Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It's snowing. Thankfully somewhere other than in Western New York. Star Mississippi 19:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Salbi[edit]

Zainab Salbi (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)

Advertorialized resume-like practically unsourced article failing WP:GNG. The article includes WP:COI editing with "the assistant to Zainab Salbi" having 72 edits of 74 by the account on the article[1][2]. After much deliberation and research, I'm nominating this for AfD.

  • The most 'notable' item about her is co-founding the nonprofit Women for Women International, and reliable, independent, secondary sourcing typically has little to say about her role, ie. that she co-founded it, and a sentence or two on the org's impact which is information that can be traced to its website[3], or that she left as CEO in 2011.
  • Her other activity has been authoring (not meeting the criteria of WP:AUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST; and on further research by far her most "known" book is not significant especially not compared to other modern memoirs such as[4][5] nevermind books in general, nor widely cited) and a few short-lived, non-notable podcasts/talk shows.
  • The overwhelming majority of available sourcing I looked through in researching (200+) are primary, unreliable, and/or affiliated with her - her website, mini-bios/profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or individuals she has been affiliated with or gave a talk with (Ex: [6][7]), her words about herself, interviews orgs/individuals have had with her (Ex: [8]), articles and books written by her, and in one case an insignificant book anecdote by an acquaintance about an interaction.
  • Secondary sources, regardless of reliability, typically make very short mention (often 1-3 sentences) [9][10], or giving a quote by her[11] or in a couple instances recounting a passage about her from one of her books.

There's not really the required substantial/significant, in-depth "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"[12] about her, and without depth going beyond the website profiles or other primary sourcing. That is, and fair caution for discussion, on a surface look, it may appear that many sources out there fitting the necessary criteria exist such as the mini-profiles, but while they mention her in some way, they fit into the mentioned categories of sourcing. The most ostensibly "notable", detailed source, a few mixed prose/interview pieces, for example is still a primary source with a direct dependency on the subject.

WP:CIRCULAR concern: a lot of the sourcing out there appear to draw in part from the Wikipedia article, some being direct copy-pastes.[13] This article in part appears to function as base information for use on website profiles, interview/talk introductions, and other sources affiliated with the subject, and so is advertorial or promotional to a demonstrable extent. This makes it difficult to determine what would be WP:CIRCULAR sourcing if such sources are to be included considering the historical state of the article.

