any candidates) become of enough notability to garner their own article, the election could be easily summarized as a section in their biographical article. If no candidates become notable enough, then that will be all the more reason why an article on the election would not be justified. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election contested by non-noteworthy candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America,  and Indiana. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Your point regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article. To put it into perspective other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Additionally, Evanston can be a skewed number because of Northwestern as you pointed out as college students who do not live there full time can inflate the numbers. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana. Would you prefer something like that for Carmel instead? The notability of this election stems from the fact that Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana and has a incumbent mayor who has been in office from 1996 retiring. Now the fact that it is the 5th most populated city in Indiana does not inherit notability in of itself. However, the race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources, an endorsement from someone who held a statewide office. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC) @Grahaml35 I was framing/illustrating how Carmel is, in effect, a large suburb and not a conventional city. South Bend, as was noted about other Indiana cities of similar size with article, is the center of its own metro area (South Bend–Mishawaka metropolitan area), is a county seat, etc. It was also, formally, a major manufacturing community in the automotive industry.  And even then, only three  mayoral races related to a nationally prominent-politician have separate article coverage. The remainder are condenced into a joint article aimed at compiling summaries of all mayoral elections in the city's history SecretName101 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) An article of mayoral election history would not be warranted for Carmel. Carmel is a suburb that recently experienced a gain of population. Immense population growth in only a few decades. It has never been a major city center, however. South Bend, on the other hand, is city center of some historical and current stature. They are very different cases. South Bend had a population of over 100,000 as far back as the 1930s, when there were less than 100 US cities to exceed 100,000 in population. This garnered its elections going back decades some level of noteworthiness. Carmel doesn't come close to having any actual history of noteworthy elections.Election history going back to 1995 would be more appropriately be summarized within James Brainard's own article. Election history before him is of next to no importance anyways. Current election has not been established as notable.SecretName101 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === John Lawrence Paynter === John Lawrence Paynter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam,  and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom. Ping me if sources with extensive coverage are found. Article is currently unsourced. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing, BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Matthew Levin (diplomat) ===  Matthew Levin (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Since the last AfD, community consensus is clear that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete considering the post he held there is shockingly little news coverage, I see one mention regarding a specific Canadian aid move that mentions him and an article confirming his appointment. Fails WP:BIO despite his posting. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, Colombia,  and Cuba. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Abdul Qavi === Abdul Qavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)The subject is a cleric who is known for having affairs -- mostly one-sided -- with female models and affiliation with a political party. Except for one single source The News, all other available sources are just tabloid-like stories and gossipy news pieces without any in-depth coverage of their life as a cleric or politician. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: There's a part of me that could see a rationale for most of the information in this article being incorporated into other ones, but Qavi is notable enough on his own for this article to hold. I did some searches here, but my sources are going to be inherently biased towards US-coverage unfortunately -- I do think it's worth noting that the articles, although short, are about Abdul and the fallout of his decisions, and that he meets WP:NPOL's secondary criterion of receiving significant coverage. Some sources to add/that I found quickly include an AP story that I found in both The Boston Globe and some other papers from 2006 which talks about his photos with Qandeel Baloch that led to her 'honor killing' (sad story). [8], and an article in Dawn is about his family stripping the title of Mufti from him, and he's clearly the center of it. [9]. Another article from Dawn talks about his suspension from his committees and the political fallout from his decision. [10]. Nomader (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC) The source [11] is not primarily about the subject. [12] and [13] are just dramatic routine news coverage. Yes, they are the center of all the tabloid news, but this is not the kind of significant coverage required for a biography. Insight 3 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) To be clear, agree with the first source note (the Newspapers.com one) -- wanted to show that a search of US news sources didn't come up with much. But on the whole, there is a large range of coverage from across a large number of articles (both the Dawn articles I pulled here and in the article itself) along with the profile that you cited in your nomination that makes me inclined to !vote "keep". I think that although some of these articles are "tabloidy", they document a number of separate incidents and events (like him losing his place on a committee, him losing his party membership, him losing his title) that are different from what WP:NOTGOSSIP refers to, which are articles that focus on celebrity relationship scandals and gossip that's generally rumor-filled or unconfirmed. