Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Politicians. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive 2

watch

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

Politicians

Alan Riddell

Alan Riddell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This person is not notable or significant enough to have a wikipedia article. Failed political candidates in Canada do not get a wikipedia article of their own, or else there would be hundreds of these tiny little articles that are essentially just stating "they're in *insert profession* and lost a race". A lot of the sources are out of date, unobtainable, and there is a section marked "uncited sources" even. This page was made decades ago and would have not been approved of today, so to remedy it and keep it aligned with wikipedia standards today, this article should be deleted. CJJ400 (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a notable subject. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Delete I don't see anything showing notability. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: passes GNG. In 5 minutes of research I found 3 great sources so I haven't gone further: Le Devoir 2006 Jennifer Ditchburn page 2 , Le Devoir 2008 Manon Cornellier page 3 , Maclean's 2013 (many years later) by Paul Wells --TitCrisse (t•c) 22:41, 24 September 2026 (UTC).

Hallie Shoffner

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hallie Shoffner
• Articles for deletion/Hallie Shoffner (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Hallie Shoffner (3rd nomination)

Hallie Shoffner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON. I see coverage only in the context of the ongoing election. Of course, if she wins the general election, she will pass WP:NPOL and the article can be recreated. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arkansas. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 10:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in Arkansas. I do not see how the subject of this article meets WP:NPOL since she has not held any public office before. I also do not think that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG since this article mainly talks about her political campaign. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - there's sigcov of her in relation to her campaign (see Axios, the Arkansas Advocate, Reuters, and the Arkansas Times twice thrice and 4x).

However, there's more. Outside of her campaign, and this is pre her campaign (mostly 2021-2024, she began running in 2025), there is Talk Business on her environmental farm practices, Little Rock Soiree listing her as a top woman of impact, THV11 on her finding historical artifacts in 2021, Garden and Gun on her environmentally friendly farm practices, the World Wildlife Fund on sustainable farming in the Delta with her as the main individual discussed, a profile from the Farm Journal, Yale Climate Connections on her adapting to climate change, Arkansas Advocate on her founding a nonprofit for growing specialty rice, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on her farming education, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on her adapting to climate change in growing... To be frank, even pre-campaign, she met notability. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: The current article is a stub. However, it could easily be expanded. Shoffner has received extensive substantial coverage of their campaign and thus meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Shoffner has also received some substantial coverage before the campaign. Based on a quick search: AP 2025; Arkansas Advocate 2025, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c; Axios 2025, 2026; Garden & Gun 2022; Fox News 2026a, 2026b; KASU 2022; KATV 2026a, 2026b, 2026c, 2026d; Reuters 2026; Talk Business & Politics 2022, 2024, 2025a, 2025b, 2026a, 2026b, 2026c; THV11 2021, 2025a, 2025b. By my count, that's >25 substantial articles from 10 different sources. CopyleftEverything (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  Note to self: Prior version of article before deletion has many additional sources, plus those from Jishara. CopyleftEverything (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Greg Hines

Greg Hines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Mayor of Rogers, Arkansas as the subject fails GNG. The best source is from Arkansas Money and Politics in 2019, which describes his public service before becoming mayor and highlighting two businesses that located in the city during the subject's tenure. While there is additional coverage, largely of his political campaigns and actions taken as mayor, nearly all of the sourcing is WP:PRIMARY and not the kind of secondary sourcing we want to see for any subject. Since there is a list of mayors of Rogers, Arkansas, a redirect is appropriate. Enos733 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arkansas. Enos733 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Gregory Hines is probably more known as Greg Hines than this mayor is. Geschichte (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  You are probably correct. - Enos733 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Joseph Kishore

Joseph Kishore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A severe lack of in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a number of brief mentions of Kishore in lists of independent or third-party candidates, and there's a wealth of non-independent material about him from his Socialist Equality Party, but the only halfway decent source I can find is the LA Weekly piece from 2011, which is an interview and not focused on Kishore as an individual. No evidence of genuine notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Would not meet political notability, sourcing is only confirming registration for an election, an interview and other in a non-RS. I don't see anything about this person we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per existing sources plus . He was twice the nominee for President of an established political party, which is definitely a significant claim to notability.--User:Namiba 14:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  • These are a brief Q&A in a tiny local paper (not focusing on Kishore as a person), two YouTube interviews, and an article about the SEP's 2020 ticket not appearing on the Michigan ballot due to collecting 0 signatures. SEP might be an established political party, but seeing as they've never had an elected official or polled above 0.02% in any presidential election, being their nominee is not really a claim to independent, separable notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

    YouTube interviews are valid sources and should not be ignored as both interviews are with journalists with a significant following. For as long as I have been participating in articles for deletion, legitimate presidential candidates have been understood to be notable. I know this is not policy and can be easily ignored, but that has long been my understanding of the informal consensus.--User:Namiba 18:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Pat Karney

Pat Karney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Whilst Karney appears to be a prominent long serving councillor, he doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines on politicians. Mainly local coverage. Sahaib (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Ireland, United Kingdom, and England. Sahaib (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  There is an enormous amount of coverage over many years. Doesnt matter that its local. Rathfelder (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Alexei Vladimirovich Yablokov

Alexei Vladimirovich Yablokov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject does not seem to have independent sources establishing independent notability. This page should be redirected to Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Waynebobb (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. His prior book, Phenetics: Evolution, Population, Trait, was also reviewed. The book about Chernobyl is also notable, see Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. Signahistar (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as the subject meets WP:NPROF Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 03:52, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Membership in the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union seems like a WP:NPOL pass to me. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Debangshu Bhattacharya

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Debangshu Bhattacharya
• Articles for deletion/Debangshu Bhattacharya (2nd nomination)

Debangshu Bhattacharya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non elected politician. Fails NPOL and GNG. Sources are mostly routine and promotional. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete non notable politician with no SIGCOV, fails WP:NPOL. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Elwyn Watkins

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Elwyn Watkins
• Articles for deletion/Elwyn Watkins (2nd nomination)

Elwyn Watkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject of the article does not pass WP:NPOL and was an unsuccessful political candidate. This could be made a redirect to 2011 Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, where most of the content can already be found. Aneirinn (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: this survived the first nomination in 2011, but our standards might not have been as tight 15 years ago, and merging also was not really discussed at AfD to any appreciable extent back then (based on the then-closer nudging continued discussion of that to talk pages, as was standard until just months ago). No opinion on if this meets 2026 standards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to the election article as suggested seems fine. I'm not sure if anyone would be looking up candidates from an election over a decade ago at this point, but this person isn't notable otherwise from what I see. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Alex Mealer

Alex Mealer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL "Just being an ... unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability". Almost all citations relate to her political campaigns - much of them likely driven by candidate press releases, etc Paul W (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas#District 9. Aneirinn (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Ramdev Beniwal

Ramdev Beniwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No demonstration of notability per WP:N. The article lacks any independent reliable sources providing solid sources of the subject. A few external links and passing mentions do not establish encyclopedic significance Moarnighar (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@MoarnigharWP:NCAND_two-term Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (MLA). Dsrprj (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes WP:NPOL, had been a member of the Rajasthan state's legislative assembly twice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep automatically notable per NPOL as a subnational legislator. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• KEEP:member of the Rajasthan state's legislative assembly twice From Rajasthan.