What's here is not inherently notable enough to exempt the article from having to show considerably better quality sourcing and establishing unquestionable notability than what the historically poor sourcing on the article and more importantly, the low-depth and/or low reliability sourcing that the broader internet and literature provide. This article hasn't been a subject of neglect, and, including with COI involvement, has not been able to establish notability for over 15 years. Delete, or redirect to Women for Women International, per failing WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 27 update: Since there has been significant editing on the article since the nom, this update is to be made. There have been 6 new participants on the AfD since then basing arguments on a brief look of the updated state of the article, 5 of which have been WP:JUSTAPOLICY comments, under the assumption that any sources added = notability provided, which is not correct according to policy as pointed out by multiple people here. However, the sourcing added is almost entirely tertiary, primary, non-independent, unreliable, or the "staff" profiles on self-published affiliated org websites, and little of the necessary "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" to presume notability per WP:NBASIC. I'll likely add a Talk section on the article pointing out each source falling into these categories since this is going missed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. On basis of notability established as follows:
  1. ASL, M. P. Micro-Physics of Discipline: Spaces of the Self in Middle Eastern Women Life Writings. International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES), [s. l.], v. 20, n. 2, p. 223–240, 2020. DOI 10.33806/ijaes2000.20.2.12. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=145173932&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 25 dez. 2022. (17 mentions of her in this academic paper discussing her book Between Two Worlds Escape from Tyranny: Growing up in the Shadow of Saddam)
  2. MUHTASEB, A. Us Media Darlings: Arab and Muslim Women Activists, Exceptionalism and the “Rescue Narrative”. Arab Studies Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 42, n. 1/2, p. 7–24, 2020. DOI 10.13169/arabstudquar.42.1-2.0007. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=143165214&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 25 dez. 2022. (critiques her role in an episode of This Week TV program, in which she was interviewed, her name is mentioned 10 times in the article)
  3. POURYA ASL, M. Foucauldian rituals of justice and conduct in Zainab Salbi’s Between Two Worlds. Journal of Contemporary Iraq & the Arab World, [s. l.], v. 13, n. 2/3, p. 227–242, 2019. DOI 10.1386/jciaw_00010_1. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=152206274&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 25 dez. 2022.(second book review, thus passing WP:AUTHOR CT55555(talk) 00:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment but unfortunately this doesn't fit WP:AUTHOR's criteria. Your point works better towards demonstrating some notability of the particular book Between Two Worlds, but not of Salbi herself, which is more along the lines of WP:NBOOK, and does not establish the book as significant either. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is pertinent here too, if applied to mentions within a source "not just the mere presence of the searched-for term".
    1. This paper is not focused on Salbi or her book specifically, but instead on female oppression in the Middle East and multiple works by different authors, Salbi's Between Two Worlds being one of them. Where it does mention Salbi, it speaks on her book, not her. The comment on number of mentions is misleading. Of the 17 mentions, 1 is a "keyword", 3 are mentioning she is the book's author, 3 are cited pages from the book eg. "(Salbi 2005:80)", 4 are about Salbi's mother (not Salbi) in the context of what's written in the book, 4 are general statements about all the women's books (eg. "Sultana, Nafisi, Salbi and al-Sharif"), and just 2 are about Salbi/Salbi's characterization in the book. Regardless, what is said in this paper are passages and limited analytical depth on what's written in the book and may be argued as contributing to the book's notability, not her or what makes her notable. Furthermore, the reliability of IJAES is unclear too. Her having lived in Iraq and knowing a leader because of her father's job does not establish her own notability.
    2. The focus of this is a segment of This Week and its portrayal of Arab and Muslim women, not on Salbi. As you said too, she was interviewed, and the paper mentions Salbi a few times trivially, which does not add to notability. 9 of the name drops are trivial and one of them is a word in a website URL. A couple brief mentions of her appearance on a talk show and mentioning delivering "the typical speech about putting women rights at the forefront of a country’s rights" and that she got 130 seconds of airtime (among the other women who were on the show) does not demonstrate notability.
    3. This is a Foucauldian analysis of a theme in Between Two Worlds, and doesn't establish her notability or what makes the book significant. The existence of this source may add to the book's notability, but not to the significance necessary of WP:AUTHOR or demonstrates notability. I can't find anything on the reliability of the journal or author either.
    Please note that a book having a couple sources mentioning it or analyzing it in some way is not what WP:AUTHOR is about. The book has to be significant. The Lord of the Rings is significant being one of the most defining works of fiction in the modern era, while Bored of the Rings may be notable but not significant. It isn't demonstrated that Between Two Worlds is significant among memoirs such as the Pulitzer Prize winning The Return (memoir) or in general, but separately, maybe the case can be made that Between Two Worlds is notable per WP:NBOOK.
    That is, WP:AUTHOR, and relevant to this "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", is not met. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. There is detailed analysis about her work that represents significant coverage in reliable an independent sources, she seems notable to me. CT55555(talk) 15:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the WP:AUTHOR case did not hold merit, what is this "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources" that doesn't actually fit into the categories not establishing notability described in the nom? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage of an author's work does not equal notability for the author. DS (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NAUTHOR#3 includes has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... and per the reviews added to the article, she has two books that are the primary subject of multiple reviews, so she appears to be notable for her collective body of work, in addition to WP:BASIC notability supported by multiple independent and reliable sources over time that report and comment on her, including her work as a writer, talk show host, and humanitarian. Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "reviews" part is in the "In addition," part and separate from "significant work". It's not demonstrated that a few brief book reviews makes a book significant. However, it may be argued that it can lend towards the book's notability WP:NBOOK. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The guideline refers to a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and multiple reviews, so the 8 reviews for Between Two Worlds and 3 for The Other Side of War in the article support her notability per the WP:BIO guideline - she has created more than one notable work per the WP:NBOOK guideline, so her WP:AUTHOR notability is supported. Beccaynr (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News search on Salbi's name turns up 1,150 items and a search in the Wikipedia Library turns up 1,352 items. While the article needs more citations, there's plenty of coverage out there of Salbi including in the Sydney Morning Herald, NPR, Publisher's Weekly, Forbes Magazine (plus this interview in Forbes), The Guardian, The Daily Beast, and so many other media outlets I'm not going to even attempt to list them all. Note that the sources I provided dispute the claim that Salbi's citations are all "primary, unreliable, and/or affiliated" or only brief mentions. Second, while there might have been some COI edits to the article, a look at the article's history shows that the vast majority of edits here have not been COI. Finally, the honors that Salbi has received would by themselves prove notability even without all the citations supporting the same. In short, Salbi easily meets multiple Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability and this article should never have been brought up for an AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thanks for your comment but this type of sourcing was directly addressed in the nom and does not establish notability, and coverage is not what this is about. Regarding your comment's first sentence, please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Next, every source you listed except for one is a primary source and/or are completely dependent on the subject, which do not add notability, and is exactly one of the issues mentioned in the nom. Primary as in the interview or talk is the original material and not independent as in dependent on the subject herself. Semantics aside, the sources are directly dependent on her. The other source is two sentences about her. WP:NBIO is clear that primary sources do not help contribute to notability and that sources be independent of the subject. WP:RS makes it clear sources need to be editorially independent of the subject. Interviews are effectively co-written by the subject (even if it's the journalist doing the transcribing) they are not independent and not useful for notability for a BLP. An interview or talk by the subject like these is not independent.
    There isn't anything showing the notability of the awards or "well-known and significant award", which in addition, most of which have been added as WP:OR (and may have been later picked up by other websites like those self-published profiles) and most of which are magazine lists which are not significant. A Pulitzer Prize, Nobel Peace Prize, or similar would be significant and add to notability.
    "Note that the sources I provided dispute the claim that Salbi's citations are all "primary, unreliable, and/or affiliated" or only brief mentions"
    Quoting this directly to conclude with emphasis that the sources you provided support the claim of primary sourcing or sources not independent of the subject, or brief mentions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this essay about identifying and using primary sources on Wikipedia and reliable sources guidelines because you do not seem to understand how all this works. I shared a range of the articles I found and yes, a few were interviews with Salbi. But the Guardian and Daily Beast articles were profiles of her. Just because an article contains quotes from her doesn't make it an interview. And primary sources like interviews are not prohibited on Wikipedia (as per the guidelines linked to earlier). As for the Forbes article, it's naming her as one of the world's innovative leaders, which is a good indication of notability. And again, all that's merely a tiny bit of the news coverage Salbi has received (see Beccaynr's comment below for more of them, and even then that's not all of the news coverage out there about Salbi). And I didn't say she'd won a well-known award, I said the "honors" she'd received proved notability. Per guidelines, a "significant award or honor" can prove notability and the totality of the honors she has received prove this.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the sources you provided are all interviews plus the addition of the talk by Salbi and the source with the couple trivial sentences about her "quest to understand ... who we must become".
