Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Journalism: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,509,333 edits
Line 2: Line 2:
==Journalism==
==Journalism==
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahrukh Inayet}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Allison_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_Allison_(2nd_nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Misanthropic Bitch}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Misanthropic Bitch}}

Revision as of 19:56, 4 April 2021

Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Journalism|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Journalism. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Journalism

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 speedy keep. withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrukh Inayet

Mahrukh Inayet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, NO SIGCOV AND RS. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, WP:JOURNALIST, and WP:BASIC. There is biographical, education, and early career information from the Verve magazine source that is now added to the article, as well as additional support for WP:JOURNALIST notability, i.e. she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, in part due to her reporting on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, e.g. by the Hindustan Times, The Quint, in addition to Verve. She also received a non-trivial mention of her general work for Times Now in The Hindu afterwards. In addition, Aaj Tak reports she won an eNBA award in 2013 for her journalism. Her tweets during the 2014 floods in Jammu and Kashmir were reported on by FirstPost and a contributor to Buzzfeed India. Her tweets during the 2019 telephone and internet blackout in Kashmir were reported by The Times of India and Scroll.in. Her commentary on the media has also been featured by SheThePeople.TV, and quoted by The News Minute. Additional biographical information has been reported by The Quint and her commentary related to some of her biographical information has been commented on by another journalist in the Hindustan Times. Per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and the independent and reliable sources that have been added to the article now appear to demonstrate sufficient notability per the guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes GNG as per the improvements made by Beccaynr. The subject is notable now. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 15:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing:- Beccaynr has done some crazy additions. My WP:BEFORE didn’t comeup with so many results. I’m more than happy to withdraw this AfD because it’s in a far better state now. Thanks Beccaynr.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 02:18, 6 April 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Allison

AfDs for this article:
Julia Allison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable personality with no clear multiple independent secondary references that would support her significance or notability as per WP:GNG Nearlyevil665 (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems that the article is well referenced, however having gone through every single source, you'll see they are all either primary, or related to the subject. There are some notability claims, however I couldn't find any IRS that would back that. When the article was first nominated for deletion in 2009 it was kept unanimously, however at this point I don't see how any of the notability guidelines can be met. Less Unless (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the last discussion one of the people voting keep admitted there was autobiographical material and conflict of interest. Such things should lead to automatic deletion and leaving it to later let an independent person create an article if they deam it necessary. However here we also have a total failure of GNG, so even if we ignored autobiographical issues there is no reason to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, off the promotional tone screams WP:TNT. I see a few articles by her, but absolutely nothing in reliable sources about her. She has 49,000 followers on Twitter, a testament to her follow-back and self-promotion strategies. This is a total fail of WP:GNG. I can't believe this was kept in 2009. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Misanthropic Bitch

The Misanthropic Bitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Controversial blog during its time, and certainly one of the first of its kind - but not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. It doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT, and WP:INHERENTWEB should also be referred to. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and per my own review of it. I had hoped there would be some meat-and-potatoes in terms of sources, but after culling all the blogs, dead links, and articles that made no mention of the subject, there is precisely one confirmed article in the San Francisco Chronicle that mentions it, which I confirmed by finding the url for it (only the print info had been cited up until now), and added it to the citation. The other is another non-online source called San Francisco Metropolitan, and I have no way of vetting its content, since I couldn't find any mention of that publication via a Google search, so I don't even know if it passes WP:IRS, or even exists. Nightscream (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what pinktoebeans said. It is a piece of Internet history, and worthy I think of being saved in the Internet Archive, but I am not sure it belongs on Wikipedia? Mpc60ii (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To keep a closed website, it would have to have a high Alexa score (rating of websites) and this one does not figure on alexa. It does not meet WP:WEBCRIT insofar as there are no independent sources evaluating the site. Yes, Archive.org is the best place for this site. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Saul