Dsrprj (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep meets NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Jerry Uwangue

Jerry Uwangue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a state politician (and so not eligible via WP:NPOL). Coverage is routine. Article created by WP:UPE. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Subject is in fact a state politician and so eligible via NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces: From what I can tell from the article the 'Commissioner for Agriculture and Food Security' role is more of a public service position. Definitely not an politician in the usual (elected) sense. I don't know if this does actually qualify for NPOL, but curious to hear your opinion before I !vote. Sycerion (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Sycerion It’s actually pretty simple. I’m on mobile and usually cannot edit properly with it, but let me try. The Commissioner is not just a public service position (a Permanent Secretary, for example, is), it’s a member of the state cabinet of a country operating a federal system of government. You can read State Executive Council (Nigeria) to understand better. There’s an executive council (cabinet) for every state in Nigeria and these state cabinets all have cabinet members which a Commissioner is. So, it doesn’t really need to be discussed before it is obvious that it’s a clear NPOL pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation. My Aussie brain defaulted to the Westminster norm of cabinet ministers also being elected politicians. That's an easy Keep then. Sycerion (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Vanderwaalforces, I don't see how this description is at odds with what Sycerion is saying. A civil servant, even a very high-level one, is not covered by NPOL, as far as I am aware. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Asilvering I don’t understand what you mean. My description has only one thing to do with it, and that’s interpretation of NPOL for a state-wide office like this in Nigeria. Presently as NPOL stands, it is what it is, if my description is incorrect, then that means NPOL needs to be changed first. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Looks a lot like the result of a scam. And no, I'm not talking about the politician himself, I'm talking about the article. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 04:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@SlapstickHumor360! Your rationale is both offensive and baseless in terms of P&G. What exactly looks like a result of a scam? I am unable to comprehend your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article. Sorry if it was offensive, just basing it off the tags on the article. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 08:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Change my mind due to your point @Vanderwaalforces, keep the article for now. SH360! (Must edit! Must report!) 10:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces, the article is indeed the result of a scam. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering Hmm, I will, as always, reserve my comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep per NPOL - statewide cabinet member. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: no valid secondary sources to prove GNG. Source #1, last paragraph, is a true gem of journalism: An entrepreneur with a knack for excellence, Uwangue is motivated by the need to build a sustainable business and becoming a reference point in the energy sector. Our goal as a company is to provide optimal engineering solutions to our clients needs through well structured, strategic channels to enable us respond effectively and efficiently, he said.. Source #2 is a press release. Source #3 is primary. Source #4 no byline press release. Source #5 no byline press release with extensive quotes. Written by UPE does not help either. The photo of him on WikiCommons also seems uploaded by a UPE --TitCrisse (t•c) 00:13, 22 September 2026 (UTC).

  UPE and notability has no connection, basically; whether or not it was created by a UPE it doesn’t change the fact that the subject is notable, it is now in your hands to be careful about conflicting your opinion, and also we’re not merely looking at GNG here, it’s NPOL.

  This’ll be my last reply here before some editor screams bludgeoning at my face duh. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I find the argument from Vanderwaalforces that the subject meets WP:NPOL as a state cabinet member to be compelling. That said, due to the indefinite block for undisclosed paid editing from the article creator/major contributor and the promotional feel, I think the page should be completely reworked/started again. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Catherine Healy (lawyer)

Catherine Healy (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Paul W (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, New Jersey, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete There also does not seem to be reporting on her except the race she lost. It's further diminished by results pointing to Catherine Healy, the activist. --~2026-50812-63 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is not inherited. Aneirinn (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I went through a number of newspaper articles where, as one expects, her name appears in articles about crimes when she was a county assistant prosecutor. I didn't find anything actually about her, not even during the time she ran for office. Lamona (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Syed Iqbal

Syed Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see a pass of WP:GNG for this local Indian mayor. The only coverage that exists about him is WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL coverage of his election as mayor, the same coverage any mayor would get. Per WP:NPOL, local political officials are not inherently notable. Beyond that, this article deserves WP:TNT for vague LLM-generated language (His election marked a notable development, with some commentators highlighting its significance within local and regional politics, reflect diverse representation in civic leadership) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Maharashtra. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

keep The article is of an real mayor of an city in State of Maharashtra, the content looks generated by AI because it is generic so the article can be improved rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglespirit (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@Eaglespirit: WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid argument to keep an article. Can you please provide significant coverage from reliable sources that proves this article's notability? Sycerion (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Gummadi Anuradha

Gummadi Anuradha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing any indication that this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, India, and Telangana. Athanelar (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as she does not pass general notability or has significant coverage. Fails WP:NPOL Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Clearly fails NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Jolyfize (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

John Duncan (California politician)

John Duncan (California politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There’s no evidence that this subject meets WP:GNG as it’s clearly not presumed notable under NPOL, neither did a cursory search revealed anything better. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support, analyzed news sources cited:

1 citation is from Coronado News, 3 from Coronado Times, 2 from San-Diego Union Tribune, 2 from ABC 10 News, seems notable to me.

So many of these are local, so it establishes that he is notable enough and verifiable enough to mention in other articles, but not to have his own article. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 14:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Law-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:Basic. I think the coverage is sufficient. If it were entirely local then I could lean towards delete. But many of the sources are not local, and it is unwise to throw out the entire article because he has more local citations than not. There are also sources that are not news organizations, and those should not be ignored either in this discussion. Minnastronomer (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  There's a difference between a majority of sources being local but still enough non-local sources to establish notability, and having local sources do all the heavy lifting with only a miniscule amount of non-local sources. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 17:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see any impact that his political career has had outside of the city of Coronado, California - which is listed as having a 2020 population of 20K. I don't know what these "not local" sources are, but if that is a reference to media based in San Diego that is local to Coronado because Coronado is a small suburb of San Diego and all of the major media (TV, radio) is based in San Diego. Inewsource is located in San Diego and the Environmental Health Coalition is in National City, which is an area of greater San Diego. Lamona (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I do not see any coverage of what the subject has accomplhed in office. We want to see local officals substantally covered in the press, and ideally from sources that show their impact (beyond they were mayor/councilmember) and that is not present. The San Diego Union Tribune article is not about the subject but about one action the subject took. --Enos733 (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Laura Sirot

Laura Sirot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet notability requirements. It seems as if this was made because of her current campaign, however, she does not meet WP:NPOL and her other career mentions do not lead her to meet WP:GNG. If she were to win the election and have WP:SIGCOV, then a page would make more sense at that time. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Biology, United States of America, and Ohio. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 02:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Unimpressive profile on Google Scholar, with citations -- never very high -- decreasing steadily since 2019. Athel cb (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 Ohio Senate election#District 31. Aneirinn (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Marshall Rawson

Marshall Rawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL as a candidate. If the subject wins the election, and receives WP:SIGCOV, then a page would be more justified. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Florida. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: The motivation of this article is from news coverage that started a week ago. (The current sources from The Independent and The New Republic draw from original reporting from Talking Points Memo). This falls into WP:BIO1E and WP:LASTING concerns. Unless/until there is more sustained coverage, this is too soon. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Baba Sadiq Abdulai Abu

Baba Sadiq Abdulai Abu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Kqol • talk 21:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  The article should be kept because it meets the notability status. The article has also been improve and more references has been added, i strongly believe that it should be kept. Amuzujoe (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Article has been improved and meets the notability daSupremo 20:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Info - Note on soft closure: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion or merging depending on the nomination, at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2026-09 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Keith Amemiya

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Keith Amemiya
• Articles for deletion/Keith Amemiya (2nd nomination)

Keith Amemiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Businessman and former political candidate. Amemiya has become a bit more notable since his article was nominated and deleted back in 2020, but not by much. His biggest claims to fame are two runs for office and charing a state task force on sports in Hawaii, neither of which satisfy WP:NPOL. All the articles cited on the page are either routine campaign coverage or only mention Amemiya in passing. Normally I'd support a redirect, but given that 2020 Honolulu mayoral election and 2022 Hawaii gubernatorial election both have a claim to be the target, I don't think a redirect will work here. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Amemiya does not pass WP:NPOL, but there is enough for WP:GNG. The July 2020 Honolulu Civil Beat profile was part of a series on the leading mayoral candidates and goes in much greater detail than just routine election coverage, as it talks about his background, his twelve years as executive director of the Hawaii High School Athletic Association (HHSAA), his 2009 resignation from the Honolulu Police Commission amid an ethics investigation, political contributions and the condo he bought in a workforce housing project that his employer was involved with. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald published a lengthy column about him in 2015, well before he entered politics, when he was a candidate for University of Hawaii athletic director; it assesses his HHSAA record in detail, including the state tournaments he created and the "Save Our Sports" fundraising campaign. Civil Beat also cites earlier coverage: a 2009 Honolulu Star-Bulletin column regarding his work with the HHSAA and Honolulu Advertiser stories concerning his Police Commission resignation. Coverage continued after the elections (Pacific Business News and the Star-Advertiser in 2021, Civil Beat in 2023). Be mindful that the MidWeek article cited in the article is a paid campaign ad; it should not be counted. If the article is not kept, a redirect to 2020 Honolulu mayoral election (where he made the runoff) would be preferable to deleting. El Banhara (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - unlike the vast majority of such candidates, the subject appears to have a life outside of business and running for office, as covered significantly in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Princess Purnika of Nepal