From the essay about identifying and using primary sources on Wikipedia, it posts the question: "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?". The answer for the sources you linked is a strong no. This does not support the position of independence.
- "Just because an article contains quotes from her doesn't make it an interview"
These aren't merely "quotes from her", like from a separate event or situation. These were quotes as part of the interview provided by Salbi to the publication. It's entirely dependent on the subject and is the very event of interviewing Salbi. Both sources you linked fitting this category are the Guardian article[14], which is not a straight transcribing of the full interview (instead a mix of prose and quotes from the interview) but is kind enough to explicitly put the "Interview" label on the article, and The Daily Beast[15] which makes it explicitly clear too such "Salbi explains, over the phone from Dubai" (ie. this is Salbi doing an interview over the phone with The Daily Beast).
- "And I didn't say she'd won a well-known award, I said the "honors" she'd received proved notability"
This statement is in construction to WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". A mix of magazine lists and little-known or insignificant awards (assuming none of this is OR) does not achieve this. "totality of the honors she has received prove this" is a stretch, if not outright not fitting, the policy.
- "As for the Forbes article, it's naming her as one of the world's innovative leaders"
If you're referring to the article title, it is specifically "Women’s History Month - Meet Today’s Innovative Leaders", very briefly (in a few sentences) describing 13 women and for Salbi, not describing her innovating anything "today" really except a website in beta that she's a part of that with the extreme claim "one of the largest collections of wisdom of all time", which is a paraphrase of what the website says about itself.[16][17]. The list isn't an award or anything well-known either.
Finally, I want to emphasize, what you said is not an interview, The Guardian[18] very explicitly labels as an interview. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST, there are multiple sources with significant biographical and career coverage that can help develop the article, e.g. Zainab Salbi Helps Women Recover (TIME, 2008), Zainab Salbi: Escape from tyranny (Guardian, 2013), Zainab Salbi: The Voice Of Arabia (Harper's Bazaar Arabia, 2015), Meet Zainab Salbi – from aid worker to talkshow revolutionary (Guardian, 2015), Why PBS’s #MeToo Docuseries Wants to Give a Voice to the Accused (Vanity Fair, 2018), How Zainab Salbi took control of her own story and founded a global women's rights organization (NBC News Nightly Films, 2019, "Zainab Salbi is a humanitarian, author, and media personality originally from Iraq. She traces her journey from growing up in Saddam Hussein’s circle, to becoming known as “the Oprah of the Middle East.”"), After Illness Derailed Her Activism, Zainab Salbi Is Doing More Than Ever (Bon Appetit, 2021). Reviews of her memoir Between Two Worlds, e.g. Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, add further support for her notability, which includes her work as an author. Beccaynr (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also her appearance in the PBS series Not Done: Women Remaking America (2012) and Zainab Salbi on gender equality: ‘This is not the time to be polite. This is the time to call it’ (Guardian, 2016). The secondary context and commentary provided by sources that also include interview content can support notability per the WP:BASIC guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The PBS series appearance is a brief video interview with the subject herself. The Guardian interview, is just that, an interview with Salbi and is labeled at the top of the article. This is precisely what WP:BASIC warns against. Interviews are in no way independent of the subject, and on primary sources such as these interviews, "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thanks for your comment. As pointed out in the nom and my reply to SouthernNights, interview sources do not demonstrate notability according to WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG especially considering they are not independent of the subject. WP:RS too makes it clear sources need to be editorially independent of the subject and interviews are not independent. Every source you linked (prior to the book reviews) is directly dependent on Salbi. The "biographical and career coverage" is Salbi talking about herself.
    WP:GNG/WP:BASIC do not accept such sources for notability, since we need "secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".
    • The NBC News Nightly Film links is a video interview with Salbi. This is not independent of the subject. It's raw, primary material. The subcaption of the video interview doesn't make it non-independent or provide notability.
    • The other 6 links are all mixed prose/interview pieces with Salbi (interviews that mix prose by the journalist with the direct quotes of the interviewee, which are also non-independent sources and don't provide notability), including both of The Guardian interviews by Homa Khaleeli[19][20] (The Guardian kindly puts in bold at the top that these are interviews too), the Time interview, [21], the Harpers Bazaar interview, [22], the Vanity Fair interview [23], and the Bon Appetit interview [24].
    The brief book reviews Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, may be argued to contribute to the notability of the book Between Two Worlds itself per WP:NBOOK, but it isn't demonstrated to be significant as required by WP:AUTHOR. Pulitzer Prize winning The Return (memoir) is an example of a significant work that would lend towards WP:AUTHOR. See this diff for more explanation about that [25]. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saucysalsa30: As I mentioned above, you are incorrect when you say interview sources can not demonstrate notability because "they are not independent of the subject." That is not how reliable source guidelines work on Wikipedia. And merely because a news profile of someone like Salbi contains quotes from that person does not magically transform a reliable source into something that can't be used. And it makes no sense when you say interviews are not editorially independent of the subject. A media outlet's editorial process and editors are not suddenly taken over and controlled by someone when they are interviewed by that outlet. --SouthernNights (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SouthernNights Thanks for your comment. I've already explained all this with notability guidelines in full, including my response to your latest comment[26]. This comment seems to confuse WP:RS with notability criteria. Claiming that sources not independent on the subject and/or primary add notability is in direct contradiction to WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Apart from the mostly direct transcribed interviews, regarding the interview sourcing that "contains [extensive] quotes", those were interviews too, and were explicitly labeled as such by the publication.
    Your case to this point has been WP:LOTSOFSOURCES[27] and the incorrect claim that sources already demonstrated or explicitly stating themselves as directly dependent on the subject and/or primary provide notability. I will leave a couple quotes from WP:NBASIC rehashing everything else I've said in response to you.
    What notability criteria requires: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
    "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
    As we both agree, the sourcing is dependent on the subject and consequently does not fit the necessary criteria, nor does a source like the trivial sentence about "the connection between who we have been and who we must become" demonstrate any notability. Please see the essay on no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. This is the point that the AfD discussion has come to. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since almost every source provided in the "Keep" comments have been interviews (other than talks by Salbi herself, book reviews (more relevant to the book itself) and a trivial source), the Wikipedia essay on interviews provides some clarity.
"The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material. Considering these interviews with Salbi are about Salbi and her life and experiences and are being used as sources about her specifically, they absolutely are not independent of her, which does not meet the criteria required by WP:ANYBIO. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, interviews are bad for verifiability, especially bolder claims, but nothing prohibits them from being used to assess notability. Please be mindful of advice contained within WP:BLUDGEON. I think, at this point, the people who disagree with you understand the point that has been made. CT55555(talk) 22:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CT5555. I respect your understanding and (sincerely) thanks for the advice (which I and others here are becoming guilty of). One small clarification: Wikipedia notability policy doesn't prohibit using interviews in general, but it is clear that sources being both independent of the subject and secondary (among other things) are necessary for presuming notability, and more bluntly that primary sourcing does not contribute to proving notability. Cheers Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: - That's exactly backwards. An interview with X is great for reliability about X says about themselves, and terrible for notability about X. Notability is external attention. On the -help channel, we constantly have to explain to people that getting yourself interviewed in a magazine, even a reputable one, is not in itself enough for notability. Even if it's multiple magazines. DS (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment on sources: Saucysalsa30 is not correct in how they understand primary sources and is misstating Wikipedia guidelines. For example, this statement shared by Saucysalsa30 is from a Wikipedia guideline but is being used in this case in a wrong manner: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." What that statement means is someone's personal website or, in this case, the website and publications of Women for Women International, could be used to provide biographical info on a subject but could not be used to prove notability. That means if the only sources proving Salbi's notability were the content of her books and her organization's website, then yes, they would not count. But the many media sources listed by people in this AfD, such as The Sydney Morning Herald, NPR, Publisher's Weekly, Forbes Magazine, The Guardian, The Daily Beast, Time, Harper's Bazaar Arabia, and so on, are exactly what is meant by "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Salbi does not control any part of these media outlets, including their editorial work. While Saucysalsa30 appears to be attempting to WP:BLUDGEON everyone here who points out the many reliable media sources proving notability -- again, a Google News search on Salbi's name turns up 1,150 items and a search in the Wikipedia Library turns up 1,352 items -- that doesn't change the either the sources themselves or how Wikipedia's guidelines are applied in a case like this.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    At the WP Library, sources include but are not limited to:
    • "Zainab Salbi, the story of a Muslim who knows of war but strives for peace", Yemen Times (Sana'a, Yemen), Oct. 11, 2010, 1250 words, (via Gale) e.g. "Zainab Salbi is one of the extraordinary examples of how passion coupled with hard-work can move mountains." [...] "Women for Women International's programs in Iraq have received a grant totaling more than USD 970,000. The grant will provide job-skills training and rights awareness programming to Iraqi war widows and female heads of households--a total of 2,500 women. The latter make up 60 percent of Women for Women International's programs in Iraq and care for an average of three children and live in poverty."