Isaac Saul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable or not-yet-notable journalist. After discussions with the page’s creator, who has done extensive research, we were unable to identify significant coverage in secondary RS beyond a single source (Yahoo). This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now the entry relies almost entirely on primary sources and does not meet wiki notability threshold. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Johnpacklambert: since I'm still not a very experienced editor, and this was my first major article, do you mind explaining why this is? I thought that in particular three of the sources that I included justified this for publication:
And then, there are the sources for his career in Ultimate on top of that. Do you mind explaining why you don't think it's ready? Kokopelli7309 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Establishing notability for journalists is fundamentally difficult because news organizations don't want them to be the story. It looks like we have two qualifying sources ([1] (this WP:INTERVIEW has a substantial introduction), [2]). ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typically the notability requirement is for secondary sources tho no? (I’m speaking just of what I understand consensus to be—and actually that’s what that essay says—but I guess I’d have to think over what I think the ideal policy would be on primary sources of this type.) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any evidence that he's notable (yet, perhaps?) The Yahoo piece is pretty minor and afaict, has no byline and the interview isn't enough to satisfy independence of the source, nor coverage of him. TAXIDICAE💰 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see enough secondary coverage independent from him either in this AfD or in the article to sustain an article on WP:GNG grounds, for instance the sources include his writings for Huffpost, personal interviews, and a Forbes piece (which doesn't contribute to notability due to the consensus on Forbes and self-publication.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks borderline after 2 relists, hoping for more people to take a look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kokopelli7309, I see no one has replied about those additional sources, so my two cents: despite the header, the Free Press source is really about Trump and only has a passing mention of Saul. Prose before interviews can be helpful as Kvng was saying, but for AfD purposes we’re looking for material that’s gone through an editorial process, fact-checking, etc. and to me it’s not clear the podcast blurbs fit the bill. So for me these don’t change much, as far as giving us more to go on that’s not Saul’s own writing/commentary, but I appreciate your looking for more sources! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grub Smith

Grub Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am finding articles by Grub Smith, but not really about him. I am seeing nothing that gives me a sense that this subject passes the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 05:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:21, 1 April 2021 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