Princess Purnika of Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Paras Bir Bikram Shah because the current biography doesn't have enough significant independent coverage to constitute BLP and GNG. A page of her sister was also redirected to their father's page, where they are mentioned. I don't want to say that because her sister's page, Princess Kritika of Nepal was redirected, we should do the same. But this is as a reference to show that both articles share a similar underlying background. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Nirvana869976 (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Support redirect to Paras Bir Bikram Shah - this article is very similar in content to the already-redirected article on Princess Purnika's sister Princess Kritika, and the same reasons for a redirect apply here too. Ingratis (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as suggested, and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Kelly Kirschner

Kelly Kirschner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kqol • talk 21:40, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. An additional reason to redirect over keeping it is that the current article is very poorly written. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I presume that the suggested redirect target would be 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida? Regardless, additional participants are encouraged to comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Zach Lahn

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Zach Lahn
• Articles for deletion/Zach Lahn (2nd nomination)

Zach Lahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to 2026 Iowa gubernatorial election. As before, he currently fails WP:NPOL. The coverage here is all about his campaign/candidacy. He does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. Nothing substantive has changed since the last AFD. If he wins, he gets an article. But not now. Marquardtika (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: I am author of new article version. Prior version had many fewer sources. This version removed promotional material and added ~15 new sources, mostly substantive coverage during & after the primary. Substantial coverage includes extensive profiles in local, national, and international sources: Des Moines Register (x2), HuffPo, The Guardian, The Independent, Iowa Public Radio, Kansas Reflector (x2), MS Now, NBC, NYTimes, Politico, Time, The Times, Wall Street Journal (x2), WaPo (x2). Coverage clearly meets WP:GNG, so WP:NPOL does not apply. In addition: Lahn has a long, well-sourced history in the conservative movement (clearly passing WP:ONEEVENT) and clear historical interest as a right-wing populist who won an upset victory against a Trump-backed candidate, as a rare anti-"big ag" Republican, as a candidate in a heated 2026 governor race (very likely to pass WP:10YT). CopyleftEverything (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep: Concur with author of article, Lahn has reached sufficient notability. Ageofultron 20:21, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 Iowa gubernatorial election: Subject lacks coverage outside of the political campaign. As the nom notes, we can revisit this if he wins in November. Let'srun (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirect to 2026 Iowa gubernatorial election: He has done absolutely nothing of note besides this campaign. If he wins, he should get a page. This reads like campaign/promotional material. I would be wary about this article more as this article is substandard and is *extremely* sympathetic to him and his campaign. It's just using his talking points as a basis for the article. Siguy10 (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi Siguy10, welcome back to Wikipedia! This reads like campaign/promotional material. [...] [T]his article is substandard and is *extremely* sympathetic to him and his campaign. I strongly try to uphold WP:NPOV. The article follows the reliable sources, which detail Lahn's: Personal life; decade in Republican politics; Koch network ties; investment firm and private school; and "populist" political positions. What article content do you object to? He has done absolutely nothing of note besides this campaign. Does the candidate meet WP:GNG, per the sources above? If so, the article should be kept. CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome! If I came off across as a little straightforward with my concerns, I did not intend to phrase it that way. Thank you for your responses, I still do not believe it upholds WP:NPOV, at least until he wins the race. I should have rephrased, some of the content in the article *seems* subjective, but I am reading deeper into the sourcing and it is how the articles describe him. While there could be some ways to rephrase his policy positions, that can definitely be a concern for after the election, as it's only around a month away. His stuff of note (Republican politics, Koch ties, Montessori school, investment firm), in my interpretation, do not fall under the guidelines, but I could be wrong. While I still believe this should be redirected to the main election page, I would be a strong proponent of using your article as the starter article for him if he wins, or wins something else in the future. All the best to you, and hopefully this comes to a satisfying resolution soon! Siguy10 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't think the subject is a fully clear pass under WP:NPOL, but the coverage makes a clear pass under WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT.Lohysera (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

  Keep as it overwhelmingly qualifies under GNG. That's all that's needed. Everything else is overinterpretation of relatively straightforward guidelines.

  CSGinger14 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. Bearian (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per the comments I made in the prevvious discussion. Nothing substantially has changed since then. If the subject wins in November, obviously no prejudice against recreation. --Enos733 (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Enos733: In the prior discussion, you argued that the article does not meet WP:NPOL. This version of the article has many more sources with substantial coverage of Lahn's pre-campaign political and business career, and of Lahn's upset populist campaign. I list a dozen substantive articles above. Seems like extensive coverage to me. Why do you think the article fails WP:GNG? CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  I said in the last discussion: Winning a party primary does not meet NPOL, and similarly, defeating a Trump-endorsed candidate does not necessarily make a candidate notable. Only winning a general election to an office that passes NPOL is the criteria (see WP:CRYSTAL). I have always been on the believe that candidates for political office are not automatically notable and participation in an election is one event (recognizing a) that coverage within an election is not entirely discounted, and b) that coverage prior to an campaign counts too). - Enos733 (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Hi @Enos733: Thank you for your reply. :) I agree that elections are WP:ONEEVENT. But:

  1. Lahn's pre-election political and business careers are now detailed and well-sourced, including sources before 2025 campaign.

  2. Lahn is a large participant in that one event. WP:ONEEVENT says: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Lahn's political career, business investments, school management, and "MAHA" political views, have all become very important to the gubernatorial election.

  Point 2 is why I believe we need some objective standard for "substantial coverage". Otherwise, how can we decide who had a "large role" in the election? CopyleftEverything (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

  What traditionally this community has looked for is substantive coverage of the subject before they announced their candidacy. Coverage of a subject's career in the middle of the campaign is predominately campaign coverage. The questions in my mind are frequently, would a candidate meet WP:N without the campaign (or how close), and to what extent this person likely to remain a low profile individual should they lose their campaign. When the community addressed NSPORT, it concluded that mere participation in professional athletics or the Olympics was not sufficient to presume notability, and the same logic largely applies for political candidates - who they are, what their platform is, can all be located on the page about the election (and yes, I do feel many of our pages about the election can be greatly improved). - Enos733 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Draftify + Redirect per WP:NPOL, while he isn't notable enough to have his own article right now, we shouldn't completely delete the article just incase he is elected governor. Fixingthelies2025 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Ken Smith (North Carolina politician)

Ken Smith (North Carolina politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Politician holding a local political office, with coverage from local news outlets in the context of his election. Nothing seems to indicate that he passes WP:NPOL. If more relevant source are found, please ping me. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Carolina. Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 07:32, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect: Atkinson, North Carolina. CopyleftEverything (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with nom about the lack of sourcing. A redirect to Atkinson, North Carolina does not help readers as while the subject was the mayor, there is no current list of mayors on the proposed redirect page. So, a reader who might be searching for the subject will not find anything there. Certainly if the city page were expanded, I would change my position. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Move to Draft This seems like an article that is not complete, and should have been caught by AFC. As mentioned by Enos733, useful information could be added to the Atkinson, NC article. Deleting it entirely seems like overkill. Minnastronomer (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the subject is not currently mentioned at Atkinson, North Carolina.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see how subject could be expected to meet WP:NSUBPOL, and WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty.". I cannot see how being mayor of a town with a population of 296 is going to make subject notable. As far as I can see nothing else seems to be remotely notable about subject.