    • "Zainab Salbi" Newsmakers 2008, 1,676 words (via Gale), e.g. "After the United States invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam from power in 2003, she went back to her native country to visit several times. She also expanded the scope of Women for Women to include Iraq after the initial war ended; however, because of safety concerns for women and staff in Iraq, the sponsorship program could not operate there." This source includes biographical and career details, awards, and other writings.
    • "Iraqi-Born Charity Worker Strives to Empower Women" Chronicle of Philanthropy 3/9/2006, Vol. 18, Issue 10 (via EBSCOhost), e.g. "Women for Women, which maintains a staff of slightly more than 20 local employees in Iraq, operates a low-profile program in the southern part of the country to train women in job skills--and is considering whether it is safe enough to start a microcredit program to provide small loans to help women start or improve businesses." [...] She founded Women for Women in 1993 after reading about rape victims during the wars in Bosnia and Croatia. The nonprofit group has grown fast since then, aided partly by six appearances by Ms. Salbi on Oprah Winfrey's television show. With programs in nine countries, its revenue has jumped from $2.7-million in 2002 to a projected $18-million this year."
    • A review of Between Two Worlds, in Library Journal 8/15/2005, Vol. 130, Issue 13 (via EBSCOhost)
    • "Zainab Salbi" Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors Oct. 3, 2006, 397 words (via Gale) (includes education details)
    • A review of Between Two Worlds: "truth be told; Two memoirs burst with the immediacy of news headlines" Vogue Nov. 2005 (via Gale) e.g. "Within months of Hussein's arrest she began writing Between Two Worlds: Escaping from Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow of Saddam (Gotham Books), her fearlessly candid memoir about weathering the eighties under his tyrannical thumb. "I knew that what I wrote would impact my whole family's honor," she writes. "But there was no honor, I thought, in silence." Her book, a torrent of vividly recalled memories, reads with the sort of artless verve that can come only from one who's been unshackled from a lifetime of repression."
    • A review of The Other Side of War: Women's Stories of Survival & Hope Mitchell, Penni. Herizons. Summer2007, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p49 (via EBSCOhost)
    • "Women for Women Wins Hilton Humanitarian Prize" Hanley, Delinda C., Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Dec2006, Vol. 25, Issue 9 (vi EBSCOhost) e.g. "In accepting the prize, Zainab Salbi, Women for Women International's Iraqiborn founder and president, said: [...] Salbi is an expert when it cornes to helping women voice their concerns. Her second book, The Other Side of War: Women's Stories of Survival and Hope (published by National Geographic and available from the AET Book Club) relates tales of unthinkable brutality, as well as courage, healing and renewal."
    Beccaynr (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, thanks for the courtesy tag, but you more or less repeat what you had said in your last comment. I've previously addressed most of this in prior comments, but the "many sources exist" argument is exactly one that is warned to avoid. The numbers given are in error. It's 260 for Google News (proof) and 852 for Wikipedia Library (proof). I went through all the search pages to the end. The initial search number does say 1150 at the top when you enter a search term but is not necessarily accurate because it includes duplicate, cached, and other erroneous results. It's a search engine quirk. Most of these are some combination of no more than a name drop or other trivial coverage, unknown reliability, or directly depend on her or affiliated with her too.
    "The Sydney Morning Herald, ... and so on, are exactly what is meant by "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.""
    As we both have agreed, these are all interviews with her about her. However, the interpretation of interviews being independent and not primary is not supported in notability guidelines or explanatory material. The interview sources provided are not independent (subject talking about the subject) and generally primary or may included limited secondary information. As Wikipedia:Interviews puts it, "The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source and is also non-independent material." Which Wikipedia notability criteria supports primary/non-independent material as providing notability? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing for this article is terrible. +90% of its content is unsourced, and that which is sourced is super minor ("#37 on Gulf Business's top 100 most powerful Arabs for 2019" - that's not nothing, but it's not enough). If I were to remove all the uncited content there would be almost nothing left. Reviews of Ms. Salbi's books are excellent for showing notability of the books, but she is not the books and they are not her. Interviews by Ms. Salbi are her talking about herself; as such, they are an excellent source for facts and a terrible source for notability, regardless of the merits of the publication in which they appear. "This one isn't an interview - it's a profile of her that includes a few quotes." Maybe, maybe not, but it's not cited. Can this article be salvaged? I don't know, but of the people who are asserting that Ms. Salbi meets notability, only one of you has made the slightest attempt to improve the article, and that was only by adding links to reviews of Ms. Salbi's books, so that's not enough. "Here are all these sources I found!" you say. Good: integrate them into the text. If you can't find sources to support the statements in the article, remove them. If you don't care enough about the article to improve it other than by stating it's salvageable, it'll get deleted. DS (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I try to demonstrate that I care enough about the article by finding sources to support notability per WP:NEXIST as well as for developing an article about the subject, which includes her career and her writing, e.g. her books, including her memoir. There are many sources cited in this discussion, and it may take some time to integrate them into the article, but many are directly available for review.
    And when I review sources with interview content for BLPs, I make a distinction between basic Q&As and the independent and reliable sources that integrate secondary context and commentary about the subject, which from my view, can help build the article and also help support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably will make an effort to improve the article. But I might also wait to see how the AFD turns out (putting effort in to something that may get deleted isn't an attractive task), and also I might prioritise personal life stuff over this during the holiday season. And anyone can improve the article with the sources presented, not just the people who put effort into finding them. I note that @Beccaynr obviously puts lots of time into improving articles that are at AFD (thanks!) and I do too, but I hope you might have some sympathy that with about 50 nominations a day, time is finite. CT55555(talk) 23:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I won't put effort into it if it'll just get deleted"
    and then it gets deleted because no one put effort into it. DS (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, at AFD we should judge notability on what is available, not what is in the article, so you're probably wrong about that. CT55555(talk) 01:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DragonflySixtyseven: Thanks for your comment, currently the page appears to have been somewhat improved since the AfD nomination. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I have no opinion on whether WP:BASIC is passed, but regarding WP:NAUTHOR, this is kind of debated at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 75#WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough? Participants kind of disagreed upon how strictly to interpret this. In this case there are two books that easily meet WP:NBOOK, I'd opine that WP:NAUTHOR is met given the two books, but broader discussion about NAUTHOR is probably needed.
Also, User:Saucysalsa30 you've already commented to this discussion many times. Your points are insightful, and unfortunately I often post long comments, but it might be better for some uninvolved editors to opine. I understand my opinion is probably controversial, and you will disagree with my interpretation and respond, but I think you've already iterated your points across- regarding that WP:NAUTHOR's requirements of significance or well-known only includes highly prominent work (i.e., major award, literary significance) in your opinion. This intepretation is reasonable, though I respectfully disagree. I have no opinion on whether this passes WP:BASIC otherwise. VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for the tag and the Talk sectoin link. It appears you may be partially misrepresenting my opinion and notability policy to an extent, but I agree WP:AUTHOR needs to be more clear if editors are confusing it to be synonymous with WP:NBOOK Criteria #1.
From WP:NAUTHOR "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." is not demonstrated here nor elsewhere on the AfD and stretching WP:NBOOK to be synonymous with it is not right. The "two reviews" line better fits WP:NBOOK criteria: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.".
To quote a couple other's explanations from elsewhere in the AfD, "Coverage of an author's work does not equal notability for the author."[28] and "Reviews of Ms. Salbi's books are excellent for showing notability of the books, but she is not the books and they are not her"[29]. Conflating WP:NBOOK with WP:NAUTHOR is a big stretch, and by that interpretation, almost every book that meets WP:NBOOK satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for the author too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have, in my vote, explained that I anticipate this long reply, similar to the lengthy replies to the other votes. IMO you've made your points thoroughly across, you don't need to repeat the explanations in the talk page, I have already read them. misrepresenting- I haven't misrepresented your opinion. To quote from yourself, The brief book reviews Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, may be argued to contribute to the notability of the book Between Two Worlds itself per WP:NBOOK, but it isn't demonstrated to be significant as required by WP:AUTHOR. Pulitzer Prize winning The Return (memoir) is an example of a significant work that would lend towards WP:AUTHOR. See this diff for more explanation about that. You considered a Pultizer-Prize winning book and a book with literary significance as meeting this criterion, The Lord of the Rings. If it's possible, can you explain the criterion you believe that satisfies significant or well-known, which is the first part?
I disagree your statement that various other editors (User:Beccaynr, User:SouthernNights, who you disagreed), are conflating and confusing policy regarding NAUTHOR and NBOOK. Your perspective and User:DragonflySixtyseven are reasonable and policy-based, I just respectfully disagree. I've read your insightful commentary in the discussion prior to my vote, though do reply to this part if you have anything new. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also pertaining is the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2022#Well-known, significant and notable. It's mainly about filmmakers, not authors but is about the same criteria, and participants disagreed on how to interpret it. I had a read and there doesn't appear to be clear consensus over that the argument that this criteria is similar to WP's definition of notability would be egregiously wrong. Though, of course you will disagree and I appreciate your work, thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of television channels in Pakistan#General Entertainment. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AAN TV[edit]