La Voce di New York

La Voce di New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The homepage of this website (namely, the footer) claims it is located in "The United Nations Headquarters New York, NY 10017", which is fake news: this website has nothing to do with the UN. In the article, it claims to be "a newspaper", although it may well be considered a blog, currently ranked #1,237,472 according to Alexa. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PROMO and WP:BLOGS are the major issues, but in Talk:La Voce di New York you could also find WP:POV, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PEACOCK and probable undisclosed WP:COI. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NO COI: as I have explained (in this very page and in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#La_Voce_di_New_York) the fact that I wrote for VNY in the past does not imply a COI anymore than someone with a Facebook profile as a Facebook COI. I observe that the user who has nominated the article for deletion has pervicaciously refused to state that he/she has no WP:COI (User talk:Modulato#La_Voce_di_New_York_and_WP:COI). Passani (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL, so year 2021 means "in the past"? —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In fact, I may even write more articles in the future. VNY is open to contributions from anyone who has something meaningful to say. Passani (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 11:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the article's original author and I think that the point is being missed here. La Voce di New York is a solid online newspaper with contributions from a lot of people including reputable and well known Italian journalists (details provided at Talk:La Voce di New York, but I could name countless other journalists). As far as WP:COI, it is not my case. While I did contribute articles to the newspaper in the past (I'm an Italian native speaker), I am not affiliated with the newspaper: I have not received any compensation, I don't plan to receive any compensation in the future, I am not part of the editorial board. Because of this, I maintain that there is no COI. Of course I followed VNY over the years, which made me knowledgeable and motivated enough to use my time to create the article. In fact, I would appreciate if the admin that is so passionately arguing for the deletion of the article could confirm that there is not some kind of reverse WP:COI at play here. About the article being promotional, I had already offered to address that issue in Talk:La Voce di New York and asked for guidance. That part was disregarded, while —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. proceeded to request the deletion of the page. So, I humbly ask: what's the process here? If I went back and modified all the parts that could be interpreted as promotional, can we get the article to stay? I see that the Italian Wikipedia has translated the article making the content more sober in the process. Would something along those lines be considered a reasonable compromise? Passani (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is promotional (and self-published) in its entirety; assuming the website needs an article, it should be rewritten from scratch. As for it.wikipedia.org, it is a different project that has nothing to do with this AfD. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again. I am all for finding a reasonable compromise that would still keep the page up, because it is my belief that VNY qualifies for a WP article. The question I am asking is: if I was to rewrite the article from scratch along the lines of what was done (by someone else) for the Italian version, would this make the deletion thing go away? Passani (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 17:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user who placed the deletion note keeps spreading fake news and refusing to acknowledge evidence (in Talk:La Voce di New York) that what is reported in the article is correct. I requested multiple times to confirm that there is no WP:COI (i.e. a will to damage VNY for whatever reason), but that request has been ignored. Can some WP admin look at this and advise? Mildly put, there's something fishy going on here Passani (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedia editor who read this article and decided to nominate it for the aforementioned reasons. The fact that you objected to the nomination and got furious doesn't mean that I have a COI with your website. By the way, you said that you used to work with the website; you should also avoid personal attacks. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have carefully avoided affirming that you don't have a WP:COI. Yet I asked you several times. I maintain that I am knowledgeable about VNY but do not have a WP:COI. I wrote a few articles for them, but never received any compensation, don't plan to receive it, I am not part of the board, I cannot represent VNY in any capacity. So no COI for me. But obviously there's COI involved for you. Passani (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem a bit confused. Conflict of interest doesn't necessarily mean paid contributions. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 13:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that I have no Conflict of interest. You have not affirmed that you have no COI (in fact I strongly suspect that you do and are using anonymity to hide it. Passani (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article Author here. I am not sure why you are saying that I am not acting in good faith. I think that mentions by RAI (Italian State TV), La Repubblica, Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award, are all independent sources. Anyway, as stated before, I am willing to work to improve the article so that it meets WikiPedia standards. I could use some guidance, at this point. If being featured in TV programs in State TV is not considered an independent source, I am a bit at a loss about what is. Thanks Passani (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that you do not consider articles featuring VNY by RAI and La Repubblica sufficiently notable apparently, but no explanation is being provided on why. Could this be a language problem? What about Bill Di Blasio's letter? Looking at WP:NNEWSPAPER, I see that other criteria are listed for notability of magazines, newspapers and other pubblications. It seems to me that VNY falls squarely under the The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works. criteria. Google Scholar will lead to several citations of VNY articles in academic work. Letting Google count the number of VNY pages returns a remarkable 60,000. I think only about 20k of those pages are articles, but still a pretty significant amount that vouches for the relevance of the newspaper in the Italian news media landscape. Of course, if I went looking for citations by other websites, that would bring up a ton of references to VNY articles. Passani (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad those results are not "academic works" proper. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 07:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad (for you) those results are academic works proper. While you are here... I still need to see your claim that you have no WP:COI in this article, yet I asked many times. You have been dedicating significant effort to taking down the VNY article, without significant contributions to any other pages. In the past, you have focused on a few selected articles. Your profile does not say much about you, but you exhibit significant knowledge of Wikipedia's mechanisms and processes. Time to come clean. Do you have a COI? Passani (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflicts of interest with any Wikipedia articles, and you should not accuse people of being "haters", "vandals", "cyber attackers" or "COI editors" just because your article has been nominated. That being said, you are off topic.
As for your results, the first is not even an article, and the second is a self-published book. I don't have enough time to check the others. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 21:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, an answer that avoids the question and an attempt to muddy the water. I was referring to the long lists of references to VNY articles that Google scholars brings up. You have repeatedly refused to look at the evidence I have provided and refused to look for consensus on the content of the article. My only hope is that admins will look closely at the provided evidence and reach their own conclusions on who is acting honestly here. Passani (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to create an account to participate in a deletion discussion. The closing admin does have the prerogative to discount or reduce the weight of arguments made by un- or newly-registered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something very suspicious is going on here. First someone mentions that Modulato may be a sockpuppet and long-time abuser on your page, and you delete the comment without a reason. Then an anonymous vote shows up here and Modulato immediately corrects the wikitext to make it look good, followed by your immediate comment in support of the anonymous user. I smell sockpuppet/meatpuppet from 10 miles away. Passani (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passani the best way to establish notability for the article is to show it meets WP:GNG by showing it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Italia Oggi looks like one source, RAI probably another as I couldn't hear it without registering. Other sources don't look independent: La Repubblica looks like an interview with Stefano Vaccara and Di Blasio's letter and the Amerigo award are both referenced to La Voce di New York. WP:NNEWSPAPER is a WP:ESSAY so it is not conclusive. TSventon (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TSventon the RAI website does not really require registration in the sense that SSO with a multitude of social accounts will get you to the content. If you do login, you will see (1:10) RAI's cameraman follow Vaccara inside the UN building and interviewing him (in his UN office!) about La Voce di New York. About Di Blasio's letter, you can find it at this link. It was written by Di Blasio's office and signed by Di Blasio. La Repubblica interviews Stefano Vaccara inside the UN building as well (this was 2013, when VNY was at its inception). La Repubblica and Il Corriere are Italy's two top newspapers, you don't get an interview with them that easily. Amerigo's award is referenced by the Amerigo website and it's an initiative endorsed by the US embassy in Rome. About WP:NNEWSPAPER, it may not be conclusive (nothing is at this point), but VNY does qualify for notability accoding to it. Passani (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it looks like I missed a few sources listed at the start of References. Of them one, Italia Oggi, does seem to provide significant coverage of the subject. I have not been able to access the RAI TV report but in general TV and printed interviews with the subjects themselves do not contribute to their notability. De Blasio's letter was published in La Voce di New York so it again doesn't count unless there are other sources that discuss this letter. There is still far too little here for satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability requires significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Most of the references now in the article fall far short of that standard. The first reference is an interview with VNY's editor Stefano Vaccara, and is a recapitulation of its early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not significant coverage of VNY. The second reference is an interview with Vaccara, which does not establish notability because it is not independent. The third reference, an article in Italia Oggi, appears to be significant coverage, but I do not read Italian. A complicating factor is that Vaccara used to work for Oggi. This seems to be the most promising reference. Reference #4 is something written by Vaccara for VNY, and therefore of no value for establishing notability. Reference #5 verifies that VNY won a non-notable award but does not devote significant coverage to VNY. It is a passing mention. That does not establish notability. References #6, #7 and #8 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. The ninth reference appears to be a video interview with Vaccara (correct me if I am wrong), and if so, does not establish notability. References #10, #11, #12 and #13 were published in VNY, are not independent, and therefore do not establish notability. Reference #14 is about recipients of an award that VNY gives, and does not include any significant coverage of VNY itself, and does not establish notability. Reference #15 is a duplicate of reference #5. Reference #16 was published in VNY, is not independent, and is of no value in establishing notability. This debate has been damaged by the fact that the original author has an obvious COI and yet vehemently denies their COI, attacks other editors and is bludgeoning this discussion. That is most unfortunate and I urge the editor to correct their disruptive behavior. But I made my decision based only on an assessment of the sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:33, 11 April 2021 (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 to delete. All the !votes were to keep, though most were just barely persuaded on this. BD2412 T 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir Peerzada