BleachPuffin (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTADVERT — Maile (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Mayor of Benazirabad

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Mayor of Benazirabad
• Articles for deletion/Mayor of Benazirabad (2nd nomination)

Mayor of Benazirabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reposted soft delete. Still no clear evidence of notability -- none of the sources provide significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:30, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Municipal Corporation Shaheed Benazirabad as an WP:ATD. The target may also not be notable, but we definitely do not need separate articles on a mayor and a city council of a Pakistani city with a 300,000 population. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Ulugʻbek Sultonov

Ulugʻbek Sultonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has many citations, but most of them do not amount to substantial coverage of Sultonov himself. There are 14 citations, but only 12 unique sources. Only one source is specifically about him, and it is a brief announcement of his appointment. Another source is an event report that quotes him, while several others mention him only as an official or participant. At least two of the cited reports do not mention him in the text at all. Most of the remaining sources are reports about Youth Affairs Agency programmes, seminars, forums, financial assistance, or other events. The few more independent sources are therefore mostly short reports about his appointments or events he attended. I do not see the sustained, substantial independent secondary-source coverage required by the WP:GNG.

His positions also do not establish notability by themselves. His former role was head of a regional department of a government agency, which is a subnational position, while his current role is a departmental/directorial position within the same agency. Any presumption of notability under the politician guideline would need to be demonstrated rather than assumed. In any case, the article still lacks the independent secondary-source coverage normally expected for a biography.

There is also a possible concern about the article's creation history. The same author created same article on the Azerbaijani, French, Portuguese, Italian, Igbo, and Ukrainian Wikipedias within about 43 minutes. I personally do not think that the author knows all of these languages, so I think there is a possible WP:COI. Nemoralis (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uzbekistan. Nemoralis (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. This is lacking good sources. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The article appears to be a résumé. Aneirinn (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Cait Conley

Cait Conley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 17 because article subject currently fails WP:NPOL. All of the sources are about her political candidacy. Outside of her candidacy she does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As in similar situations, we should redirect for now, and of course recreate if/when she wins office. Marquardtika (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. First, Conley is subject of an AP article and a very long CFR interview for her Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency role, and is cited in two dozen articles about 2024 election security. Clearly not WP:BLP1E. Second, the election coverage is substantial: Profiles of Conley & comparisons with competitors in The Nation, NYTimes, CBS. The election (in one of 3 Harris-voting districts represented by a Republican, NYTimes) will make it moreso. Meets WP:NBASIC and thus meets WP:GNG. Keep. CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  I have lightly edited the article to remove some WP:PROMO and other cruft. CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Full disclosure that I'm the original author of the article here. I agree with the nominator that this article fails WP:NPOL easily and completely understand at first glance why this would be nominated, but as CopyleftEverything mentioned above, I decided to create it when I found her substantial coverage around 2024 election security and other earlier newspaper hits. I think she clearly exceeds WP:BLP1E and also meets WP:GNG, superseding NPOL. If I were to pull WP:THREE, with only one source from the campaign this year: the AP article that talks about her appointment to the CISA role which is significant coverage and not routine, this extended profile from the NYT when she announced her campaign, and probably this story from NextGov about election security. I can provide more if needed but don't want to ref bomb. If it's decided this should be redirected to the election page instead, I'd recommend that we WP:DRAFTIFY in case she wins her election in November. Nomader (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect (with a Draftify possible) - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. Disclosure: I follow her on Instagram. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins in November. As for the sources, the AP article is fine, the NY Times piece is normal campaign coverage, the CBS article is normal campaign coverage. the Next Gov story about election security is a reprint of a press statement, so if those are the best coverage, I do not see how this coverage is more than routine and the information should be best added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  I remain concerns about draftifying articles about candidates so draft space does not become a space to host information about candidates political positions. - Enos733 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Enos733: I think you stretch "routine" too far. WP:NOTROUTINE#Politics (and its copy, WP:NCAND#Coverage examples) both suggest that this coverage (which analyzes & compares candidate ideology & background in detail) is not routine. The fact that high-profile federal candidates almost all get this kind of "normal campaign coverage" does not suggest the coverage itself is WP:ROUTINE, but instead that the candidates are almost all high-interest. CopyleftEverything (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that high-profile federal candidates almost all get this kind of "normal campaign coverage"... feels very much like this is type coverage is routine. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Enos733: "Routine" is a misnomer for something like 1. mostly formulaic, 2. WP:PRIMARY coverage, and 3. low-significance to humanity. That's why WP:ITSINTHENEWS states: Wikipedia is not a place for routine coverage, such as locally reported crime, community issues, regularly scheduled sports events, trivial matters, and other topics that are found in the daily paper. Similarly, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL states: Every political candidate gets local media articles about them announcing their candidacy, the all-candidates debates, one or more "my positions on the issues" interviews and a results table that verifies their final vote total on election day. Articles like those above (The Nation or NYTimes) are 1. entirely specific to each election, 2. WP:SECONDARY analysis, 3. about a competitive US federal election. CopyleftEverything (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Let me ask a question - if the subject loses their election in November, would the subject still be notable in 10 years? Why? If redirected, all the relevant information about who the subject is and how their experience impacted the race can be kept at the page about the election. By having a stand-alone page, everything the subject has done in their entire life (in the past or in the future, good or controversial) can be added to the page if there is verified coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and as 4meter4 articulated, need to be careful not to be confusing newspaper coverage of the now (which is WP:PRIMARY) with newspaper coverage of the past with critical analysis (which would be WP:SECONDARY) - Enos733 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  Good question: would the subject still be notable in 10 years. In User:CopyleftEverything/NCAND2, I compare all of the electoral candidate articles that survived AFD in 2025-26 with several articles about high-profile, competitive, Justice Democrats candidates from 2018 that were redirected instead. The results suggest that both got fairly similar interest in pageviews & Google Trends. Given that Conley looks to be in a competitive election in a blue wave year, I expect fairly high interest a decade from now. I'd also be happy to hear any thoughts you had on the proposal in that essay. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would say that (internal) pageviews or other attempts to measure interest in a subject are not connected to WP:N. In fact, subscribers or followers on other platforms are (explicitly) not a useful gauge whether a subject should have a stand-alone page, and I would expect the community to reach a similar conclusion of internal pageviews.

  My point is that with unelected candidates, we want to see more secondary coverage ("people written about in the historical record") or a broader (international) scope of coverage, which suggests that the candidate is more notable than most. Certainly, other factors include how close to reaching notability the candidate was prior to or after their candidacy, as I do not believe that campaign coverage should be entirely discounted.

  In your essay, you point to Morgan Harper (lawyer) as an example of an unelected candidate who should be kept, and while I may have considered voting for her to be redirected back to the page about her House campaign, what strikes me about the coverage of her primary campaign was that she was featured by Teen Vogue as "a slate of young, progressive women of color running for office across the country." To me, this statement is the key - she was seen as an exemplar of candidates who ran for office in 2020. To me, it is not that the news coverage was about the description of a candidate's views, background, or campaign strategy (which to me is largely routine), but because there was ample coverage of the the subject that represented something about the mood of the United States in 2019/2020.

  Most national (and even subnational) candidates frequently get coverage of their views, background, or campaign strategy. The difficulty is trying to figure out which ones are truly notable, and which candidates are only notable solely or largely because of their campaign. Otherwise, we risk flooding this community with every candidate that runs for national office (and in some areas, subnational offices). Recognizing there are about 470 federal races in the United States every two years (with nearly all of them contested), and somewhere in the ballpark of 6,000 national legislative seats up every year across the globe with about 25%-30% elected in a first past the post electoral system (the rest elected in some proportional representation system). This is a lot of potential unelected candidates to consider, especially if we start looking at historical candidates or candidates for subnational offices.