AAN TV (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)

Minor television channel, article is completely unsourced, my WP:BEFORE found databases and non-RS about AAN TV, or articles about Al Aan TV (i.e., this), but nothing that meets WP:GNG. My previous PROD and draftification by User:Onel5969 were contested by User:Dibba tom. VickKiang (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to J. Burton Rix, Rusty Russell (American football coach), Woody Woodard. Ian Manka (my talk page) 23:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SMU Mustangs football under J. Burton Rix[edit]

SMU Mustangs football under J. Burton Rix (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 article has been replaced with better formatted and better sourced individual season articles. It is now redundant. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they have similarly been replaced by individual season articles:

SMU Mustangs football under Rusty Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
SMU Mustangs football under Woody Woodard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jweiss11 (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrzia Zouaoui[edit]

Mehrzia Zouaoui (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. Avilich (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't translate into actual coverage, so notability is still lacking. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom (fails GNG) and GiantSnowman, no evidence of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Václav Schieferdecker[edit]

Václav Schieferdecker (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 to pass WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Rosí[edit]

David Rosí (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 to pass WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was merge to Graham Hancock. BD2412 T 23:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Message of the Sphinx[edit]

The Message of the Sphinx (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Hypnôs (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It has a review at Publishers Weekly, at the very least. I found it was also mentioned in a NYT article from 1997 about various books on fringe theories, but its very brief and would not count as significant coverage. If another actual review from a reliable source can be found, it could potentially pass WP:NBOOK. Otherwise, I would think a Redirect to one of the book's authors' pages would be more appropriate than deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've had slightly more luck finding sources with the UK title Keeper of Genesis (I've just added two to the article). I'm still undecided whether there's enough. Certainly this book isn't as notable as Fingerprints of the Gods or Magicians of the Gods by the same author. – Joe (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Like Rorshacma and Joe Roe I am not really sure. The Publishers Weekly ref is borderline WP:SIGCOV and is WP:RS, whereas the NYT mention is not SIGCOV. I can't fully access the refs Joe Roe linked, but based on a preview search (for the UK title) the refs mention the book four times and twice respectively. Some mentions appear to be just routine listings based on the snippets, so those references probably don't meet WP:SIGCOV but I'm not completely sure. Unfortunately my WP:BEFORE didn't find much. However, given those WP:RS it would be better to merge/redirect somewhere, though I'm unsure which of the two authors is the more plausible target. Also, there are some parts worth WP:PRESERVING but this book is just listed in both two authors' Wikipedia biographical pages in the bibliography/list of works list, a quick mention in the lede, or the infobox, so I am not sure if a merge would be ideal. Therefore, I'm undecided as well. VickKiang (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Based on the discussions above I believe this is not quite notable. However, this should be covered at the articles about each author, where their work can be evaluated by the reliable sources that briefly mention them. Archrogue (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Archrogue, it would help if you specified the Merge target you are proposing. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify the Merge target if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Merge: To where? The two co-authors interchange top billing. In the US The Message of the Sphinx: A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind was released with Graham Hancock's name on top and Robert Bauval as a contributor. In the UK Keeper of Genesis places Robert Bauval's name on top (with Graham Hancock) although the article incorrectly uses 1995 as a release date. There were several editions or releases with some minor differences. Mention could be at both places but the book title here is The Message of the Sphinx (A Quest for the Hidden Legacy of Mankind) so I think should certainly be merged to Graham Hancock. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran national futsal team all-time record[edit]

Iran national futsal team all-time record (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)

Badly sourced stats dump with no evidence of notability. Violates key Wikipedia policies WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I can't see how any amount of editing would be able to resolve these issues. No other futsal team has this type of article so there is no consensus for them to exist. This article is fancruft which would only be of interest to a very, very small percentage of folk. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that the 'competitive record' section at Iran national futsal team contains everything that we would need. I see no reason to retain the completely unsourced minor tournament stats, friendly match stats and head-to-head records against other teams as it's all WP:OR and of limited value to the project in any case. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable on its own, and no need to merge per Spiderone. The ⬡ Bestagon [t] [c]  13:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also don't see evidence of notability. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ortez Alderson[edit]

Ortez Alderson (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)

Biography of an actor and activist, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for activists. The main notability claim is that he was inducted into a local-interest hall of fame, which isn't "inherently" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage, but other than that the information here is almost entirely biographical trivia rather than noteworthy accomplishments in either activism or acting -- and the referencing consists of one primary source (the self-published website of the hall of fame itself) and a bunch of glancing namechecks of his existence in magazine articles about other things, none of which are WP:GNG-building sources.
People get over GNG by being the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, not by having their names briefly mentioned in coverage of other things or by having short directory entries on the self-published websites of organizations directly affiliated with the claims -- and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:BASIC as per the sources identified by @Cielquiparle CT55555(talk) 02:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I finally managed to get ahold of the second book identified by @Oaktree b, We Are Everywhere: Protest, Power, and Pride in the History of Queer Liberation (Ten Speed Press, 2019), which is stronger on Ortez content than I had expected, including extensive references (see esp. pp. 257–259, 296–299, 355, as well as pp. 4, 15, 358). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia national futsal team results[edit]

Malaysia national futsal team results (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:NOTSTATS, unsourced, no evidence of notability. Avilich (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (Wanita)[edit]

2013–14 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (Wanita) (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. Avilich (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPT Futsal League[edit]

IPT Futsal League (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. Avilich (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia women's national futsal team results[edit]

Malaysia women's national futsal team results (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:NOTSTATS, unsourced, no evidence of notability Avilich (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doha Baccouchi[edit]

Doha Baccouchi (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. Avilich (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan[edit]

2014–15 Liga Futsal Kebangsaan (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. Effectively unsourced since creation. Avilich (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Amazing Race Asia 3. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Matthew Chung[edit]

Vince Matthew Chung (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)

Completing nomination for an IP editor by request at WT:AFD. The original rationale was: "Subject is not notable, page exists mostly to talk about being the winner of a lesser-known reality TV show." As listing nominator I am neutral unless I comment otherwise below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LEd[edit]

