Ossanda Liber

Ossanda Liber (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 and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Jack Rankin (British politician)

Jack Rankin (British 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)

Somewhat promotional biography of candidate for the upcoming UK election. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine for any election candidate. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — they must either win the election and thereby hold the seat, or already have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway. But the former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't been shown here at all. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Amelia Hamer

Amelia Hamer (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)

Only claim to notability is being a candidate for the next Australian federal election. Sources cover her in the context of winning a party selection process. She is not notable by virtue of connection with notable family members. It is long-standing practice that we don't create articles for unelected election candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree and as is stated in WP:NPOLITICIAN an unelected candidate in an election isn't inherently notable, but when a candidate's article can be supported with sources that establish notability through WP:GNG, then, as stated in NPOLITICIAN, such people can still be notable. In connection with GNG, a range of sources from both within the article already, and from a Google Search show the article's subject meets the GNG criteria. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing in the article demonstrates her notability inside or outside politics.--Grahame (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not independently notable outside a political candidacy, and we have a number of reasons to delete those sorts of pages. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not notable for being a political candidate. Her activities at Oxford University hardly add to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete The subject article seems to be a TOO SOON. She might later gain notability in the future but for now she doesn't seems to be notable or either enough sources to meet WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - TOOSOON and WP:POLOUTCOMES. While consensus can change, the longtime and frequent outcomes have been a long standing precedent. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Draftify: With the likely result being to delete, I request the article be drafted, in case the subject wins the election, in order to retain the edit history thusfar GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates — obviously she'll qualify for an article if she wins the seat once the election happens, but she isn't eligible to have one just for being named as a candidate. But the existence of that campaign coverage received in the context of her candidacy does not in and of itself hand a candidate a WP:GNG-based exemption from WP:NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be completely meaningless and unenforceable. So the notability test for an unelected candidate isn't passed on campaign coverage alone, and normally requires that she already passed an inclusion criterion for some other reason besides her candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Radical pro-Beijing camp

Radical pro-Beijing camp (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)

Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)