  But getting back to this specific discussion, I don't see any coverage that appears Conley is exceptional. A renewed skim of article titles in the article do not show how or why this candidate is any more notable than Carey Coleman, who is running for Congress in Ohio's 13th Congressional District. We should refrain at AfD from comparing two similar subjects, but we should focus on how a candidate is covered in secondary sources, not how many citations can be found. Cheers - Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Enos733: I greatly appreciate your lengthy and detailed comment. :) On Conley, then WP:NCAND in general:

  1. Conley: I don't see any coverage that appears Conley is exceptional: Conley weakly passes the "exceptional coverage" standard, IMO: Conley has been covered as part of "the Hellcats", a group of Dem veteran women moderate candidates. (See EaglesFan37's comment for 6 more articles.) WP:NOTCRYSTAL, but future writers are likely to analyze her and her campaign (win or lose) for what they say about 2026 electoral shifts and performance of moderate Dems. More broadly, WP:10YT is about future historic interest. Conley is a moderate Dem running in a swing district that will decide control of the 2027-29 House. (The Hill calls it a "key toss-up" race.) I strongly expect that, win or lose, she will be analyzed retrospectively because she's a gauge of voter mood in 2026.

  2. NCAND: I really liked your phrase here: [T]here was ample coverage of the the subject that represented something about the mood of the United States. It captures much better what I wanted User:CopyleftEverything/NCAND2 to say, so I rewrote the essay to reflect that: Electoral candidates are usually notable when they (1) have substantial coverage (WP:POLSUBST) from 8+ secondary, independent, reliable sources (WP:SIRS) that (2) details their life background and broader significance to politics in that country (WP:CANDBROAD). Aside: That's why I think Dem Randy Villegas and Rep Zach Lahn (both AFD'd this cycle) should have articles: They represent populist upset wins against party "establishment" in purple elections, and are thus likely of historical interest even if they lose. CopyleftEverything (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Building on CopyleftEverything's point, I'd add more on the CISA coverage than just the AP and Nextgov piece. Further examples of CISA coverage: National Press Foundation piece where she was the main subject and her takeaways were the main piece for the reporting, this newspaper article where her remarks were subject of original reporting, this USA Today interview where she was extensively cited as the senior advisor of CISA for the entire content of the article, and the CFR interview that CopyleftEverything also cited. There's more out there as well, but taken together with the candidate coverage and the AP profile, I believe she clears WP:BLP1E easily. Nomader (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Don't have a strong stance one way or the other between keep or redirect. However, I'm not sure if any of the "Hellcats" coverage , , , , , , would push Conley over the edge for keep or not. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

  To add to this, I found a The Nation profile which is about the "Hellcats" more broadly, but mostly profiles only her race in more detail. I think it should address the concerns above about her being an "exemplar of candidates" who are running for office in this cycle, and it's noteworthy that this was also written during her primary campaign as well (along with the NYT profile that I cited earlier too). Nomader (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per CopyleftEverything. The coverage shows that the subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Notecardforfree (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 17: Political candidates are not inherently notable and there is no clear coverage outside of the congressional campaign. Fails the WP:GNG otherwise and even the article creator notes there is no WP:NPOL pass at this time. Let'srun (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  On the WP:NPOL piece here: I said that before I'd seen The Nation profile and others that put her into context that CopyleftEverything and EaglesFan37 put forward. I still think that she meets WP:GNG notes because of her prior role and coverage, but I acknowledge now that I also think she meets WP:NPOL based on the coverage of her candidacy alone too which is far beyond routine coverage. Nomader (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - the significant coverage is absolutely there, and I think because of the hellcats she passes the ten-year test. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Angela Gonzales-Torres

Angela Gonzales-Torres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Politics, and California. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• merge to the article about the election. Most of the article is about the election issues, with only a tiny part from their life outside of politics. I don't see anything showing notability, does not meet NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District34 as a usual an appropriate outcome for candidates running for a national office. No prejudice against recreation if the subject wins in November. --Enos733 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District34 per usual. The page can be restored if she wins the general election. No evidence of notability yet, but she'd obviously meet NPOL if she won. PA Uploader (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Article already has dozens of sources and clearly meets notability guidelines. I'd just add a tag to the page to remind contributors to adhere to the BLP, and, remove some content that's unrelated to her but more about her current opponent in an election. Apex-nurse (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirect and Draftify. I personally think that the Wikipedia consensus around candidate articles is too strict, but it does not make sense to delete articles such as Melat Kiros and Darializa Avila Chevalier before their primaries, both of whom received more coverage than Gonzales-Torres, but keep this page. Gonzales-Torres is functionally running in a primary, and the Wikipedia consensus in similar scenarios has been pretty clear. Since she has a good shot of winning in November, this article should be kept in the draft space if she receives additional coverage or wins the election. ~Politicdude (talk, contribs) 17:12, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Politicdude: I agree that AFD consensus is too strict, and I !voted to keep both pages. (See User:CopyleftEverything/NCAND2, written because of those deletions.) If you believe AFD consensus is unnecessarily deleting candidate articles with substantial coverage, including AGT's article, why not !vote "keep" to change that consensus? :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I want to echo this comment by Generalrelative from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner: It is sad that we might delete this article based on "the usual outcome for candidates" when a cursory glance at the article, which contains over 20 independent sources, indicates that this bio is the exception rather than the norm. The guidance here, WP:NPOL, is very clear that political candidates "can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". Seven sources have published full articles solely about AGT, and six more sources have given 5+ paragraphs to AGT. Those sources include an international outlet (The New Arab), national outlets (Salon, American Prospect, The Intercept, NYTimes), regional outlets (Los Angeles Times), and local outlets (USC Annenberg Media, Occidental News). This seems well beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage.

Source assessment table prepared by User:CopyleftEverything

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Los Angeles Times		Los Angeles Times	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~7 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
The New Arab		The New Arab	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage, ~15 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
The American Prospect		The American Prospect	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~15 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
Common Dreams		Common Dreams	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~10 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
The Intercept		The Intercept	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~9 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
USC Annenberg Media		USC Annenberg Media	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~14 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
Salon		Salon	Article focused on Gonzales-Torres with extensive bio & political coverage. ~8 paragraphs on AGT.	✔ Yes
The Occidental		The Occidental is student newspaper.	Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Substantial coverage of Gonzales-Torres, ~12 paragraphs.	✔ Yes
The Intercept		The Intercept	~ Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Brief descriptions of Gonzales-Torres, ~6 paragraphs.	~ Maybe
The New York Times		The New York Times	~ Covers several primary candidates including Gonzalez-Torres. Brief descriptions of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs.	~ Maybe
Eagle Rock Pop		Eagle Rock Pop is small local news outlet.	~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs.	~ Maybe
The Downballot		The Downballot is an election news outlet.	~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs.	~ Maybe
Los Angeles Times		Los Angeles Times	~ Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~5 paragraphs.	~ Maybe
NPR		NPR	Focused on Gomez inquiry. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~2 paragraphs.	✘ No
Axios		Axios	Focused on Gomez inquiry, passing mention of Gonzales-Torres.	✘ No
CNN		CNN	Focused on Gomez inquiry.	✘ No
Courthouse News Service		Courthouse News Service	Focused on Gomez inquiry.	✘ No
The Eastsider LA		The Eastsider LA is local news outlet.	Focused on election results. Brief description of Gonzales-Torres, ~2 paragraphs.	✘ No
CBS News		CBS News	Focused on progressive primary wins. Passing mention of Gonzales-Torres.	✘ No
Los Angeles Times		Los Angeles Times	Focused on DSA endorsements. Passing mention of Gonzales-Torres.	✘ No
Los Angeles City Clerk		Los Angeles City Clerk	Neighborhood council election result, including AGT. WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
California Secretary of State		California Secretary of State	2026 primary results, including AGT. WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

@CopyleftEverything

LA Times article: Primarily about how the Justice Democrats are seeking to oust Jimmy Gomez (not about Gonzales-Torres herself).