LEd (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 notable. There are no independent sources. Mdggdj (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete All I find is LED lighting. No sources for this software. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. It is such an unfortunate name when trying to find sources for it. I at least got relevant results when searching with terms related to its previous name (such as "LaTeX Editor" and LaTeX Editor LEd) but none of the results were sources that would contribute to the notability of the subject, it was mostly download mirrors, forum posts, and instructional "how to install software" manuals. - Aoidh (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aulent Guri[edit]

Aulent Guri (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)

Badly sourced BLP with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Searches in Google News and ProQuest returned nothing. Tried several other search engines to no avail. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YARA (girl group)[edit]

YARA (girl group) (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 article about a musical group, not yet properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. This essentially just documents that they're a group that exists, and the strongest notability claim it tries for is that they were nominated for (but did not win) a social media award that doesn't constitute a pass of NMUSIC's award criterion -- and the sourcing consists of glancing namechecks of their existence and one semi-advertorialized piece on an unreliable entertainment blog, not GNG-worthy coverage in properly reliable sources. Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when they attain a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bhutan national futsal team. Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan national futsal team results[edit]

Bhutan national futsal team results (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)

In my view, the summary of Bhutan's competitive futsal record in Bhutan national futsal team is completely sufficient and this article is excessive statistical detail for a team playing in a minor sport that has yet to even draw or win a match! An exhaustive results listing is not the done thing on Wikipedia, even for the more successful futsal teams. I would oppose merging the content to the parent article as the content is sourced to permanent dead links so there is a clear WP:V concern. The only sources that I can find are all primary, such as AIMAG 2013, which contributes nothing towards a WP:GNG claim. I can't find any evidence of coverage from secondary sources and, for most of the matches, even primary sources seem to be impossible to locate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge for now as the content is completely unsourced. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Even the article's creator is going for "delete". Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ASTEROID trial[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ASTEROID trial (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)

Other than primary sources, I can't find much. I'm not sure how one judges the notability of an individual trial/paper, this does have a fair few citations. Maybe this should be redirected somewhere else related to statin research JMWt (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I didn't notice that it had previously been to AfD - although the page doesn't seem to have been improved much since the last AfD if that makes any difference. JMWt (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is true that the paper has lots of citations but I am also unable to locate any secondary sources that discuss this trial, therefore as per WP:NOTE "General notability guideline" bullet point 4 "sources", I don't think this warrants an article despite the previous conclusion and number of citations (difference between citing something and discussing it, in any level of detail). I am open to be corrected if someone can find one. EvilxFish (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A trial that has nearly 3000 citations? You would have to work hard to make the case that this was not a notable study. It's all over the literature in the field, and many of those secondary studies are straight extensions and dedicated re-analyses of the outcomes by different research groups - so I'm afraid I'll have to call a certain amount of BS on the above statement that there are "no secondary sources". "Secondary source" does not mean "not an original research study", it just means "not the study that originated these data, and/or unaffiliated with the originator". This seems to be a widely discussed topic of generally acknowledged importance. Worth a stub that should be easily expandable by someone with knowledge of the area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creator of the article. Individual clinical trials are often not encyclopedic, and it would seem that 16 years later this trial hasn't had the impact of some other studies of a more pivotal nature. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tiramani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paolo Tiramani (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. UPE. Refs are interviews demo'ing products, non-rs patent info and business references. No secondary coverage on a WP:BEFORE. scope_creepTalk 14:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All of the articles that I can find, like the references here, are about his companies with not enough focus on him for notability. His one company, Boxabl, has an article. What is there about him is probably sufficient coverage. His investment company, 500 Group, does not. I didn't do the research but it is plausible that the latter company is notable. Lamona (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Kakoullis[edit]

Giorgos Kakoullis (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)

More than half of the hits in Greek are actually for Giorgos Kakoullis (footballer, born 2000), which was deleted earlier this year following this discussion. We therefore need to ignore this Sigma Live Q&A and this passing mention in Phile News completely.

In fact, the only mentions of the 1985 born Kakoullis that I can find are Sigma Live, which is a copy and paste of an Olympiakos Nicosia press release and Kerkida, which is essentially the same thing. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and no other guidelines are relevant any more. He might have played a handful of professional games but doesn't appear to be notable under the current guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I just had a look on google, his name is in all the football databases, but that's it. Nothing interesting to note. I don't know about offline, but based on the online, he clearly isn't notable. Govvy (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SPORTSCRIT wants multiple, published secondary sources to cover the subject in a non-trivial way: the article does not show this, and I can find no evidence that it is the case. There isn't currently a football/soccer-specific standard for notability, but the other team sport criteria suggest that a good baseline is for them to have played internationally (he hasn't) or achieved considerable success in domestic competition: as far as I can see, he spent three years in the Cypriot First Division, with teams that did not achieve anything particularly notable in that time. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Maltese First Division[edit]

2003–04 Maltese First Division (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:GNG Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 08:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep There are quite a few of these articles, the answer is not to delete, but to merge the seasons of the premier league and the second division and these ones into one article. So all the leagues are together per season article. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG as the league received regular coverage in the national news (e.g. [32][33][34]) Number 57 18:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Miya[edit]

Koji Miya (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:NBAD, WP:GNG. zoglophie 10:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't have a Japanese Wikipedia page, although he does have Wikipedia pages in 3 other languages including one in German, which provides more detail on his career playing in doubles, but offers zero sources. Not finding anything that looks like sigcov via Google either (searching on 宮 康ニ). Cielquiparle (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spanish International (badminton). Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Spanish International Badminton Tournament[edit]

2007 Spanish International Badminton Tournament (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)

Is not a grand prix/grand prix gold event to justify a separate article. Could be redirected to parent article Spanish International (badminton). zoglophie 06:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spanish International (badminton). Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Spanish International Badminton Tournament[edit]

2006 Spanish International Badminton Tournament (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 grand prix event to justify a separate article. At least, could be redirected to Spanish International (badminton). zoglophie 06:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Spanish International (badminton). Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Spanish International Badminton Tournament[edit]

2005 Spanish International Badminton Tournament (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 grand prix event to justify a separate article, but is a lower level series tournament. At least, could be redirected to Spanish International (badminton). zoglophie 06:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallwang Clinic[edit]

Hallwang Clinic (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 the hospital clear the notability bar because it's associated with certain celebrities and because it seemingly peddles outrageously overpriced and questionably effective treatments?