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Valerie Raymond === Valerie Raymond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 3 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, Czech Republic, New Zealand,  and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having served as director general of the Canadian Foreign Service Institute, as well as having an important diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Being head of a government agency does not satisfy WP:NPOL. An "important diplomatic career" does not automatically mean a notable career. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC) The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC) This applies to elected politicians and judges not public servants who head government agencies. LibStar (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Nothing in the policy establishes that this is limited to elected public officials. This is specially the case with judges, who in many cases are not elected to their positions. The same applies to politicians such as ministers, cabinet positions appointed by the executive branch and not elected by the public. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC) it applies to politicians and judges, not ambassadors or heads of government agencies. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) And Canadian judges aren't elected, they're appointed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 11:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Delete Name is too common to find anything about this person; there's a doctor in Nunavik, a student and many others with this same name. No coverage found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Heidi Hulan === Heidi Hulan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambasdadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. The 2 provided sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Austria,  and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Keep the article has clear sourcing issues, with primary sources being used to establish notability in contravention to policy. However, my very own very cursory search turned up enough mentions in relation to her various fairly significant postings that I must object to deletion over revision. While no single source I found clearly establishes notability on its own, the combined picture was of an individual who is fairly notable in international relations.  For example, a recent newspaper reporting on her statements regarding the Russia/Ukraine for lift suggests ongoing coverage https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2022/02/03/threat-is-real-of-russian-forces-invading-ukraine-mps-told.html, she gets quoted in random third party country media https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22100842/women-in-business.html, we can confirm she’s spoken before the UN general assembly (https://www.un.org/disarmament/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/statement-by-ambassador-hulan-chair-of-fmct-expert-group-eng.pdf) she’s also on the IAEA board of governors (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/new-chair-of-iaea-board-of-governors-elected) etc. Far more failed sourcing effort is needed before I’ll support deletion. Deletion is not a substitute for fixing articles. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC) This article is not indepth coverage and does not meet WP:SIGCOV for Hulan. This one is also not indepth coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. It merely quotes her in an article quoting many others. The fact she has spoken at the UN General Assembly or been on the IAEA board does not confer automatic notability. The IAEA source is a bit more indepth but it's a primary source. We need indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Weak Keep. I do agree with the above. We need to be talking about how notable the person actually is, not making decisions based on the state of the article. WP:DINC seems relevant here.The Toronto Star article above helps establish notability. A few sentences about her appear in Brysk, A. (2009). Global Good Samaritans: Human Rights as Foreign Policy. United States: Oxford University Press, USA. She is interviewed in Ankersen, C. (2014). The Politics of Civil-Military Cooperation: Canada in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. There are brief mentions in Behringer, R. M. (2012). The Human Security Agenda: How Middle Power Leadership Defied U.S. Hegemony. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. and in the Spectator link above seem to be enough to conclude that WP:BASIC is met. CT55555(talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having a position such as Minister Counsellor and head of political section at Canada's UN Mission, as well as a notesworthy diplomatic career. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete - first, let's be clear, they do not meet WP:NPOL.  Second, there is nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.  The only in-depth coverage is from primary sources. Libstar's analysis of the 4 additional sources above is spot on.Onel5969 TT me 17:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Insult of officials and the state === Insult of officials and the state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Fails WP:NLIST and does not have WP:SIGCOV that are fewer sources had been cited. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians,  and Politics. Surveyor Mount (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep If the existing sources aren't enough to convince you, you can easily search and find additional ones. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/23/fact-check-legal-experts-say-swearing-president-not-illegal/5785903001/ https://time.com/5813215/presidential-insult-history/ for example.  Dream Focus 14:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I just found this. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-insulting-head-of-state-can-land-prison-belgium-denmark-france-germany/ That references the information for most of the things on the list.  Dream Focus 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Search for the name of any nation listed and "insult law" and you can find results.  