The New Arab: Article reads as very WP:PROMO

Common Dreams: Article is about how she was endorsed by Justice Democrats (which is campaign coverage, not coverage of Gonzales-Torres)

The Intercept: Article is about the congressional race, rather than Gonzales-Torres

Salon: Article is about Gonzales-Torres being endorsed by Justice Democrats

The Occidental: Articles just states campaign pitches for Gomez's primary challengers EaglesFan37 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

To group these: Two notes on LATimes, Common Dreams, Salon, The Intercept 2025:

• 1st, each article also details Gonzales-Torres' bio, eg LATimes community activist and former president of [....] and Gonzales-Torres currently works as [....], Common Dreams She also recalled her experience growing up [....], Salon Both Gomez and Gonzales-Torres are the children of [....] and mother worked as a waitress but her [....], Intercept former Highland Park neighborhood council president [....].
• 2nd, that story -- Justice Dems, WFP, DSA working to replace a progressive, pro-Israel, pro-crypto Dem with a democratic socialist -- is a major reason why this isn't WP:ROUTINE election coverage. IMO, it's "campaign coverage" in the same way that articles documenting James Fishback's white nationalist rhetoric on the campaign trail are "campaign coverage": They explain why people are likely to care about this person 10 years later, whether they win or lose.

The New Arab: I agree that the article clearly favors Gonzales-Torres over Gomez. The article also dedicates 7 paragraphs to Gonzales-Torres' political activity in the the 2024 UCLA pro-Palestine encampment (ie, before this campaign), part of a broader focus on her bio, eg: the daughter of a deportee and a recent graduate who took part in a pro-Palestinian encampment [....].

Similarly, USC Annenberg Media is a ~30 paragraph article focused entirely on Gonzales-Torres' liquor license political activity as HHPNC president (ie, before this campaign). CopyleftEverything (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@CopyleftEverything Those groups have tried to replace candidates in countless races this election cycle, Gonzales-Torres is far from unique in that regard. Most of the coverage is related to her candidacy, the New Arab article discusses her involvement in the encampments at UCLA in relation to how it inspired her campaign (notably, the article doesn't describe her as a leader, nor does the Wikipedia article on the UCLA encampments mention Gonzales-Torres).

The USC Annenberg Media piece does give WP:SIGCOV, but being on the neighborhood council of a city with 57,000 residents would very rarely get an article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The sourcing here very clearly satisfied WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. I will also note that there is an ongoing RFC/discussion at WT:BIO about what constitutes "routine" or "significant" coverage for local politicians and candidates. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to election. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an election guide. Subject is only covered in the context of her campaign, and the campaign is not exceptional. pburka (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. The coverage of Angela Gonzales-Torres's campaign that is used in the article is both substantial and demonstrates notability through the use of multiple independent sources as is stipulated by WP:BASIC. The section on WP:NPOL additionally stipulates that the criteria in WP:BASIC is sufficient for a candidate to be considered notable. Staroxvia (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The argument to delete this hinges on whether the news pieces used as sources, and put forward as evidence of meeting the general notability guideline, are to be discounted because they focus on an election campaign. The current community discussion on the topic notwithstanding, arguing to delete requires demonstrating that those sources do not constitute SIGCOV as currently described.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District34: Reviewing the current references, they are primarily connected to her ongoing congressional campaign, and as such there is not enough sustained coverage. No WP:NPOL or WP:GNG pass here. Let'srun (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. The underlying Wiki Markup will remain for if she wins, which is a possibility. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: I'm not convinced there's enough coverage outside of the political cycle to show notability. Many articles, but all published around the time of the election run, nothing from the period before that, showing they would be notable. Gnews only has coverage from 2025 forward, with nothing showing they were a notable activist before deciding to run for office. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  or a redirect to the election is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b Could you please strike your merge vote from September 6th ? EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Whoops. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Bade Nagajyothi

Bade Nagajyothi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Telangana. 456legendtalk 06:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

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

The claimed model marriage is supported by only one article and does not appear to be a widely recognised incident or significant news event. The other source from 2019 is merely a list of all elected ZP chairpersons in Telangana and does not provide any independent coverage of the person in question. 456legendtalk 17:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 10:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Delete: Im not convinced with the Keep vote argument. While I admit that David did a great job finding the sources, they have not showed that Bade Nagajyothi has received the kind of sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage required for a standalone Wikipedia article. The article's subject remains as a local politician and unsuccessful electoral candidate whose media coverage is pretty much tied to a single election.

Keep: Not sure if a comment is required again after relisting... Anyway, at least five citations provide indepth coverage and even if we remove the 2019 passing reference, there is sustained coverage for five years from 2020 to 2025. It also not a single election, the coverage is from Sarpanch, ZP and MLA elections. The citations demonstrate that the BLP passes GNG. Davidindia (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that previous !votes remain part of the discussion, and thus there is no need to add subsequent !votes if you have already !voted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Marc Cenedella

Marc Cenedella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New York. PA Uploader (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
• Weak merge to TheLadders.com: I think the article could pass WP:BASIC, given the coverage in Politico, NYTimes, and The Atlantic. However, his run was abortive and coverage was not enduring (WP:10YT), his later political work got zero substantial coverage, and virtually all other coverage is related to TheLadders.com. CopyleftEverything (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: First, WP:BIO says that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. As the user above mentioned, this article meets WP:BASIC and WP:GNG criteria. Politico, The New York Times, and The Atlantic are all reliable sources that mention the subject. Cenedella is also quoted in The Washington Post . In addition, TheLadders.com is a notable company, and Marc Cenedella is similarly notable. Porcupine562 (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Merge selectively as suggested and as reasonable in these circumstances. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:16, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets WP:GNG through significant coverage specifically about him in Politico, the New York Times, The Atlantic, the Washington Post.Macdddd (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Beau Bayh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Beau Bayh
• Articles for deletion/Beau Bayh (2nd nomination)

Beau Bayh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. CSP3945 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep It was not "restored". I made a new page. This is the version that was redirected in November 2025. Since then, there has been enough new coverage to meet WP:GNG, especially this lengthy piece from Politico in April 2026. I also found old coverage on Newspapers.com to strengthen that case. An outdated "redirect" decision is not a valid reason to redirect again. WP:CCC. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Creating a new article that overcomes the reasons for deletion has never required a discussion, although in some cases it can be the best practice. In any case, the coverage in the article here is more than enough to meet the GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect NOTINHERITED and doesn't meet NPOL (he's a candidate for a state secretary of state position). The sources here are mainly local "interest" stories about him and his twin brother doing normal stuff: being born, turning 12, going to college, joining the military. None of that is worthy of Notability. Even if he wins the secretary of state position there needs to be more than routine coverage/news for him to meet NPOL. Lamona (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Lamona I agree with you that a redirect is appropriate here. However, I disagree that, if he was elected, he wouldn't automatically qualify under WP:NPOL. The Indiana Secretary of State is a state/province-wide public office, so if he won, he would be presumptively notable under NPOL. PA Uploader (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  When I was born, when I turned 12, went to college; none of that was reported in any newspaper, so it certainly is not ROUTINE. The GNG doesn't specify what the significant coverage is about, just that it is significant. This is precisely to obviate each Wikipedia editors biases as to what we should include/exclude - we include topics that have received coverage from reliable sources, regardless of how important each of us as individual editors think the topic is. I can think Annette Saint-Pierre lived the most mundane life, but since she received significant coverage she is wiki-notable. Katzrockso (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Content matters. It has to matter or WP would be full of junk. There's quite a range between a thoroughly researched, thoughtful article published in a major academic journal and a fluff piece in a local paper with happy news about folks that are considered celebrities. I do agree that the Politico piece is a good start toward GNG or NPOL, but for the rest I don't see significant coverage. So the decision is not about "thinking" he is important, but sources that show he meets specific policies. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect Not enough independent notability at this time. Possibly if he's actually elected, but until then there's really not enough here. Intothatdarkness 13:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep - meets notability from the long history of newspaper articles locally, including in the reasonably prominent IndyStar, and the more modern Politico coverage. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with Katzrockso. Bayh is the central subject of three full articles in Indiana Capital Chronicle, Politico, Indianapolis Star. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV. CopyleftEverything (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect - candidates for political office are not automatically notable, although a redirect might be appropriate to the election article. It's not clear that he will win, but it's not unprecedented. The 2026 United States elections could be a blue wave, diesel is close to $5.99 per gallon in Indiana, the Right (meaning conservatives) are split three ways in Indiana, he had over $2,000,000 to spend on the general election, and the incumbent was already defeated, so he's got a non-zero chance to win with a plurality. (I have degrees in political science and law, and am a failed candidate for public office myself.) Bearian (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
  • "Candidates are not automatically notable" is not a reason to redirect. Does this candidate meet GNG or not? None of this comment (the price of diesel, Diego Morales losing in a primary, the editor's degree and political career) are related to Bayh's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per Bearian and per common outcomes for political candidates. No prejudice if the subject wins in November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Bayh is an individual case and not subject to "common outcomes for political candidates". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 Indiana Secretary of State election which is his only independent claim to fame. Other coverage is routine in the context of his notable father and not enough to justify a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
• Keep as a member of an influential political family, he has received coverage even prior to him announcing his candidacy, and for GNG the only thing that matters is whether the coverage exists, not editors' opinions on why outlets decided to cover him. Additional election related coverage makes him clearly notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Kevin McKeown (politician)

