Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Asia. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Asia|~~~~}} 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 Asia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Purge page cache

This list also includes sublists of deletion debates involving articles related to specific Asian countries.

Asia

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. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Asia, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Sources do not provide independent WP:SIGCOV. Unable to locate sources. Bgv. (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Asia, and Oman. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international competition to qualify for worldwide tournament. Would it be more acceptable if it was labeled a "cup" or "championship", which is what it is? 2022 Men's EuroHockey5s Championship also has the governing body (International Hockey Federation) as the only reference, which can be typical on lesser known sports.

Tbennert (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is only this tournament nominated? That makes no sense with other regional qualifying tournaments being notable. And men's tournaments also being notable. Yes, it can do with more independent sources but qualifying tournaments are part of the international cycle for global tournaments. The Banner talk 16:09, 27 June 2024 (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. There seems to be some consensus to rename the article, but that is outside the scope of AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M-T pronouns

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

Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.

For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:

"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."

Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc ♫^talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.

As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.

Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.

I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.

An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)

What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note — kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.

@Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.

Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:

"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[1] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[2] by Juha Janhunen

Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?

I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a redirect to Nostratic languages be possible here? This seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably clean up. Gbooks turned up this sound-looking source. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "phonetic patterns in pronouns" or something like that. The best of multiple bad options. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that would be recognizable. I think "M–T and N–M pronoun patterns" as suggested above would be best. Those are the two patterns that are notable globally. We can still have an 'other patterns' section. — kwami (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2024 (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 Hum TV without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs) The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Abbas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrawan Ghimire (2nd nomination)

Afghanistan

World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan

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

Per Talk:World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan#Requested move 29 October 2024, concerns were brought up regarding the notability of this topic in sources, specifically such a way to make it notable and not violate WP:NOTNEWS. In addition, trying to find an "official" name for this topic seemed to provide no results, and the claim that this is the "world's largest" without "in Afghanistan" was apparently disproven 2 years after the creation of this article's subject [3]. In a nutshell, there seems to be no references to illustrate that the subject of this article had encyclopedic notability that can withstand WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Travel and tourism, and Religion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae: Ping participant of the move request. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Afghanistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support for deletion. I was the sole participant in the aforementioned RM discussion, besides the nominator, Steel1943. Our discussion reached a dead end due to a lack of ongoing coverage in English language sources establishing an appropriateWP:COMMONNAME or official name. Some English language sources revealed new record holder's for "world's largest [handmade] Quran," thus calling into question variations on the current descriptive title. Additionally, there are no Wikipedia articles in other languages for this topic. All of this raised the question of notability and led Steel1943 and I to pursue this AfD discussion. I would defer to other editors on the ultimate decision. I'm not familiar enough with the topic and related subject area to conclusively determine whether appropriate sources, in English or not, exist to establish notability.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sistani of Golestan

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

This article is very difficult to understand. Some people moved from Sistan to Golestan for reasons that are largely lost in translation. Is this movement notable? Between Farsi and Russian sources, hard to say. I don’t think our readers are well served by having something so garbled in mainspace, so suggest draftifying for further work. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or merge whatever else content on this page to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes. Per below and WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This is just an un-needed fork for a page we already have. Not only that, but this page has heavy content from other groups such as the BLA, or TTP, which are scopes completely irrelevant to this topic alone. This page is named "2024 Afghanistan-Pakistan Skirmishes", but also only covers the March 2024 border Skirmishes, when there has also been skirmishes last month in September, which is included in the Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes page. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21, there has already been a concenus on this article that it should remain Waleed (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M Waleed Firstly, there was sockpuppets involved in the original AFD, go back to it to see blocked accounts. Secondly, I never brought up WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As mentioned, the incidents listed here are already mentioned in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes page. There haven't been any incidents this year that are themselves more notable than incidents any other year to warrant this being its own article independent of the main article on this topic. And, yeah, looking at the previous AfD discussion, there seems to have been at least a little bit of sockpuppetry going on? One of the main arguments that was made in favour of keeping the article was that it contains proper sources, which is true, but those sources would be no less proper in the main article. There's no reason for this article to exist, and there's no reason to merge because, as already pointed out, the information here is already in the main article. Archimedes157 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted! Austria Football 02 (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is in my Eyes a good Article and should therefore not be deleted!" is directly against AFD policy, just because you think in your eyes it is a good article does not mean it is worthy of being kept. It is directly against Wikipedia Policy per Redundantfork. See WP:AADD, and more specifically; WP:ILIKEIT. Noorullah (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes: I think that non duplicate content should to merged back into the main article. REDUNDANTFORK does apply. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't have any strong Keep arguments thus far but should some content be Merged into Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes: Most of the coverage is quite routine and lacks anything particularly unusual so I don’t see NEVENT being easily met, so a standalone article isn't necessary at this time. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