The most solid source is the lengthy, ample coverage in the BBC article, but I would say it covers Gemma Nuttall's story more than it does the clinic. Almost everything is anecdotal. Mooonswimmer 04:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes GNG, Gemma Nuttall does not appear on the page. - Roxy the dog 08:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Keep delet Sero esprite (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say that the BBC is the strongest souce here. Surely a chapter written by an oncologist in a book edited by another oncologist and from an academic publisher (the Gorski source) is even better? And nobody is claiming what is said in the first sentence. This may clear the notability bar because of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not because it's associated with certain celebrities and because it seemingly peddles outrageously overpriced and questionably effective treatments. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hearsay the sources are at best anecdotal as Mooonswimmer outlined. Gorski, a breast surgeon and medical influencer in the field of off-label therapies, also just refers to the same yellow press anecdots in his book. He is an acedemic publisher but in regard to the Hallwang Clinic he unforttunately cites absolutly non-academic and insufficient. It clearly appears as an opinion paper. Besides that, the clinic and it´s size is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Sero esprite (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note to closer, this user appears to have joined wikipedia specifically to comment here, and makes no policy based comment. -Roxy the dog 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    This accusation is totally incorrect I am active in the german Wikipedia since several years focusing on political topics but came across since the deletion discussion for this clinic on the german page . Finally the german colleagues have deleted the page from the german Wiki , due too its irrelevance . Sero esprite (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS my comment remains apposite. Seems a pity that dewiki doesn't inform about this notorious place. - Roxy the dog 17:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DELETE : note to closer, this user (Roxy the dog) appears to have strong actual conflict of interest WP:ACTUALCOI because the user is heavily involved in the editing and discussions of David Gorsk´s Wiki page and articles and supports with his own user page David Gorski´s view. The user should have clearly disclosed this as a respected editor. My policy based comment is that Hallwang Clinic, recommended for deletion, is not fullfilling the notability bar which has been recognized by the German Wiki and the lack of solid sources. The anecdotal sources provided are strongly connected to David Gorski. In addition, the article, Hallwang Clinic, appears to clearly violate the neutrality view of how to write an article WP:NPOV. I will check the COI of Phil Bridger and report shortly. Feel free to check my editing activity on the German Wiki under the same User Name, there is no COI. Sero esprite (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to perform whatever checks you want to determine my COI. You will find none. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Talk page might indeed indicate at least a potential COI by the user (Phil Bridger) particularly in his discussions about insertions of David Gorski´s citations under the subtitle: Response to deletion by Phil Bridger of content that might not be linked to the Hallwang Clinic, with a strong emphasize by the user to promote David Gorski´s opinion. Since this is a relative and potential COI that should of course not exclude the user arguments provided, I refer to my specific comments above about the WP:N and WP:NPOV which is not provided here. As also provided on the TALK page the article has been given a rating of low interest. Sero esprite (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I leave the discussion with my Delete vote, because I think I have included everything I can provide to help to review this, thanks Sero esprite (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read about what Gorski really is here. The book was edited by Eric H. Bernicker, and published by Springer. Author, editor and publisher are all reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference in Gorskis publication is anecdotal and about an individual case. He does not provide any information from the Hallwang Clinic by his own but only anecdotal quotes. His book is rather drafted like an opinion publication and Hallwang Clinic plays a subordinate role in the overall context.
    Wiki should not be an opinion platform, Gorskis publication questions the neutrality of the article (see Wikipedia:NPOV) Sunitinib (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer, this user appears to have joined wikipedia specifically to comment here, and makes no policy based comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Germany. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , in case this is closed by a vote-counter, and per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have notified the fringe theories noticeboard (FTN) of this discussion. -Roxy the dog 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (imho): Following the invitation from Roxy to join the discussion, and as a newbie, I see a certain not unimportant dilemma: I would like to question whether it might even appear in a false sense positive for the Clinic, as a promotion, being recognized here in the worldwide largest encyclopedia although the clinic appears to be very small and does not even find any attention in the German press or the German Wiki. Just in my expected base case scenario that the article would not be deleted, even in the best sense of looking from the angle of Roxy or Phil, the article is definitively written in way that takes a side. I think this becomes clear by just reading the second sentence of the article. I don't know the clinic but the description of the clinic stands against the neutrality that an encyclopedia should definitely protect and reflect WP:NPOV. As a result, one would need to review the one-sided comments and as a result the dilemma would be an unintended "promotion article" for a private company. I therefore vote with delete based on the irrelevance of this article, I see WP:NRV not fulfilled, because after taking time to review the comments above and the references attached to the article, the references are crossreferring each other around David Gorski´s publication. I follow David Gorski´s view about scientific evidence for treatments but it appears that there is an intended lack of source for the article. The article appears strongly influenced and therefore I'm suspicious. I would suggest to involve more senior editors to look at this because these kind of articles can damage Wiki´s reputation as an independent encyclopedia. Jonote22 (talk) 14:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG, I'm not seeing why this is at AfD. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost all of the coverage is controversies related which are events. So, create an article on the event if event is notable as a company can't become notable for some routine coverage/news reporting. 142.119.127.36 (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This decision can be revisited should any evidence come to light. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Dean Studey[edit]

Donald Dean Studey (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 page should be deleted because it is based purely on speculation. The article is about a man whose daughter claims that he is a murderer. The bodies of his alleged victims were supposedly located in a well. This well was searched by authorities and they discovered no evidence of anything. This article is about a man who is only "notable" for claims with no evidence, and it should be deleted for this reason. Silent-Rains (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iowa. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appears GNG based on the sources, but appears to be speculation at this point. I'd rather recreate it when the story is confirmed, one way or the other. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unusual case well covered in sources. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per WP:CRIMINAL, this is basically a report of an investigate into a possible murder suspect. Judging by the final sentence, there was o evidence of his being a serial killer. Though this investigation has attracted some international interest, its inconclusive outcome makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO1E, this individual was only notable due to claims of a crime made by his daughter that have so far been unsubstantiated. The event probably isn't notable per WP:NOTNEWS as it only received coverage over a very short period of time, meaning there is nothing to redirect to. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Obukhova[edit]

Olga Obukhova (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 and WP:POLITICIAN. I don't know what's the policy for journalists but either way I cannot find any coverage on her in English. I checked in Russian and there is an Olga Gennadyevna Obukhova, Minister of Culture of Murmansk Oblast, however this has nothing to do with the individual Olga Ivanovna Obukhova. Even so, in Russian there is little to no notable coverage for Olga Ivanovna Obukhova, or of any of her books. I also can find no significant coverage for the alias listed in the article, Della Swanholm. Jaguarnik (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article in Russian indicates that she was involved in diplomatic service and charity activities in Denmark with her husband Alexey Obukhov. Still, I could not find any coverage on both of them in Russian or English-speaking media to assess the notability of these activities. ThegaBolt (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try to look up the Goodreads:https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/21268425.Della_Swanholm Serpuhov (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do care also to look at the Litres:
Olga Obukova writing as Della Swanholm
https://www.litres.ru/author/della-svanholm-28432006/
Olga Obukova writing per se:
https://www.litres.ru/author/olga-ivanovna-obuhova/ Serpuhov (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can see that the person fully deserves the credit as a writer (more than 20 books published). So mentioning her as Russian non-fiction writers, Russian women novelists is 100% correct. Serpuhov (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goodreads and litres are not good examples of notable coverage. There are millions of authors listed on those databases, only a small percent of them are notable. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the very beginning, you came forward with saying that this Wiki article person does not quite comply with the requirements for a well-known journalist. Now you got across to insisting that as an author of 8 published books, she isnt good either. Serpuhov (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the best solution might be simply displacing the Article from the "Journalists" and placing her to the "Russian writers / novelists" domain. Serpuhov (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR would guide us to vote keep if you could show us multiple independent reviews of her work. Are you aware of such reviews? CT55555(talk) 03:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be just a little bit off the mark. There arent «millions of authors listed on those databases», the actual numbers by country is significantly lower. The point is, the subject of this article has published 8 books published, paper-back, one after another, and not simply sent out as e-books. This means the books were accepted by the readers and reviewers and what not. Of course if you choose to shelve the authors by their value vis-a-vis History, then only few remain. One might even deduce that Galsworthy deserves his place in Wiki while O'Henry or Jerome K. Jerome should be subjected to deletion. Serpuhov (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reviews for the book "Copenhagen: pearl of Scandinavia":https://readli.net/kopengagen-zhemchuzhina-skandinavii/ Serpuhov (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reviews for the book "Austria":https://www.labirint.ru/reviews/goods/649679/ Serpuhov (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are reviews for the author's book "Denmark: https://www.livelib.ru/author/261404/reviews-olga-obuhova Serpuhov (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't independent reviews... They're user-given reviews that don't prove anything about the notability of the author. I'm not sure what your point about O.Henry is, as O.Henry is an important figure in literature who is still widely-read today, and he certainly passes the notability criteria. Olga Ivanovna Obukhova is not- neither in the quality of a journalist nor an author; she is not widely-covered, and you haven't proven her notability at all. If you struggle with the notability criteria of an individual, WP:AUTHOR exists for you to look at. Kind regards, Jaguarnik (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources. Agree that the sources above aren't useful for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Sjöberg (gymnast)[edit]