Kevin McKeown (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I am the subject of this page.  One of my successors on the Santa Monica City Council alerted me to this deletion discussion.  As I understand the WP:POL and WP:BASIC criteria, there is question as to whether my local elected career was significant enough to garner substantial regional or national coverage.  It was.  I offer some examples.  

My consumer advocacy on bank ATM fees was reported on nationally in Newsweek magazine, among other places:

https://www.newsweek.com/revolt-against-fees-164152

That issue went all the way to the Supreme Court:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-28-fi-atm28-story.html

For over twenty years, the Los Angeles Times reported regularly on my pioneering political stances on worker wages, closing our airport, short-term rentals, bike-share programs, housing development, and homelessness.  Here are some examples:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-aug-20-me-36225-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-airport-ruling-20151205-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-10/airbnb-santa-monica-settlement

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-santa-monica-bikeshare-20151111-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-measure-lv-20161109-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-oct-27-me-lopez27-story.html

Further, I am still active as the California Democratic Party’s Irish-American Caucus vice-chair, and as an Irish citizen am working to have Ireland locate a “hospitality center” in Santa Monica for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

In short, I do have a long history of significant news coverage, am still alive, still active, and not yet ready to be deleted.

Thanks,

Kevin McKeown

Retired former Mayor

City of Santa Monica ~2026-47983-36 (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Few of these satisfy either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. It's almost all campaign coverage. The 3-part series from the Santa Monica Daily Press is promising but I'm not personally convinced. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Invoking WP:HEY means that the article was significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion. That hasn't happened. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. From my own review, I agree with @Aesurias regarding the sources that have been provided, and I don't otherwise see evidence of significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. If the consensus is to delete, I would also suggest blanking the discussion. If the anonymous comment above truly came from the subject, I can understand why the idea that you don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability might be insulting or hurtful, so there's no need to maintain this discussion for full public view in perpetuity. PA Uploader (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Santa Monica City Council. Fails GNG per nom and PA Uploader. I looked at the sources and am not convicned they add up to passing GNG. The Newsweek piece only contains a quote and that issue was not even addressed in the coverage of the subject's retirement from council. The Daily Press coverage is better, but all it says beyond the surprise retirement is that "he had a special focus on renter issues, affordable housing, and environmental sustainability." The three part series is fun, but for a profile, the series is very short. As to the subject I would recommend reading An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --Enos733 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: there is an ongoing RFC/discussion at WT:BIO about what constitutes "routine" or "significant" coverage for local politicians and candidates. I recommend reviewing that to determine whether the votes here are consistent with the community discussion and consensus about the type of sources that can support notability. Notecardforfree (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
• Note regarding additional sources found. I want to call everyone's attention to a few more sources that I have found that help support the conclusion that this article meets WP:BASIC:

• Kevin McKeown's work on regulating short-term rentals is profiled over about four pages in Gregor Craigie's Our Crumbling Foundation: How We Solve Canada's Housing Crisis' (Random House of Canada 2024), see pp. 114-118.
• Kevin's work has been profiled on the radio. I found these links on his website, which include two CBS news radio reports: , , and .

Looking at these and the other sources listed above, I still believe this article easily passes WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources provide sufficiently substantial, non-routine coverage to meet WP:NBASIC for a local politician. CopyleftEverything (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
ATM fee news			Subject has a few quotes but none of this addresses the subject "directly and in detail"	✘ No
Articles throughout the years Minimum wage Airport Airbnb bikeshare Measure LV			Subject has a few quotes but none of this addresses the subject "directly and in detail"	✘ No
Column about being the subject of an attack ad			A bizarre but unnoteworthy event, lacking sustained coverage and thinking of WP:BIO1E	✘ No
Elected to Mayor			~ Subject was elected mayor and quoted. A few facts: "McKeown, whose gruff approach sometimes ruffles the feathers of his colleagues, was the longest serving council member not to have taken a turn as mayor. He was the top vote-getter in his last three elections. He served as mayor pro tempore for three years."	~ Maybe
Retirement			Quotes from subject and colleagues - all primary sourcing without analysis	✘ No
Retirement Santa Monica Mirror			~ Five sentences of a very brief biography	~ Maybe
"Tale of Two McKeown's"			This is a small-town story of two people who are interesting because of a naming coincidence, not because the person is inherently significant. There is biographical information here but the significance should be discounted. WP:MILL	✘ No
2020 George Floyd protests			Covers current events without secondary analysis. "Mayor Kevin McKeown and interim City Manager Lane Dilg attempted to address protesters and were met with questions about the use of tear gas on demonstrators last Sunday in Santa Monica and calls to cut the city’s police budget. 'Hey people, do you want to hear the answers?' McKeown asked. .... Then [the police chief], the mayor and others took a knee in solidarity with the protesters.	✘ No
Gregor Craigie's Our Crumbling Foundation: How We Solve Canada's Housing Crisis' (Random House of Canada 2024), pp. 114-118.			From the Google Books preview, this is a few quotations and actions around Santa Monica's regulations of Airbnb, but does not address the subject (a person) directly and in detail	✘ No
Radio interviews on KNX 1070, Air America	Interview of the subject	The source is the subject	Does not address the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete: Most of these are "current events" and don't take a step back to address the subject. I am looking for summary articles about the subject that describe their career. The closest is this one, and that one is borderline. Note: Google Books finds two academic books by the same author that cite a 1991 speech by the subject; however, I do not think this is enough to pass notability. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@PacificDepths: I think our different perspectives about WP:SIGCOV reflects the ongoing debates happening at WT:BIO. I don’t think we are going to convince each other, but I believe that your standard of “significant coverage” is far more restrictive than what WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL requires.

Regarding the coverage in Gregor Craigie's Our Crumbling Foundation, there are several pages that provide a direct and in-depth discussion of McKeown’s work on the Santa Monica City Council to address short-term rentals. And the three-part “Tale of Two McKeowns” very clearly provides in-depth biographical coverage. You dismissed this source citing WP:MILL, but that essay discusses “run of the mill” topics and should not be used to discredit a source that is part of a series of sustained coverage.