Aamir Peerzada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from Ref 6, BBC, which is a podcast i don't see any other WP:RS for SIGCOV. Plus the article was created by the subject himself as per Talk Page. If NAWARD is considered he has won an award, but as per NAWARD it's a failed proposal, So putting it up here at AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 20:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The weakest of week keep. First of all, this person works for BBC[4]. So I think the BBC reference cannot be considered as an independent source here. He can be considered notable if we are considering WP:ANYBIO as the subject is a winner of notable award in journalism. But there is no significant coverage as of now. If someone can come up with WP:THREE, I will change my vote. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 04:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here is an interview with him, which does discuss the awards he's won, though I've been told interviews do not establish notability, which has always seemed odd since why would someone want to talk to someone they didn't think was notable to discuss their thoughts, work, etc. Here is coverage of him getting one of the awards. Primary source for the award, though that doesn't work on notability. This source discusses him getting the award as well, but I have doubts about the reliability, but this seems a bit more reliable. This covers the Red Ink award, and is more coverage. It's hard to find more coverage since searches for his name bring up news stories he's worked on, but I think he's over the bar with the awards and the coverage of the awards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jammumylove I'm working off GNG. Coverage of different events in multiple independent reliable sources. Those events just happen to be getting awards, but secondary sources saw fit to cover it in depth, therefore it's notable by our standards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, I had told you in several discussions that you dont need to consider NAWARD. We have something called ANYBIO. As per the one criteria in ANYBIO People are likely to be notable if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Please make sure you remeber this, next time while you nominate an article for AFD and please dont come up with the argument that NAWARD is a failed proposal in inappropriate places. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmorwiki, I Don't think an award makes you notable, And even if it does the correct policy to address the award would obviously be WP:NAWARD and not WP:ANYBIO. And if WP:NAWARD states that it's a failed proposal how would the same policy written in ANYBIO work? Set up an RfC if you have issues with me nominating article's for deletion on the basis of awards. Also how is AfD an inappropriate place? This is a deletion ' Discussion '. Hope you understand the meaning of word ' discussion ' . Also kindly stop replying to queries if i'm addressing them to someone else. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 05:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jammumylove, if you think winning a reputed award does not make anyone notable, go to the talk page of WP:ANYBIO, propose the changes you would like make and reach consensus. Until then, you have to follow the guidelines regarding our notability. And I have never said that I have any issues with you nominating articles for deletion. I noticed that you always come with the argument NAWARD. So I politely requested you to stop it. But you are taking this as personal. This is a discussion and not your talk page. So I have the right to reply to anyone. So please try to be little bit more civil. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 05:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kashmorwiki, And i noticed you always come up with WP:ANYBIO. Please eloborate the point of Policy WP:NAWARD if it is totally useless as per you. It shouldn't exist right? This is not a PA, might be rude because you keep on repeating the same thing everytime. I'd ask you to put up an RfC for the same because as per my knowledge of policies i would definitely follow WP:NAWARD for anything related to awards, and not ANYBIO. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 06:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jammumylove, I think you have no idea about a failed proposal. The proposed NAWARD has no consensus as of now. So there is no point of you coming up with that. Your argument that winning a notable award does not makes anyone notable is totally ridiculous. See this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. C. Bhargava. This article was kept only because he won a significant national award. And I was the person who rescued it by coming up with this WP:ANYBIO. I still dont get what you are trying to prove here. I am arguing with an accepted proposal which you claim to have no significance. My vote here was weak keep. Because I think this award he won is not that much significant when compared to others. Also there is not that much sigcov. Somebody please help this user regardjng our notbility guidelines. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 06:13, 1 April 2021 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Tamkin