Nils Sjöberg (gymnast) (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-notable olympic gymnast Avilich (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given it more of a look, and I can find profile at the Swedish Olympic Committee. Kingsif (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Quaritch[edit]

Miles Quaritch (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)

Ten years ago, the consensus was that this article should be a redirect to the main Avatar article on the cast (Avatar (2009 film)#Cast). It was just recreated so I wanted to see if opinion has changed. This page was created in one edit which led me to think it was a copyright violation but using Earwig, it seems that only a portion of the article seems to be taken from another source. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the first AFD appearing here but it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonel Miles Quaritch. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character and covered in enough RS. ~ HAL333 03:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unredirected Plenty of analysis in the mean time: [35], [36], [37]. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I concur with Jclemens that the sources showcase a GNG pass, the first source is clearly SIGCOV in a scholarly source, and while Screenrant's reliability is very uncertain SlashFilm is a reliable source, and from a browse of the article it certainly looks to provide commentary outside of a plot description. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSP lists Screenrant as OK for entertainment, questionable for BLP topics, so the source would be fine for a fictional character bio unless we were using it to talk about controversial aspects of Stephen Lang's life. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Don't delete the ariticle its vital — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki geek 2008 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with Jclemens and Devonian Wombat. HeyZeusVictory888 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has enough sources and discussions to justify its article. Quaritch is also the franchise's main villain and will appear across all the sequels with Jake and Neytiri, and is iconic as both of them. Advofspec (talk) 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela García (Honduran footballer)[edit]

Gabriela García (Honduran footballer) (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 GNG. The common name allows for many false positives while searching for sources, but even the authentic hits don't seem substantial. Avilich (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danni Watson[edit]

Danni Watson (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)

Source analysis as of this revision: 1, database; 2, short Q&A; 3, trivial mention; 4, database; 5, team roster, no coverage; 6, not mentioned; 7, passing mention in an individual match report; 8, trivial mention; 9, possibly significant, though heavily quotes the subject; 10, deadlink; 11, deadlink; 12, not independent and not significant; 13, team roster, no coverage; 14, not mentioned; 15, says the subject received an award but no prose coverage at all; 16, mentions a scholarship grant, probably irrelevant; 17, mentions the subject as the recipient of a junior award (at age 15 or 16), but with no prose coverage and probably failing WP:YOUNGATH.

The coverage is insufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions (and delete) Okay, this feels strange, almost as it is written like a CV, self-written, WP:PROMOTIONAL, etc. Govvy (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gizel Pene[edit]

Gizel Pene (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. The most substantial coverage available is a short Q&A. Avilich (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Alma Mana'o. RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Mana'o[edit]

Ava Mana'o (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. Avilich (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Ali (comedian)[edit]

Nadir Ali (comedian) (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:NSINGER. Google News gives no substantial coverage. YaarYaar (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 00:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning towards Keep with hesitance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpah555 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found and analyzed by User:Chagropango in the previous AfD. The subject has plenty of coverage in Urdu media as well:
  1. Daily Jang
  2. Daily Ausaf
  3. Voice of America (Urdu)
  4. ARY News

With that much coverage in reliable English and Urdu Sources, the subject passes WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The nominator has been blocked, but I'm uncertain if this is notable. Looking at the previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadir Ali, the refs provided are better, but two surround a similar story on tax issues. However, I'm afraid I can't see other SIGCOV-meeting references that cover Nadir more generally instead of on the tax incident. The refs User:Insight 3 provided doesn't look like SIGCOV to me. This is a short piece on an investigation and earnings, this is clearly a promo puff piece, Nader Ali is considered as one of the best and famous YouTubers of Pakistan, Even after reaching the heights of fame, he still meets common people as if he is not a popular star, this is another piece that is an announcement column, which is short and a bit promotional, He said that no beautiful comedian has ever become a hit in the history of Pakistan, ninety percent of my fans are boys, so it is a big deal for a person like me to become a fan of a girl, I eat with passion and there is also a barbeque program with my friends. How are those SIGCOV? VickKiang (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - @User:VickKiang The tax issue coverage implies notability, otherwise, there are hundreds of people in Pakistan with such issues without being in news. I have pointed out only some reliable Urdu newspapers above and of course not all of them are of the same quality. The ARY source is basically an interview where the subject describes himself the way he likes, but the non-interview part says: He is one of the notable YouTubers of Pakistan, he has also traveled to many countries to make pranks and has made Pakistan famous around the world. YouTuber Nadir Ali participated in a TV channel for the first time with his wife Faiza Nader after marriage, both husband and wife became special guests of ARY News program ....Also, the subject has been interviewed by the Voice of America (Urdu). Its an audio in Urdu with the description: What is the secret to being successful on YouTube? How much income can be made from online videos? Are Prank Videos Really True? Find out the answers to all these questions in the conversation of famous Pakistani YouTuber Nader Ali with Voice of America's Aftab Borka. Again this speaks for subject's notability when it is outside the national media. Therefore, I think the sources overall indicate notability in favor of the subject. Insight 3 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The second ref is an interview that states in the non-interview part that the subject is successful and famous, with the description being relatively short and popularity isn't really synonymous with notability. This source is another interview, indicating Nadir's popularity (Nader Ali's videos get millions of views and likes, which is why Nader Ali's YouTube channel Pay for Cooking is considered one of the largest YouTube channels in Pakistan) but overall the non-interview part IMHO is too short to be WP:SIGCOV. This source, while overall probably non-SIGCOV, does assert that (in the brief non-interview) part Nadir is notable, so it might indicate that there could be better in-depth WP:SIGCOV-meeting coverage, though I don't think it's enough on its own. VickKiang (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_24&oldid=1130910366"