There’s sustained secondary media coverage that meets our well-accepted standards for significant, sustained coverage of a subject (see WP:100WORDS). Here are a few examples. I’ll note that the first two sources cited here aren’t listed in PacificDepths' table:

• Santa Monica Daily Press: “McKeown the Dangerfield of the Dais” (At least 161 words of secondary analysis)
• Santa Monica Mirror: “Councilmember Kevin McKeown Elected to Westside Cities Council of Governments” (144 words of secondary analysis)
• Santa Monica Mirror: “Councilmember Kevin McKeown Abruptly Announces Retirement” (at least 183 words of secondary coverage about McKeown, but there is arguably more than that)
• Santa Monica Daily Press: “McKeown Announces Retirement” (about 115 words of secondary coverage about the subject)

I would encourage the closing admin to look at the emerging consensus at WT:BIO to assess whether our policies and guidelines require something more than WP:BASIC or something more than the type of coverage discussed in WP:NOTROUTINE or WP:100WORDS. I don't believe there is consensus for a more restrictive standard. So, when editors like PacifcDepths say that they are looking for "summary articles about the subject that describe their career", I would just point out that this standard does not exist in our current policies and guidelines. Notecardforfree (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments, particularly from new participants, on PacificDepths' source assessment? Note: Notecardforfree, it will be unnecessary to make a third request for a closing admin to base their close a separate unclosed RFC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep WP:Basic is met. Maybe leaning more towards WP:SIGCOV. Minnastronomer (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Charlotte Bishop

Charlotte Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Wales. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

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

Specifically, the article satisfies notability through:

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

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

Did you use an LLM to help you write this response? If so please read WP:AITALK. To respond to the substance, my source analysis shows that the independent sources do not provide significant coverage of Bishop. And there is not a single notability guideline that would establish the historic role of (checks notes) being the first female leader of a minority party group in a particular one of the 22 local government areas of a constituent country within the United Kingdom as uniquely establishing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

As a neurodivergent writer who has relied on accessibility and writing software since childhood (long before modern LLMs existed), and as software like Grammarly utilises language models anyway, I find it worth to note that the line is now quite muddy between the two.

Even then however, my original points still stands:

• We have the Caerphilly Observer reporting directly on 'Plaid Cymru elects its first female council group leader' as an independent outlet.
• There's subsequent reporting from other outlets covering policy.
• It's mentioned across other approved Wikipedia articles.
• And if we want to talk scale, she's also featured in *The Telegraph* alongside other candidates (I can provide you the link if needed).

At the end of the day, Wales is a country with its own democratically elected government and press. It might operate on a different scale than the London or American media bubbles, but dismissing that local press as non-independent as you originally did simply highlights a common blind spot regarding how devolved political environments function.

I find the subject notable, as did the admin who approved the page initially. If someone happens to be unfamiliar with the significance of the first female leader of the Plaid group in an area like Caerffili, that is completely understandable, though perhaps it's worth reviewing local context before dismissing it as a whole.

MeyrickTil (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The sources cited in the article establish that the subject meets WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  How exactly does she pass NPOL, which explicitly does not apply to local elected officials? Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Local elected officials may be notable if the "depth of coverage extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". The sources that you cite as being "routine" are not, in my view, the type of "brief mentions and routine announcements" that are contemplated by this guideline. They provide an in-depth assessment of the subject of the article. In any event, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The local coverage is the definition of ROUTINE: "X person elected to X local post, here's a little background on her, end of story." BASIC requires significant coverage or multiple independent sources, and the only independent source that provides anything beyond a trivial mention is the Caerphilly Observer, which counts as one source for purposes of calculating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you and I have a different understanding of what "routine coverage" is. I share the views of this essay: WP:NOTROUTINE. While it is about events, the guidelines at WP:ROUTINE are also informative. That guideline considers things like "[w]edding announcements, sports scores, crime logs" etc. to be routine. There are multiple independent sources that provide exposition about Bishop's life and political work. In my view, that's enough for WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC. Notecardforfree (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL as a local councillor and I can only see routine or local coverage common for election candidates and local councillors, which doesn't sufficiently demonstrate notability. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep easily enough different reliable sources to be worthy of an article per Notecardforfree Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:32, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - squeezes by notability with non-routine sources, I'm in agreement with notecard. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm coming up a bit short on the sources. Caerphilly Observer might be the best, but it's still really thin on actual coverage about Bishop. Nation Cymru's description of her as a group leader isn't nothing, but it's not much, and I don't see enough to meet GNG between them and the rest of the cited sources. There might be something worth writing about Bishop at Caerphilly County Borough Council, but that article isn't currently written in such a way as to make merging easy. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This debate will be decided on the question of whether enough of the independent sources cited here provide more than WP:ROUTINE coverage of the subject. Our current best practice for deciding this is the essay WP:MILL, but I don't see WP:NOTROUTINE as contradicting it. Boilerplate votes of the form "meets/fails GNG/BASIC/NPOL" without engaging with actual sources will receive little if any weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:24, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly not notable, especially at a beyond-local, like international, level. For instance, searching up her name pops up the Bishop of Charlotte (which doesn't have a Wikipedia article either, proof: Bishop of Charlotte) first. Other queries like "Charlotte Bishop politician" quickly wield unrelated results, especially Charlotte politicians with "Bishop" in their name (like Dan Bishop, who actually has an article). Even more specific queries like "Charlotte Bishop from Wales" quickly pops up unrelated results, like someone with that name from the 19th century. (On the first page even!) Unsurprising (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
nation.cymru "Plaid Cymru elects new council group leader"			~	~ Maybe
Caerphilly observer elected councillor deputy leader group leader				✔ Yes
Plaid Cymru	political party publication			✘ No
whocanivotefor.co.uk	Govt records should not be used for notability			✘ No
quotes in various news articles solar farm school transport council logo Key route set for £20m			Quotes subject, but does not cover subject in detail	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Delete: At best there are two sources for notability: nation.cymru and Caerphilly Observer. I am assuming their reliability. The coverage is not extremely detailed, and I down weight changes in town council party leadership as significant coverage. More than two sources are wanted, especially when the depth of coverage is lacking. 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per PacificDepths' source analysis. --Enos733 (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources

To address the recent discussions regarding source depth and volume, the article is supported by a collection of independent regional news reporting and official documentation.

Please see below the sources used, plus some additions, for the members of the discussions reference:

Leadership & Career Profiles:

• Mark Mansfield, "Plaid Cymru elects new council group leader", Nation.Cymru
• "Plaid Cymru elects its first female council group leader", Caerphilly Observer
• "Caerphilly Plaid Cymru group leaders: Lindsay Whittle and Charlotte Bishop", Caerphilly Observer
• "Charlotte Bishop becomes first female leader of Caerphilly Plaid Cymru", Herald.Wales

Legislative & Policy Scrutiny:

• BBC News coverage featuring substantive quotes and scrutiny regarding council statements of accounts and spending.
• "Plaid Cymru slam council's solar farm sell-off", Nation.Cymru
• "Plaid unhappy Labour use council logo on leaflet", South Wales Argus
• Nicholas Thomas, "Hundreds of pupils to lose free school transport as safety concerns raised", Nation.Cymru
• "Key route set for £20m works but anger at Welsh Government remains", WalesOnline

Primary & Electoral Documentation:

• "Caerphilly Plaid Group Elects First Woman Leader", Party of Wales
• "Caerphilly local election: Aber Valley by-election", Who Can I Vote For?
• "Caerphilly local election: 2022 candidates in Aber Valley", Who Can I Vote For?
• "Senedd election: Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni", Who Can I Vote For?

MeyrickTil (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

No, this is essentially the same coverage as already reviewed. The first four sources retread the exact same ground (often with the exact same wording) as the sources previously discussed, the next four merely cite statements from Bishop in her capacity as a representative, and I don't know why you included the final four primary sources that are obviously not useful here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the user’s LLM thought these sources would somehow be helpful. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

No, I felt that these sources were useful, especially following the delete comment from PacificDepths which stated only two of the sources related to the political profile of the councillor from reliable outlets, with the Herald missing.

I will also add that this is the second time that you have made this incorrect statement, one which I responded to on the 2nd of September which you failed to address.

While we may disagree on our interpretation of notability guidelines, jumping right to repeating your incorrect claim after days of inactivity on the post, and only following my comment, seems to me both unnecessary and unhelpful to the discussion.

Again, while I may disagree with your view on notability, I still respect your input to the discussion. In turn I would appreciate in a basic level of professional courtesy, and as a new editor maybe some constructive feedback, rather then unwarranted comments, especially when all I did was provide a clear reference list of sources which I hoped would assist others following a comment I noticed that had a source missing.

MeyrickTil (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)