A website hopefully exist somewhere where you can search for the laws in each country.  Sourcing everything is going to be time consuming.  The article's creator did reference all the information they got to https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/b/8/303181.pdf  Dream Focus 10:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete.  The first two references by Dream Focus above are useless as for establishing list notability.  The third is better, but it's restricted to Europe.  You'd either need a pared-down list for that, or more widespread coverage.  It's also a bit moot at this point...essentially nothing in the article is sourced, and it's complete OR at the moment...you'd have to cut it down to basically nothing, leaving no article to keep.  Moreover, trying to compile this information into a table is ultimately futile due to all the different nuances in the laws of every country.  At best, you might be able to construct an article that actually goes into some detail for each country, but as a simple list, this fails on its face. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Question: Is it possible to move to Insults of officials and the state in Europe per the source that Dream Focus found? Lightoil (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC) I also prefer the use of the plural in that title. Using "insult" as an uncountable known just sounds awkward if you don't know legalese. small jars tc 16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: Per the source Dream Focus found. Lightoil (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Merge with Lèse-majesté which is (quoting the lede) "an offence against the dignity of a ruling head of state... or the state itself".  This article is about "Insult of officials, as well including the head of state or foreign heads of state, the state itself or its symbols, is a crime in some countries."  No daylight between the two.Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)   === Gil Peñalosa ===  Gil Peñalosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)article not meet WP:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Debatable if the subject meets WP:GNG (I'm leaning on probably), but my problem is that this has been brought as a draft a number of times and declined a number of times. This is an even poorer version of the article than what has existed in draftspace and would need significant improvements, like adding citations to be included in mainspace. —WildComet talk 20:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in municipal elections they haven't won, but that's the only notability claim being attempted here — and having reviewed several of the prior draft submissions, people have consistently failed to follow the direction, given more than once, that the key to making him notable enough for a Wikipedia article was to show proper reliable source coverage demonstrating preexisting notability as an urbanist before running as a candidate. And I'll point out, further, that this is not an "I dislike the guy" argument at all — I voted for the guy in the October municipal election, and depending on who the final candidates are in June it's not out of the question that I might vote for him again. But my personal views on the local politics of my own city are quite independent of how Wikipedia works, and how Wikipedia works is that politicians have to hold a notable office, not just run for one, to become accepted as notable politicians, and otherwise get articles only if they already qualified for articles on other inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - a Google search shows multiple articles profiling or highlighting Penalosa[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.222.103 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Mayoral candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just because local campaign coverage exists in the local media of the city where they're running for mayor — every candidate for any political office can always show some campaign coverage in their local media, so WP:NPOL would be inherently meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt candidates from it, because that would mean that no candidate was ever subject to NPOL at all anymore since campaign coverage never fails to exist. So no, the existence of campaign coverage does not make a candidate keepable in and of itself: what we would need to see is pre-candidacy coverage in the context of his work as an urbanist, the very thing people keep failing to show that he ever had. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Penalosa meets the Basic Criteria under WP:NPOL having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Bearcat's additional criteria above does not appear in the policy. While certain politicians are also "presumed to be notable" even if they don't meet the Basic Criteria,there is nothing in the policy that includes Bearcats exclusions or requires his conditions to be met or that states that there is a higher standard to be met above and beyond the Basic Criteria. Bearcat's statement is a personal opinion of what he believes to be notable rather than a statement of Wikipedia policy. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) I am not expressing any personal opinions of any sort. Wikipedia has an established consensus around how notability is actually assessed when unelected candidates for political office are brought up for discussion, which is that run of the mill (which, note, contains a section specifically devoted to "political candidates") campaign coverage is not sufficient to establish the permanent notability of a candidate just for being a candidate — because every candidate in every election always has some degree of campaign coverage, our consensus that candidates are not all notable enough for articles would be meaningless if the existence of campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL, because no candidate in any election would ever fail to earn that exemption.So unelected candidates aren't automatically notable enough just because campaign coverage exists, and are notable enough for inclusion only if they can be shown as some kind of special case — the notability of a candidate is established only if either (a) there's sufficient prior coverage to properly establish that he was already