Emily Tamkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journalist. There is a more detailed draft which also does not establish biographical notability. This article cannot be moved to draft space, but the draft can be kept if this article is deleted. Neither this article nor a naïve Google search shows significant coverage by independent sources. Naïve Google search shows that she has written a biography of George Soros. We knew that, and it does not establish notability as an author. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTHOR, Tamkin does not appear to have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work," and I have only found reviews from Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, which were in the article, and this does not appear to be the necessary "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," and similarly, per WP:JOURNALIST, there appears to be evidence that she is a journalist, but not that she meets the guideline, and it does not appear she has received WP:BASIC secondary coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Strike !vote per pburka's comment. Beccaynr (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Chirota (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete. I agree. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2021 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kirtzman

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Kirtzman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreated not long after being deleted the first time; I don't see any exception activities following the previous deletion that would justify the existence of a new article. BD2412 T 05:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 7 April 2021 (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. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 20:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Timpone

AfDs for this article:
Brian Timpone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You know it's a bad sign when a biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name. The article was redirected in 2013 (following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone) to LocalLabs, that article was in turn deleted in 2016 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LocalLabs. In 2019 the biography was recreated, and LL article now directs here, but this biography seems like an attempt to recreat the LL article, as half of the lead is about what his company/companies do. Overall, the biography is impressive (reasonably well research), but it seems to have issues with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as WP:SIGCOV. The latter means that it is hard to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All that said, given the recent coverage like [5], [6] a case could be made that this might be rewritten back into an article about his company, network or the controversy they generated. I think there is something notable here, and his name would make a valid redirect there - wherever that would be, as I am not sure right now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I will ping editors involved in the past discussions of this topic: @GeoffreyT2000, Bernice Mosley, HighKing, ApolloLee, Allisoncornish, and DGG:. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article content does not determine notability, so if you have suggestions for improving the article, please propose them at Talk:Brian Timpone. — Newslinger talk 07:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newslinger, CTRL+F for his name is not a great metric as some content in the articles is about " Brian Timpone’s brother, Michael Timpone", a CEO of one the relevant companies. All those articles are about the company/network, and while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 37 mentions of "Timpone" in the New York Times article and the 11 mentions of "Timpone" in the Poynter Institute article are all referring to Brian Timpone, since Michael Timpone is not mentioned in these articles at all. 13 of the 14 mentions of "Timpone" in the Columbia Journalism Review article are about Brian Timpone; only one is about Michael Timpone. I am struggling to understand your claim that the "biography does not contain a single reference that names the subject by name", when there are 61 mentions of Brian Timpone in these three articles alone, not including the use of the "he", "his", and "him" pronouns.
    The assertion that "while there is some discussion of the subject, is it not the main focus of the articles" is inaccurate and severely understates the amount of coverage the articles dedicate to Brian Timpone and his work. Timpone is notable for his work in media, which—according to the reliable sources cited in the Brian Timpone article—has been conducted under a number of company names, including Local Government Information Services (LGIS), Metric Media, Franklin Archer, Locality Labs (formerly known as Journatic and LocalLabs), DirecTech LLC, Interactive Content Services, Newsinator, Blockshopper, and The Record Inc. Many of these companies are not notable on their own, but as an article subject, Brian Timpone has exceeded the requirements in WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by receiving significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that specifically describe his role in these companies in depth. — Newslinger talk 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:22, 11 April 2021 (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 Indian journalists. While by a pure nose count this might appear a "no consensus", the "keep" arguments do not refute the argument that there is not enough source material available to sustain an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burhaan Kinu