Nerkin

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

This is little more than an Armenian dictionary definition. A soft redirect to the Wikitionary entry for ներքին would seem appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wikitionary entry for ներքին; this word is not notable, basically just a dictionary definition as stated. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:DICDEF, nor is there any particular reason to create a soft redirect to Wiktionary here any more than there is for any other random non-English word, especially since an external search for "nerkin" comes up with all sorts of other matches which have nothing to do with the Armenian word. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many languages have words for 'lower' and 'upper' that commonly occur in place names; what makes Armenian special? —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

–===Ruben Papian===

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

No significant coverage, as only two 'news' style sources seem to exist. The first is a 138-word article discussing a product he's selling [4] and the other is a promotional article in Lepota & Zdravlje [5] All the other sources are his blog, dead links, and one listing of a conference appearance.

The actual text is full of gems like "In 2004 Ruben devoted his time to understanding esoterica and hidden abilities of space and matter" and "In 2015 Ruben discovered metaphysical abilities of wood cells^{[citation needed]}" Wizmut (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Armenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the article used to be worse than it is now, it is irredeemably promotional with sizeable WP:V issues. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, NOT enough intext citations UzbukUdash (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks adequate RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

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

A poorly sourced, heavily POVish, irredentist, COI looking, non-notable article, basically meant to portray Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and Iran as the "big bad", a common rhetoric spewed by the Aliyev-ruled regime in Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijani nationalism, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, all well sourced and which go into more depth). Refers the Republic of Artsakh as a "separatist regime in Karabakh", not even referring to it by name [6], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [7], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [8], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [9]. If this is so notable, I'm sure high-quality WP:RS in English can be found about this, but there isn't. The Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish versions of this article was also written by the same person, who was amongst the many people mentioned in this pretty large COI thread about several Azerbaijani wiki users [10]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. The article is filled with bias and unscholarly sources. Not to mention the major WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:PROPORTION violations. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, there is bias against this article I wrote about the actions of a regime that disregards human rights. I kindly ask as many people as possible to participate in the voting and to familiarize themselves with the facts I will present. Additionally, I request you to review the article yourself and know that I have not yet fully finalized it.

I am writing sequentially regarding the individual's comments about the article.

The article is about the protests that took place in Iran in 2020. Hundreds of news articles have been prepared in various languages (including Persian and Armenian) about those detained during these protests. Books have been written, and research papers have been published. Amnesty International has expressed its concern regarding those detained. Several protests have taken place on different dates in more than one Iranian city. Hundreds of people have been beaten and persecuted. Elderly people, women, children, and even disabled individuals have been beaten and insulted during these protests. The person suggesting the deletion of the article refers to it as a "non-notable article." I can only express my regret toward this request.
Contrary to what the individual claims, nothing has been written against Armenia in the article. On the contrary, even official Armenian websites have been utilized.
Regarding the topic of the "separatist regime in Karabakh," regardless of how you write its name in the article, that territory is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and there are four UN resolutions regarding its occupation. So how should a regime established in an actually occupied territory be named? Moreover, I have only written the expression in that section. In another part of the article, I referred to that entity as the "so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Therefore, you can mention that entity in whatever way you wish in the article. It does not affect the subject or essence of this article.
There is also no problem regarding "Brenda Shaffer" and "Günaz". If you do not accept those references, you can delete them.
It is very interesting that for some reason you are trying to inflate the references to "Günaz", which were used only twice in an overall article with 246 references, to make the entire article appear weaker. Those references also confirm the same fact. You can delete them as well.
Regarding the expression "Southern Azerbaijan(is)," that region has been referred to in several historical sources and books related to dialects, territory, and population as "South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan." It does not matter to me whether people living there are called "southern Azerbaijanis" or "Iranian Azerbaijanis." As far as I can see, you have made corrections related to this in the article. Thank you for your efforts.
Other users who will vote should know that a total of 246 references in five different languages have been used in the article. The references include reports from Radio Free Europe, BBC, DW, Iranwire, Voice of America, and reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. I do not understand what other "reliable sources" the individual wants.
There are dozens of video facts, photos, and reports related to these events. You can familiarize yourself with them through external links.

