Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 38

Redirect page "European Imperialism" under discussion
Hey there. I nominated "European Imperialism" and "European imperialism" for discussion. Then the pages got relisted twice, so the nomination is currently at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18, where I'm inviting you to improve consensus. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mohammed_bin_Rashid_Al_Maktoum
Ongoing WP:Rfc on an article tagged as of interest to this project. Please comment there, thanks, Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Smith Featured article review
Ian Smith has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional counties up for deletion
I've added some sources. More are out there. Important literary device. Important list for some of our readers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of The Logical Indian
There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of The Logical Indian (thelogicalindian.com) for the Jai Shri Ram article. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   07:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC on Kyle Kulinski
Kyle Kulinski, whose current draft article is in userspace, is a New York City radio talk show host who has come to greater prominence on YouTube, where he has 831 thousand subscribers and 689 million views and over 4,000 Patreon supporters. His article was nominated for deletion four times since 2017, with the first three results reaching no consensus, and the most recent resulting in deletion on February 1, 2020.

During the AfD, Kulinski asked Jimmy Wales about securing evidence of notability on Twitter, which greatly raised visibility of the AfD among new editors, and resulted a deletion review closed March 5 endorsing the deletion but reaching no consensus on re-creation. About that time, I worked on the article in draft space, submitting it to AfC twice after adding sources. Unfortunately, a number of new and IP editors copied my effort and re-submitted the draft without any improvements, just arguments against the AfC denial rationale, which resulted in a MfD on the draft closed in favor of keeping it, but the disruption from new editors caused administrators to fully protect the draft and salt the deleted article.

Since these disruptions, a number of new reliable sources have come to light, including a March 3 profile in Jacobin which Jimmy Wales says causes Kulinski to meet the GNG, and a January 9 profile in the Santa Clarita Gazette which also had been overlooked at the AfD, DRV, and MfD discussions and is considered significant, independent, reliable, and secondary by the only editor to evaluate it, along with a number of new stories on The Hill TV referencing Kulinski as a headliner authority and excerpting lengthy clips as part of their WP:RSP-approved source publications which were also overlooked at AfD, RDV, and MfD, such as these from July, September, November, and December 2019, and March 6, and April 10, 2020.

Moreover, a request for objections as to whether Kulinski meets WP:ENTERTAINER over a month ago and an RFC opened and closed today resulted in three endorsements that he meets the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria with no dissent. EllenCT (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Because of the troubled history of the draft, we should obtain clear consensus for notability before asking it to be re-created. Therefore, in light of these new and overlooked sources, should Kyle Kulinski be considered notable? 22:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kulinski is notable, as proposer. EllenCT (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that Kyle Kulinski meets the notability requirements. Falseinfinity (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would avoid using that Gazette reference though as it seems as though anyone can write for them. I love Kyle's show to the core, I've been watching him weekly for over six years now, so if someone from the outside wonders why I don't give my full-throated support, I would only dissent because he doesn't meet the criteria Wikipedia sets in place, not because I don't like him. Buffaboy  talk 03:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but irrelevant. WP:ENTERTAINER is a very low bar, a SNG indicator of whether the topic will meet the GNG. The KK article has already been deleted at AfD, this is past the point of stub creation guidance, to get this recreated requires WP:THREE. It is very close. I do not think that calling him an ENTERTAINER advances the case. He is a serious political commentator.  YouTube entertainers do not get an easier run than political commentators.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the first I've seen WP:THREE, as I almost never get involved in AfD or DRVs. I would pick, , and assuming what Buffaboy says about the Santa Clarita Gazette is true. I haven't looked to see whether the second two are listed in the table you made over a month ago now, but I know you considered the first to be non-independent for reasons with which I don't agree.
 * By the way, in response to your comment on the earlier RFC over at the userspace draft talk page, I broadened the scope of this one to full notability in general, I hope you noticed. EllenCT (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:THREE is relatively recent, but receives strong support for cases that were previously deleted due to lack of sources demonstrating notability. It is largely driven by the pragmatics of asking experienced Wikipedians to review proffered sources in the face of the false belief that a great many sources will suffice.
 * My gut feel is that the two minimum independent secondary sources that cover the subject directly and in some depth, will be found. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Not too bothered either way, but the Daily Express ref needs replacing with a reliable source. The Express is a poorer and even loonier version of the Daily Mail, which is banned on Wikipedia. Number   5  7  16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can still edit the userspace draft. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope that I fixed it. Thanks for letting me know. EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, probably not yet; but irrelevant (per SmokeyJoe). I'm not seeing evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I asked for THREE in one of the AfDs; in which I did not !vote. Of the THREE above, two (The Intercept & Real Clear Politics) are sources where the article subject is the speaker - not independent. The third, Jacobin, is based on an interview with the article subject - borderline independent (not sure which side of the border). WP:ENTERTAINER is indeed a very low bar, meeting it does not guarantee notability. It's also not necessarily applicable - are political commentators "entertainers"? (aside from Alex Jones, the "actor"). This RfC is not functionally distinguishable from an "end run around" the normal article creation & deletion processes; even should it be closed with consensus that the subject is notable, it does not obviate those processes. - Ryk72 talk 01:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - Good job to those who worked on this draft. It looks very professional and the new sources are solid. In this case, I really don't even see what's wrong with using the Daily Express, since the information extracted from it is a purely uncontroversial fact about his appearance on Fox News. Still, it would look good even without it. Edittac (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC) — Edittac (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No. What has changed since AfD? Answer: Nothing substantive. The article was deleted due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. We must not succumb to !votes here based on the conviction that this should not have been deleted, we already went through that, we have to focus on the new sources since deletion. Of which there are... basically none. The Wikipedia trifecta: reliable, independent, secondary. Virtually none of the sources in the draft meet that test, and those that do, are mere namechecks. It's not a surprise that nothing has changed in less than a month. IOt was WP:TOOSOON then and it's still WP:TOOSOON now. Guy (help!) 10:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This lengthy biographical sketch in a pre-internet politics magazine source which has never even been questioned at RSN came out after the AfD closed and a couple days before the DRV closed. EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No - A fundamental question when recreating a page deleted at AfD is what new information exists that would satisfy notability now. I don't see anything that wasn't available then. This just seems like another round at DRV -- another opportunity for everyone to make all the same arguments and for a whole bunch more SPAs to join. If this is closed as "no," I'd like to see a moratorium placed on further threads about the deletion/creation of this article unless a bunch of new high-quality sources come to light. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That did come to light, which along with my inadvertent involvement in the saltings, is why I felt compelled. I never even watched Kulinski before seeing the discussion about the AfD off-wiki. EllenCT (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No There is not enough information in reliable sources about him to create an article that provides a detailed and fair outline of his life. As the Jacobin article points out, mainstream media don't mention him at all. Kulinski expresses his views on many subjects, but his views are rarely covered in secondary sources. The only way to present these views in an article is to use his statements. But that would mean over-reliable on primary sources and limitations on what we could say about them. How do we cover his positions on Russiagate, the Syrian chemical attack, the death of Jeffrey Epstein? For example he tweeted that Epstein's death was "mighty convenient." Is that black humor, legitimate speculation or conspiracism? If an article about Epstein mentions the tweet in passing, do we use that source? The short answer is massive amounts of talk page discussions, postings to noticeboards and RfCs. Incidentally, the profile in the Santa Clara Gazette is clearly labelled an opinion piece and hence cannot be used as a reliable source in a biography of a living person. The Jacobin article is little better, because it is largely based on an interview with Kulinski. TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes - It seems to me that he is notable enough. Robo4900 (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No Per SmokeyJoe. Why can't people be patient with this page? I don't understand. KidAd (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article survived three AfDs since 2015. Then a new biographical sketch came out. EllenCT (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: here is a new source which just came out yesterday: EllenCT (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The No party affiliation redirects
At the moment, is a redirect to Independent voter while  is a redirect to Independent politician. I think both should have the same target. Which one will need to change? Other relevant pages include the article Nonpartisanism and the dab page Unaffiliated. – Uanfala (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RFD, please. BD2412  T 01:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC Notice
There is a RfC taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums concerning elections infoboxes and the inclusion of second place finishers. It may concern or overlap with this project.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