Burhaan Kinu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources are primary and of his own website, the other sources mentioned aren't articles on him rather then article's which have his pictures. He works for Hindustan Times. but it doesn't demonstrate notability. Also there are sources like gettyimages where anyone could upload pictures to. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice if more !votes address whether the subject meets WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG instead, perhaps through searching for sources. Skimming over the sources in the article, the deletion rationale does not seem baseless.

Per WP:NBIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if the subject meets WP: ANYBIO or other additional criteria but fails WP:BASIC or other guidelines to establish notability (such as WP:GNG), it might be more appropriate to merge instead.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Shows notability within local news outlet and some even outer aspects. Not reasonable for quick deletion. Future guides. --203.87.133.197 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the List of Indian journalists. There is no doubt that his work has been acknowledged in journalism, but unfortunately listed sources only shows Image courtesy: Burhaan Kinu at Hindustan Times. I found only one source [7] that talks about the subject independently, but since it is a BLP article, it should be supported by multiple independent RS. Therefore, it be redirect it to Indian journalist list. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2021 (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. Ignoring the personal attacks and aspersions of editors' motivations, I note that several sources were uncovered that were not refuted by those !voting "delete". Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Shibli

Qazi Shibli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial mention in Time, apart from that no other wp:rs, all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Time never is a trivial mention, and it is not right for you to assume that Kashmir journalists are being manipulated whom I think you should apologize to. As you say on your user page, you edit with a Pro-India sentiment for articles related to Kashmir.--Lohen11 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shibli was ranked fifth on Time's list (not a local little newspaper) of "10 most urgent threats to press freedom." You want to make the article disappear to deny a reality of this state.--Lohen11 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 07:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Every other source is just reporting on him being jailed or being released. That isn't enough to make him inherently notable as it isn't significant coverage. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has a bias regarding articles related to Kashmir as stated on their user page. Seemplez {{ping}} me 09:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemplez, Ive mentioned that i might sometimes ' ' ' edit ' ' ' with a pro indian sentiment, that clearly doesn't mean that i put up these article for deletion because of it. There are 100's and 1000's of other article's out there related to kashmir, if i was biased to kashmiri article's i'd have posted all of them for deletion.I Check thoroughly the article's before putting them up for AfD, If i was biased i could've PRODded or CSD'd them. I am trying to clean up the wikiproject:jammu and kashmir, and clearly i've nominated multiple article's earlier which were unfit for mainspace and hence deleted. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, this is neither a personal attack nor an assumption of faith. You have disclosed a bias on your user page and I have transcluded it here. Also your point that you don't have a bias because you didn't put every Kashmir related article up for deletion isn't really a point. You have disclosed a bias in editing. Why wouldn't your bias extend to AfD? Seemplez {{ping}} me 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been nominating a lot of Kashmir related articles/articles about Kashmiris today. Seemplez {{ping}} me 11:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seemplez, My Bias wouldn't extend to AfD because i properly write why it just be deleted. i don't give out biased opinions, i state the WP policies. and i am a human as well i make mistakes sometimes while nominating but i immediately rectify them and withdraw my nom. This article clearly has no Significant Coverage and hence i've nom it for AfD. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jammumylove, I do not wish to continue this. Happy editing. Seemplez {{ping}} me 12:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By Nominator: By Manipulation of these article's i meant that the source are from local jammu kashmir based media agencies and these journalists can easily get themselves posted on there. There are no proper significant WP:RS. Also this article looks more of an WP:BLP1E i-e Significant for the Arrest of Qazi Shibli. And it can be redirected to it just like Arrest of Kamran Yusuf if not deleted. Also the only WP:RS Time Has no byline. Thanks. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 10:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmorwiki either read things properly or kindly don’t misinterpret. I’ve clearly written that these kashmiri media houses can be easily manipulated by these journalists. Not what you’re saying.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 13:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove,I havent misinterprated what you said. all sources mostly from kashmiri news agencies which are highly manipulated by these journalists ; this is your comment. You havent said they can be manipulated. You just said they are being manipulated. So its clear who is actually trying to misinterpret the statements. Do you have any evidence to prove your assumption? If dont,please dont make such type of comments in AFD's. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove, whether it is mostly or leastly or whatever it may be,I just wanted to say that you made up such type of baseless argument in an AFD. And in this encyclopedia, you dont have the right to say that they are manipulated unless you provide reliable sources or any other means as proof. Finally, such type of arguments should not be used in AFD discussions and this encylopedia is not a place to show your Pro india sentiments against its policies. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmorwiki, There’s no way that could prove the internal things with these kashmiri media agencies but being from jammu and kashmir i know how easily jammu and kashmir based media agencies are manipulated. And moreover i never tried to push this as the reason for the AfD, My reason is simple, this article doesn’t have WP:RS and if it has kindly show, or maybe research and add them to this article I’d be happy to withdraw the nom. But until then it’s clearly evident that this article is eligible for AfD, and yes my pro Indian sentiments have nothing to do with this, i never said that kashmiri articles should be deleted for no reason. I have withdrawn many AfD related to kashmir just because they later were improved to be fit on pedia but this one isn’t at this version.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not notable person to have a BLP in WP.Kolma8 (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Particularly significant is a peer reviewed journal article which focuses on Shibli in more detail: Bilal Ahmad Pandow (September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index On Censorship. 49 (3): 17-19. The Time article is also significant and there are other sources which I will list here. See Christian Science Monitor, Mint (newspaper), and "India: Abuses Persist in Jammu and Kashmir". Asia News Monitor. August 5, 2020.. All put together and this meets GNG. Appologies for no urls for some of the sources, but I accessed them through my university library and they are not available for free online. 4meter4 (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As stated earlier, the most significant sources are the peer reviewed journal article and the feature in Time. Neither of those are trivial mentions (no matter how much you insist otherwise), and support WP:SIGCOV. The fact that international press in multiple continents is interested enough in this journalist to mention him in context to world events in addition to these two significant sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. Lastly, you seem to have a WP:POV agenda here which may be impacting your editorial judgment.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4meter4, I Don't have a WP:POV agenda here, i am speaking on facts only. WP:SIGCOV states that Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail I don't see any of the WP:RS covering this subject in detail. They do cover his arrest in detail and i've suggested that as well. This might certainly seem as WP:POV but you can check my AfD history,Being the nom it's my responsibility to discuss and I always reply to all the comments made to discuss things in detail. And moreover my POV won't be considered, because the closing admin's would obviously be more experienced than me to decide whether my comments made make sense or not. Also as far as Time Is considered, Macktheknifeau has already stated that above Notability requires "multiple" examples of "significant" coverage. A single mention in a listcruft article with no real byline that is clearly a piece of propaganda against American geopolitical enemies doesn't count as significant. Closing this discussion now. Peace. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 15:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I read that assessment and I disagree with the characterization. The Time article is clearly divided into 10 sections with headings profiling 10 individuals. One of those headings, and it’s succeeding section is devoted to Qazi Shibli. That’s not a trivial mention, but a featured profile. The fact that the magazine chose to simply biline the entire article with TIME Staff is not surprising or unusual in this kind of article, but it doesn’t change the fact that the article would have gone through TIME’s well respected fact checking and editorial review process, and therefore doesn’t diminish the quality or verifiability or significance of the work as a piece of evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the article, i am a notable and famous journalist from jammu and kashmir and founder of the kashmiriyat which is the most famous media agency in kashmir, people use wikipedia to read and know about me. Do not delete this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2D8D:3916:6159:30D1:6F74:9CBA (talk) 07:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, why are we even using the news-site he's associated for an article on him. -- Eatcha 05:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs multiple independent sources giving significant coverage- he has one and several local ones he may be connected to. Perhaps a WP:TOOSOON, but not currently notable. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. The offline peer reviewed journal article I cited above is a significant source. The deletion votes have not accounted for the offline reference when weighing WP:SIGCOV. That and the the Time story in addition to the global press coverage is enough to meet the multiple sources requirement of GNG in my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content is irrelevant for determining notability at AfD; limited evidence of BEFORE process. Extensive, multiyear, indepth coverage available,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] discussed by Amnesty International[9] and in the 2020 Freedom House annual review.[10] UCS, easily meets the GNG.