notable enough to keep a Wikipedia article independently of being a candidate for anything, or (b) the candidacy coverage nationalizes well beyond what's merely expected to exist, in such a way that even if he loses the election and never does another noteworthy thing for as long as he lives, his campaign itself would still pass the ten year test for enduring national or international significance anyway. We're not writing news here, and it isn't our job to maintain an article about every single person whose name happens to be present in the current news cycle — our job is to look past the current news cycle, and separate what's newsy from what's of enduring and permanent significance, and unelected candidacies very rarely meet the "enduring significance" test at all.Not because I said so, either, but because thousands of past AFD discussions on unelected candidates established a consensus that that's how the notability of unelected candidates works.Even NPOL #2 is not for candidates: it's for actual holders of offices at the local level, such as actual mayors and actual city councillors, who have sufficient analytical coverage of their work in office to establish a reason why it will still be of enduring significance 20 or 50 or 100 years after they die. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC) You have not provided a single quote from policy. Please quote where the policy says any of what you are inferring above. 208.98.222.38 (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Not a single word of what I said was incorrect at all, and Wikipedia does not have any rule that participants in AFD discussions have to directly "quote from" policy verbatim, and somehow aren't allowed to just summarize policies and guidelines and consensus in their own words. But at any rate, if you really insist on links, then WP:NPOL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:MILL (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, WP:10YT (which I already linked to) works the way I said it works, and even WP:GNG isn't just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number": it tests the footnotes for the enduring significance of the context of what they're covering the person for, so hits that exist in non-notable contexts (like unelected candidacies for political office) don't count for a whole lot in terms of establishing permanent notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Bearcat is correct in how our community usually treats unsuccessful (or current) candidates for political office. There is nothing that suggests that the subject would meet WP:GNG outside the context of the election and there is no expectation that Wikipedia is a repository of campaign brochures or a complete collection of candidates for public office. I am ok with a delete and redirect to 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election. --Enos733 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. There is coverage of Penalosa's work as an urbanist before his first electoral campaign is borderline WP:GNG compliant. [22][23][24]. He has also been covered in multiple books on urbanism. [25][26][27] Combined with the coverage that he has received. In any case, if this is redirected, it should probably be to his brother, Enrique Peñalosa, under whom he held office beforehand, since he ran in both the 2018 and 2023 mayoral elections, coming second in the former, which he may not repeat in the latter. I'm going to try and flesh out the article in the next bit, which might change my mind on this though. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)After rewriting the article (WP:HEYMANN), I'm actually surprised at how much academic content there is on Penalosa, since going into this I thought a lot would be the typical puffery of political candidates. Many books have multiple pages on his work in Bogota, there's an entire chapter devoted to criticizing one of his biking theories, and many other urban design books mention him in shorter sections at sufficient detail to meet WP:BASIC. What currently stands is almost exclusively from sources before Penalosa first stood for election in 2022, with the ones post-candidacy mainly being used to flesh out the timeline before his candidacy. I have also not gone beyond what was already present in the article in terms of coverage for his two Toronto mayoral campaigns, which is unsurprisingly, quite in-depth (e.g. [28][29]). There are also quite a few scholarly articles, books, and other publications that look promising from Google search snippets for his name + "Bogota" that I don't have access to, but should factor in per WP:NEXIST (e.g. [30][31][32][33][34][35]) I think this obviously fails WP:NPOL, but clearly meets WP:GNG, even without the Toronto mayoral stuff, and have struck parts of my above !vote accordingly.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: so that notability can be discussed in the light of the sources provided by Patar knightPlease add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Delete I still don't think he's notable other than being a guy that runs in the Toronto municipal elections. He's never been notable as an urban planner. The sources given are only local and related to him running for mayor. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Toronto is the largest city in Canada and as such during the upcoming mayoral race he will get significant media attention, not just local. This media attention will be greater than the previous race as well as during the previous race he placed second against the incumbent, this upcoming election is an open election which means he could be seen as a frontrunner which increases his notability. That is in addition to his academic works and time as parks commissioner. I acknowledge that should he go on to lose the upcoming mayoral election then he may not be notable enough for a page, however I think that this discussion should probably be had after the election and not now, as it would be premature to have the page deleted and undeleted in a few months should he win. Furthermore, although this is a less significant point, during the election campaign some may use the page as an information resource to learn more about the candidate running in the election, with that page being a useful information source for voters. Elijah B4 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections at the municipal level, not even in big cities. The inclusion tests are either (a) he wins the election, or (b) it can be shown that he had sufficient preexisting coverage in other contexts to be deemed notable for that reason regardless of whether he wins or loses the election, and "is a candidate" does not add up to permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Keep – Patar knight has re-written the article with expanded sourcing, and has made a solid case that, although WP:NPOL is not passed, the subject passes WP:GNG separate from being a political candidate. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Irving G. Cheslaw === Irving G. Cheslaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Cheslaw was an army officer, university lecturer, and State Department official who rose to be US Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago for two years. None of these accomplishments are inherently notable (including being ambassador). Primary sources mark each step: listing him among graduates from UCLA and among second louies commissioned, briefly noting his nomination and confirmation as ambassador, etc. There is a 125 word obituary that reads as if it was written by the family, and a passing mention in the review of a book. He may have been a fine, hard working fellow, but none of this adds up to multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of him, so he does not meet WP:GNG and should not be the subject of a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago,  and United States of America. Worldbruce (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Jamaica. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === Efraín Saavedra === Efraín Saavedra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Google books comes up with 1 line mentions nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Italy, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru,  and Uruguay. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)   === James Clelland Britton === James Clelland Britton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, Thailand,  and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Newspaper coverage includes this contemporary article specifically about him from The Windsor Star, which says in part, "one-time Queen's University football star who later helped export ice hockey to Africa and Asia... a sporting career that made him on of Canada's outstanding athletes in the 1920s." Seems like fairly significant coverage with good notability claims. Dekimasuよ! 19:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! Noise! 02:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Oon Yung === Oon Yung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) Oon Yung (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) 온영 (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL) Fails WP:BIO. The only source provided is a dead link. Could not find any significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Korea. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: Archive.org is freely available. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks. The article only contains a small mention of Oon Yung. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Comment. It is worthwhile to search for his name in Korean script, 온영. I don't read Korean. My initial search for the Korean name didn't find any hits for the diplomat, but several for "World on Yonge", a condominium complex in Canada that sounds like his name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)   === Glen Buick === Glen Buick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Chile. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Delete per nom.  A Google web search returns Wikipedia mirrors, and Buick dealers in towns named "Glen".  Book search (and the refs in the article) only give trivial mentions of him. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Key-sung Cho === Key-sung Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Also I don't think his academic career meets WP:PROF. Fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bilateral relations, Argentina, Guatemala,  and Peru. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: I think I've now seen dozens of these AFDs about ambassadors. It used to be articles about football players and then ghost towns in Arizona and now it's cleaning house of ambassador articles.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Keep: I've been able to find several mentions of his career as an ambassador through a Google Books search; it seems that he played a fairly important role in encouraging South Korean investment in Guatemala while he was ambassador there in the late 1980s. I don't have time to add the sources right now, but I'll work on improving the article as soon as I can. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Eric John Bergbusch === Eric John Bergbusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Mauritius, Tanzania, Germany, Poland,  and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Delete. Nothing in my article or my BEFORE suggests he meets NBIO/GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm from LibStar for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. Moonraker (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC) WP:MUSTBESOURCES, where are the sources you refer to? LibStar (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Keep and improve sourcing. I see sources that make me lean towards notability. I also see he remained relevant a decade after office, being published in an article about Canada leaving NATO (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40203276). The article has sourcing issues, but I refuse to believe there are no outstanding print sources for the Canadian ambassador to East Germany in office towards the end of the Cold War. Not ripe for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Delete - neither of the keep !votes above is actually based in policy.  Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. The only "source" in the article is not about the subject. Jo7hs2 BEFORE showed the only a single primary nothing else worth reporting, other Keep showed nothing. My BEFORE showed nothing, Keep voters haven't offerred anything other than a single primary, article itself is unsourced since the ref isn't about the subject. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Julia Bentley === Julia Bentley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Article is based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Malaysia,  and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: we have now got to the very odd point where more biographies of ambassadors are currently proposed for deletion than any other human activity. While an ambassador can be non-notable, as noted at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence — articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. The  response to this should simply be to tag for better references.  Moonraker (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Where are the third party sources to establish notability? This is WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per Moonraker. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC) WP:PERX. Moonraker provided no sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Keith Bezanson === Keith Bezanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Canada, Bolivia,  and Peru. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: It is more than a little absurd to say "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" when the subject of this page has had so many significant roles, not only as an ambassador. The page should surely be tagged as needing better references, not deleted, to join the long list bizarrely celebrating the deletion of diplomatic articles on the nominator's user page. Moonraker (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) WP:ADHOM. Where are the sources that would make this person notable? LibStar (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)I say fair comment, when an editor takes deletionism to such an extreme. It seems you have not yet hit the links for references at JSTOR and Google books. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC) WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891  Talk Work  13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === Renata Wielgosz === Renata Wielgosz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. The first source is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women,  and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Little sign of notability, but sources exist, and in my experience most Canadian ambassadors do prove to be notable, when someone takes the time to dig out the sources. On LibStar's user page we can see a strange obsession with getting biographies of ambassadors deleted, but I am not seeing any involvement with this page, such as a challenge to add citations, or any sign of efforts to improve the page, or any of the others. They are all just drive-by Afds and are not the best way to deal with under-referenced articles. Moonraker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Where are the sources? WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You can't just say keep without demonstration of sources.  WP:ADHOM applies too. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, Greece,  and Venezuela. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Keep for having a notesworthy career: she has been an ambassador in more than one country: in Venezuela, in Greece and in Cyprus. I also have to agree with Moonraker per WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Being an ambassador to more than 1 country is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Keep. Per WP:NPOL, [p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable, and this person has quite simply held national office in her role as ambassador. She has also served as second vice-chair of the Organization of American States, meaning that she has held international office in addition to being an ambassador. Her OAS experience actually predates her appointment to the role of ambassador of Venezuela, and her meeting WP:NPOL is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:NBIO. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability, many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Salvio giuliano 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === Dominic Schroeder === Dominic Schroeder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. The other 2 are not indepth coverage of Schroeder and do not meet WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Denmark,  and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: another drive-by Afd. The sources were all right, but a little thin, I have improved on them. There are other good sources available, as we would expect. Schroeder's part in the removal of Craig Murray is not his finest hour, but it does show the usefulness of having good coverage of senior diplomats here on Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891  Talk Work  11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Delete but actually with a heavy heart because the article actually reads well and does a great job of making a case for Schroeder's notability but there are guidelines and yes, ambassadors aren't inherently notable and no, diplomatic or civil service posts also confer no notability. Interviews are not considered as contributing to WP:SIGCOV. Ultimately, a spat in Uzbekistan and another in Europe don't add up to a clear pass of WP:GNG and that's where we are. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep Notable diplomat. Along with the current sources in the article there's a substantial feature on the Ambassador in Børsen 15 October 2019 (cover & pages 22-25) Piecesofuk (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)   === Catherine Evans === Catherine Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Africa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: there is no shortage of good sources to comply with WP:GNG, but most appear to be in French. I have found and added a few. Clearly a significant international career with a long way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonraker (talk • contribs)  Comment Let's look at some of the added sources. This one is a 1 line mention in an article about 4 ambassadors. This one is just a 1 line mention and the article is not about the subject Evans and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. This one is again a 1 line mention again and the article is not about the subject Evans and does not meet WP:SIGCOV. This one is just a primary source. This one is another 1 line mention in a list of names and does not meet WP:SIGCOV.LibStar (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)  Keep- ambassadors are inherently notable as they are the representatives of their countries in the host country. They serve as the eyes and ears of their country. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC) No, they are not inherently notable. Many have been deleted and there is no notability guideline granting them automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC) "Note-worthy in the outside world, not notable in Wikipedia" unless properly sourced. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Fails WP:GNG. Search throws up nothing and as nom correctly points out, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Just because many ambassador articles were deleted in the past means they were valid deletions.   I have seen articles saved from deletion where the content amounts to little more than 19 year old Michel Henderson plays goalie for the Strikers FC.   AND Henderson is considered notable yet a former ambassador with 30+ years of diplomacy is not.  As far as I am concerned, some people have their priorities upside down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs) Ya got to give sources, doesn't matter what the subject is. She is notable, but we need sources that can be used for wikipedia's notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Delete - not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 TT me 22:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Keep Meets WP:NPOL, having served as Director of European Operations and African Outreach, besides her positions as ambassador. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC) WP:NPOL does not apply to being a director of a government agency. There is no automatic notability conferred from being an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)   === Christopher Yvon === Christopher Yvon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lack of significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, North Macedonia, Slovenia,  and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Keep: WP:BIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." A quick glance at the hits in Google Books supports that, and there is also other good coverage on the Council of Europe's web site and elsewhere. A significant career, sadly cut short. Moonraker (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Any hits on JSTOR? LibStar (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)I do not have access where I am now. It wouldn't surprise me, you may wish to check. It would be constructive if you would also spend a little time improving this article, before you move on to finding yet another British ambassador to challenge. Moonraker (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC) One of the added sources is just a 1 line mention and not about Yvon as the subject so fails WP:SIRS. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Sure, that is not "in depth" but it supports the fact it cites. There are many other sources, a pity your only input here is to find fault with those who add content. Did you check JSTOR? Moonraker (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC) What are the "many other sources' that meet WP:SIRS? LibStar (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)If you were to look for yourself, you would find them with no difficulty. Moonraker (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC) WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The onus is on keep voters to demonstrate existence of sources. LibStar (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC) The Google Books hits mostly look like one line mentions. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Delete Fails WP:SIRS. No evidence of independent in-depth sources. --TadejM my talk 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)   === Kali Kumar Tongchangya === Kali Kumar Tongchangya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)Local politician fails to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC, nothing at all in reliable sources except brief mention of his chairmanship, need in-depth coverage in reliable and independent sources, elected chairman of local council wouldn't make him notable. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India,  and Mizoram. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. I originally tagged this paged as lacking notability. I still think that's the correct view. It does not seem to satisfy WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL but passes WP:NSUBPOL. He serves as Chairman of Chakma Autonomous District Council. WP:NSUBPOL says that in India, "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability.". Generally many deletion discussion of Members of the Autonomous District Councils of India are kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia.  (Note: I am creator of this article and also note that I voted Delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia and after the closing of discussionn, I got that they are notable)​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @LordVoldemort728 just to clarify, WP:NSUBPOL is a supplimentary essay, it is not a guideline. It is written to provide extended detail to WP:NPOL. A subject cannot fail NPOL and pass NSUBPOL. Membership in legislatures detailed in NSUBPOL indicate presumed notability of NPOL, in other words NSUBPOL indicates whether or not membership in a particular legislative body will satisfy NPOL. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Does it means that Wikipedia:NSUBPOL is detailed information of a notability guideline.. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 05:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC) NSUBPOL is a supplement to NPOL; there are parts of it which are very clearly within consensus (eg the presumed notability attached to members of subnational legislatures of unambiguous federal states like USA, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Germany etc) and where there is less certainty (ie the issue has not been tested). Thus, NSUBPOL is meant to be a reference tool, but also one under development. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Comment: We keep articles about members of sub national parliaments of India because the government of that parliament federal or similar systems of government and Chakma Autonomous District Council also have federal or similar systems of government. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Keep satisfies WP:NPOL, member of a subnational parliament.  See dicussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia for explanation and previous consensus on status of the ADCs as subnational parliaments. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, which establishes a low bar for politicians. UtherSRG (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC) @BoyTheKingCanDance@M.Ashraf333@UtherSRG - can I ask you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purna Chandra Jamatia, with specific reference to the points which elaborate why the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) can be considered subnational parliaments. Given this, can you please indicate how you interpret the sourcing differently which has been used to demonstrate the ADCs are subnational parliaments and thus accord presumed notability available via NPOL.  Many thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Delete. ADCs have "less power than states but more than local governments", so they're in a gray area as far as NPOL is concerned, but I'm leaning against notability. The main issue is that state governments have a lot of authority over ADCs: governors (acting on the advice of their ministers) can dissolve councils, annul or suspend acts, and simply deny assent to duly passed bills. Importantly, that power to deny assent isn't just hypothetical: according to this article, there are numerous bills that have been awaiting assent for over a decade, creating the impression "that these autonomous bodies are treated as extensions of the government". There are also "structural arrangements provided in the constitution itself which makes ADCs dependent on the state government", and the councils have only a "paucity of resources" and "solely depend on the state government for grants". And, of course, the ADCs can only legislate within a handful of particular areas. That article concludes by mentioning "the overriding role played by the state governments on many matters", and I think that shows that ADCs are closer to local governments than to subnational legislatures. More generally, making all members of ADCs inherently notable would open up the floodgates to hundreds of people who don't even arguably meet the GNG, and I think WP:WHYN explains why that's a poor idea. Tongchangya thus doesn't meet NPOL, and since he doesn't appear to meet the GNG either, he's not notable, in my view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Comment: There is also an open discussion about member of autonomous council. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination). I request all editors that they don't do any vote until they read about Autonomous administrative division. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Draftify – The supplementary guideline states that politicians in ADCs may have presumed notability, not that they have presumed notability, so general notability should still be established.  This article has two sources, one of which is one sentence.  In other words, the source is a journalistic stub.Move this article to draft space, and the subject may have significant coverage in the medium future.  Robert McClenon (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)  Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Keep per LordVoldemort728 and Goldsztajn. Satisfies WP:NSUBPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Comment I'd like to respond to Extraordinary Writ's !vote.  There are all sorts of limits to state/provincial powers in federal states, all sorts of means by which federal authorities may intervene in the decision-making of subnational legislatures, that similar patterns exist with the ADCs and their relationships to the state governments is not by iself an indication that the ADCs lack autonomous legislative power (which to my interpreation is the sine qua non determining NPOL notability at the subnational level). That there are ADC powers that the state (as opposed to national government) has no jurisdiction over, is enough to make the ADCs clearly have legislative power, as distinct from local councils which only possess administrative power.  I also disagree that this is a floodgates issue; members of an ADC not found to have more than the most basic information available could be redirected to lists of members of the particlar session of the relevant ADC. For example, in this particular case, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of current members of Chakma Autonomous District Council. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Comment I tend to lean more towards Extraordinary Writ's comments about the notability of ADCs than Goldsztajn. I do agree with Goldsztajn that lists of members of an ADC are very appropriate. However, the core of Wikipedia is an expectation that there are high-quality reliable sources written about living people. I think the case is clear that nearly all federal and state legislators meet this standard, and for those that may not, there is enough visibility of the government to verify service (as well as being able to track how an individual votes on particular issues). If we were to move beyond national and state/provincial officeholders, we would want more confidence that nearly all office holders for a type of government are likely to have coverage that meets WP:GNG. To that end, I think the standard we judge this AFD is WP:GNG as the community has not decided that ADCs fit under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Keep - ADCs are national political authorities of sort, chairman clearly notable by default. --Soman (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Robert McClenon makes a reasonable case for drafitication, and I could accept that outcome. My concern is that this is BLP and I can't accept presumed notability when the sources are so incredibly spare and constitute routine political coverage. No SIGCOV to be found so far on such a minor functionary and presented sources are quite local. IMHO the case for presumption is not met. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)   === Open discussions ===   === Recently-closed discussions ===