History of Democracy in Mexico
Hello all! I've finished updating the article on the History of democracy in Mexico per my university assignment. If you're free, please head over to check out the re-organization, and the new content under various sections. I've left started off some topics for others to expand on, so feel free to do that or leave any comments on the talk page. Cheers! Claudia Paine22 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:British and Irish political parties
Category:British and Irish political parties has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden
Joe Biden, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mayoral elections in the United States
Given that we have a bit of a problem with smaller cities getting unmaintained, short mayoral election articles (as illustrated in this AfD), I propose that they be massively consolidated on a state-by-state basis. For cities that fail to meet the principal city criteria set by the U.S. Census Bureau (generally, being listed first in their MSA or CSA name) and are not reasonably important on their own (e.g. by being a major city in a separate state from the principal city), the mayoral elections should be merged into a statewide list article created for each year's local elections. There are already pages like this (2016 Washington elections, 2000 California elections) where the mayoral elections can be easily added.  Sounder Bruce  04:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sensible starting point. However, if the state election article already has a lot to cover (House, Senate, state legislature, propositions, governor etc), it might be worth having a 2018 California local elections type article that can also branch off into any other city election articles that already exist like 2018 San Francisco Board of Supervisors election (if they're deemed worthwhile). Number   5  7  07:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Garran FAR
I have nominated Robert Garran for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mathematical Theory of Democracy
Hello WikiProject Politics. Is there anyone with knowledge of political theories who could help me reviewing this draft article please? The subject also has with servings of mathematics and philosophy perhaps.

The draft's editor has published a book called Mathematical theory of democracy so I am a bit hesitant to judge whether the topic is notable and the article is in a NPOV state. Regarding notability, author advises that the 3 best sources are #12 (Lang), 14 (Tangian) and 16 ("Turning a political education instrument..."). Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC pointer
This RfC may be of interest to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Democratic & Republican primaries & caucuses
Myself & are having a dispute over how the 2020 party primaries should be named (see for example 2020 Hawaii Democratic primary article). Should they follow the current version 2020 State Democratic or Republican primary or instead 2020 state Democratic or Republican presidential primary? GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I will let argue his case. My case for including "presidential" is that many (most? all?) other states have separate primaries for presidential races and for other races. Calling one or the other the primary can be confusing to the reader. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the result is consistency across all these articles, be it with or without presidential included? then I'll be content. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1960 Cypriot by-elections
I recently made the article 1960 Cypriot by-elections and the draft was accepted with a C-Class rating. I am trying to expand the article and am interested in knowing how it could reach B-Class i.e what criteria there are and what changes need to be made. KnolGua (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed split at Philippe Pétain
Your feedback would be appreciated at this split proposal at Philippe Pétain. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Articles for Creation has a new sort tool, you can see all pending relevant drafts here: AfC sorting/History and Society/Politics and government
Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to this WikiProject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)