The facts I presented show how biased this individual is towards the topic. I hope the community makes a correct decision. If you need any further assistance or modifications, feel free to ask! --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just that you even used the racist and irredentist Gunaz says more than enough about you and this article, whether you used it 1 or 10 times. I find it rich that you accuse me of being "biased", when your article reads like a Aliyev tabloid. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why you are showing such an aggressive attitude.

What is the difference between writing “Günaz” or “GünazTV”?

On the other hand, about Aliyev topic, there are not any statements or reactions neither at the government, nor president level. If there is no such statement then what’s the point of mentioning Aliyev?

Why didn’t you show any reactions toward other parts of my article? Do you have any other issues toward the references other than “Günaz”? Why don’t you talk about them? Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, read up above. It also doesn't directly have to be government issued statements for it be in line with their rhetoric, that goes without saying. This article is taking a heavy pro-Aliyev stance - as you said yourself, others can review the article for themselves. Read also the policies that Archives908 posted. Meanwhile, I'll use the rest of my time to look more into the COI concerns that were brought up about you and the other users. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, it looks like a notable phenomenon and it's not based just on Azerbaijani sources, Voice of America is used 34 times. It's true that Azerbaijani sources might be biased, so I would support trimming the article or balancing it if other sources do not support these claims. Alaexis_¿question? 22:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is WP:UNDUE and is in breach of WP:NPOV. It includes a large list of subpar low quality sources and reads like a propaganda work. The article should be deleted. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious WP:POV violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.211.50 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC) _{Non-EC users may not vote, per WP:GS/AA. Grandmaster 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)}.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that while deletion can be used to address NPOV violations, it is only done in extreme cases where the article is unsalvageable. If the topic is notable, and POV or WP:UNDUE can be fixed by stubifying, then deletion is not the appropriate approach. Editors are encouraged to trim down the article to remove POV and UNDUE violations while this AfD is open, and discuss the notability of the topic based on sourcing, rather than reject the current content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- While taking into consideration the relisting comment- the article is written with such a great deal of bias that it is hard to decipher fact from bias. Imo WP:TNT may be the only optimal solution here. Any WP:N content not riddled with bias can always be merged into Azerbaijan–Iran relations. Archives908 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support a selective merger with Azerbaijan–Iran relations, then? It's not clear from your !vote. Alternatives to deletion, if possible, are almost always preferable. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I still support deletion, I think a selective merger is a fair alternative to deletion. I don't think it's notable enough to warrant its own article imo. Whatever can be salvaged can be merged into Azerbaijan–Iran relations, while the biased pov can be TNT'd. Archives908 (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Thank you very much, Owen×.

I would like to reiterate that the person who nominated the article for deletion is biased against the article and its subject, trying to protect the interests of a regime that persecutes, kills, and has imprisoned people for years in a Sharia state. Therefore, I feel regret.

~~Let’s move on to the article.~~ The events described in the article are real. People have fought for days and months, resulting in arrests, beatings, and persecution. Many have been subjected to insults in front of their relatives and family members, and have received lashings to humiliate them. These facts have been confirmed by reputable news sites such as "Voice of America," "Radio Free Europe," "BBC," and by international organizations like "Amnesty International" and the U.S. Department of State.

The user who nominated the article for deletion is unhappy because I referenced a certain organization’s site only twice, despite the fact that the article has a total of 246 citations. The overwhelming majority of those citations are from the reputable sites and organizations I mentioned above.~~Even if the user insists on removing those 2 citations, I would not object, yet they remain dissatisfied for some reason.~~

The user also claims that the phrase "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" is inappropriate. At the same time, I have no objection to "Iranian Azerbaijanis" being used. In fact, I have considered this in the later sections of the article as well.~~Yet the user is still not satisfied. Why?~~

Furthermore, the individual is also upset about my translations of the articles into other languages. I have translated many of the articles I have written into various languages that I know, and I enjoy doing so. This not only enhances my foreign language skills but also supports the Wikipedia movement.~~Why does this activity bother this user?~~

Later, the user claims that this article reflects the position of Aliyev. I would like to reiterate to other users that neither Aliyev nor any other members of the Azerbaijani government have made any statements, opinions, or speeches on this topic. Naturally, there is no discussion of this in the article either. Anyone who claims otherwise should provide their evidence.