References

  1. ^ "Kashmir: Missing Journalist Sums Up Total Breakdown Of Democracy". HuffPost. 18 September 2019.
  2. ^ Malik, Irfan Amin (6 May 2020). "Why Are Kashmiri Prisoners Happy About Coronavirus Pandemic?". TheQuint.
  3. ^ "India: Police detain Kashmiriyat editor Qazi Shibli / IFJ". International Federation of Journalists. 3 August 2020.
  4. ^ "Indian Journalists Union Demands Scribe Qazi Shibli Be Released From Custody". The Wire. 3 August 2020.
  5. ^ "South Kashmir-based editor, journalist, Qazi Shibli, again detained by Indian police: IIOJK". Associated Press Of Pakistan. 1 August 2020.
  6. ^ "Jammu and Kashmir police launch investigations into 3 journalists". Committee to Protect Journalists. 22 February 2021.
  7. ^ "Plan for Cyber Volunteers to Police India's Internet Draws Criticism | Voice of America - English". www.voanews.com. 25 February 2021.
  8. ^ Pandow, Bilal Ahmad (1 September 2020). ""The idea is to kill journalism": Kashmiri journalists on what it's like working under lockdown, an internet blackout and a new draconian media law". Index on Censorship. 49 (3): 17–19. doi:10.1177/0306422020958271.
  9. ^ "JAMMU AND KASHMIR AFTER ONE YEAR OF ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370" (PDF). Indians For Amnesty International Trust. 2020.
  10. ^ Freedom in the World 2020: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 1372. ISBN 978-1-5381-5181-5.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AfD nomination only deals with the content, it does not address the issue of notability, hence "limited evidence of BEFORE". If you wish to have a discussion about renaming the article, AfD is not the place. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Goldsztajn, AfD arises only when there’s the issue with the Notability. What else venue do you think the notability should be discussed at, if not AfD? As per my knowledge, we raise articles at AfD when they have notability issues and aren’t fir per standard of an encyclopaedia. If i am wrong do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 01:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jammumylove: To be precise: *your* entire nominating text was purely about the present contents of the article, which is irrelevant for the purposes of AfD. This is why I stated that there was limited evidence of WP:BEFORE...If I wasn't AGF, I probably would have said, "no evidence." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a notable journalist and has enough reliable news links references. User talk:Jammumylove Created account few weeks back and looks like purposely nominating profiles for nomination.
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. There's little discussion, and given the apparent potential for confusion, any new nomination should make sure that we don't confuse this person with the subject of the last AfD (if they are indeed different people). Sandstein 07:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kumud Das

AfDs for this article:
Kumud Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This journalist was found in 2013 to be non-notable, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumud Das. The information in this article is from or prior to 2013, and so already considered by the prior AFD. Naïve Google search finds LinkedIn and Facebook and shows that he writes for the Economic Times. It appears that not much has changed in eight years. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The person Kumud Das [8] mentioned in your AFD remark is a different person. Kumud Das is not only a journalist but also a noted writer in Assamese language. To avoid confusion, here is a video of Kumud Das while hosting his popular TV show - [9] Nalbarian (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eatcha, could you please elaborate? He is a author of several books and a leading TV journalist of a major TV channel in Assam (Check the article and references). I think namesake (people having identical monikers in a nation of 1.3 billion) is the only problem with him. Nalbarian (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 01:51, 9 April 2021 (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:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Journalism&oldid=1015992930"