For some reason, this user seems to be trying to hide the actions of the repressive mullah regime, tarnishing the article with unrelated topics, exaggerating minor errors, and disregarding reputable sources and statements, including reports. I hope the community makes the right decision. It is not acceptable to delete such an extensive article and important events due to just one or two minor errors.--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are only allowed one bolded !vote per discussion. Also, casting aspersions on other participants will not sway the decision your way. Please stick to policy- and guideline-based arguments about the topic and sourcing. Owen× ☎ 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just WP:REHASH of your earlier comment with a even bigger sprinkle of WP:ASPERSIONS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These events received coverage in the international media. For example, in Deutsche Welle, RFE/RL, Al Jazeera, so the notability is obvious. NPOV concerns are not the reason to delete the article, they can be addressed by improving it. Grandmaster 11:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not think notability is an issue. A quick glance at the article shows it draws heavily on reliable sources, such as Voice of America, BBC and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe. The event is definitely well covered. Branding the text as "Aliyev-ruled regime propaganda" is not very reasonable given that a great deal of the Azerbaijani sources cited in the article actually represent Azerbaijani opposition (Meydan, Musavat). Some references probably do need double checking, but notability is definitely not an issue. I am also not sure when "irredentism" became an argument in favour of deleting an article on Wikipedia, considering that Republic of Artsakh, the very article the nominator refers to in their deletion rationale, essentially conveys an irredentist concept. Parishan (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of the article is a notable, there are many reliable sources mentioned by other users.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

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

A poorly sourced, heavily POVish, irredentist, COI looking, non-notable article, basically meant to portray Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and Iran as the "big bad", a common rhetoric spewed by the Aliyev-ruled regime in Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijani nationalism, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, all well sourced and which go into more depth). Refers the Republic of Artsakh as a "separatist regime in Karabakh", not even referring to it by name [11], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [12], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [13], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [14]. If this is so notable, I'm sure high-quality WP:RS in English can be found about this, but there isn't. The Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish versions of this article was also written by the same person, who was amongst the many people mentioned in this pretty large COI thread about several Azerbaijani wiki users [15]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. The article is filled with bias and unscholarly sources. Not to mention the major WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:PROPORTION violations. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, there is bias against this article I wrote about the actions of a regime that disregards human rights. I kindly ask as many people as possible to participate in the voting and to familiarize themselves with the facts I will present. Additionally, I request you to review the article yourself and know that I have not yet fully finalized it.

I am writing sequentially regarding the individual's comments about the article.

The article is about the protests that took place in Iran in 2020. Hundreds of news articles have been prepared in various languages (including Persian and Armenian) about those detained during these protests. Books have been written, and research papers have been published. Amnesty International has expressed its concern regarding those detained. Several protests have taken place on different dates in more than one Iranian city. Hundreds of people have been beaten and persecuted. Elderly people, women, children, and even disabled individuals have been beaten and insulted during these protests. The person suggesting the deletion of the article refers to it as a "non-notable article." I can only express my regret toward this request.
Contrary to what the individual claims, nothing has been written against Armenia in the article. On the contrary, even official Armenian websites have been utilized.
Regarding the topic of the "separatist regime in Karabakh," regardless of how you write its name in the article, that territory is recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and there are four UN resolutions regarding its occupation. So how should a regime established in an actually occupied territory be named? Moreover, I have only written the expression in that section. In another part of the article, I referred to that entity as the "so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." Therefore, you can mention that entity in whatever way you wish in the article. It does not affect the subject or essence of this article.
There is also no problem regarding "Brenda Shaffer" and "Günaz". If you do not accept those references, you can delete them.
It is very interesting that for some reason you are trying to inflate the references to "Günaz", which were used only twice in an overall article with 246 references, to make the entire article appear weaker. Those references also confirm the same fact. You can delete them as well.
Regarding the expression "Southern Azerbaijan(is)," that region has been referred to in several historical sources and books related to dialects, territory, and population as "South Azerbaijan" or "Iranian Azerbaijan." It does not matter to me whether people living there are called "southern Azerbaijanis" or "Iranian Azerbaijanis." As far as I can see, you have made corrections related to this in the article. Thank you for your efforts.
Other users who will vote should know that a total of 246 references in five different languages have been used in the article. The references include reports from Radio Free Europe, BBC, DW, Iranwire, Voice of America, and reports from the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International. I do not understand what other "reliable sources" the individual wants.
There are dozens of video facts, photos, and reports related to these events. You can familiarize yourself with them through external links.