Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 25

Ravenstein (film)

Ravenstein (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: It could have been redirected to the director with the local source mentioned above but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even taken all together none of the sources really seem viable for writing either an article about the director or the films. The totality of coverage in independent sources across the articles is the local paper announcement and a review of another film in a maybe-reliable indie source ([4]). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, maybe, I don't know. But since you draftified the article on the director, I think we should draftify this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Session capping

Session capping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is dependent on a single reference that is browser session preservation and migration (BSPM) infrastructure, and does not have the term "session capping" anywhere in the document. Subsequent searches through Google and other reputable resources. The only loose references on session capping can be found at there places https://www.thedrum.com/industryinsights/2017/03/08/the-importance-getting-creative-when-optimising-your-programmatic-ads and https://forum.revive-adserver.com/topic/3018-an-ad-is-not-returned-on-first-pageview-when-banner-session-capping-is-enabled/, both of which are not reliable sources to reference. Additionally, there is a page Frequency (marketing) that encompasses this topic, whic I've already gone ahead to copy over. Erictleung (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally would have just been
  WP:BOLD and redirected the page without opening an AfD. The page is a short and poorly referenced stub; given the content has already been moved, a Redirect to Frequency (marketing)#Frequency capping is the only thing left to do. Broc (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I appreciate your comment. I did try and just remove it, but it was reverted and I was told current protocol says to opening an AfD; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Session_capping&oldid=1211953598. But I would agree with your solution to remove and then redirect. Erictleung (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto national football team

Esperanto national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This isn't a "national football team". In an attempt to propose a move target, I determined that it should be deleted rather than renamed.

For the first match: some attendees at the 99º Universal Esperanto Congress had a friendly game of football during the event. [5]

The rest appears to be cosplay.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it does seem to pass GNG... SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Not a nation. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I created it as Esperanto football team since it is not a country but someone decided to move it to Esperanto national football team, I found [6], [7], [8],[9], [10], [11], [12], among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources don't support that it is a "national football team" or a "football team" in any organized sense. It is a few one-off matches held by amateurs at various Universal Esperanto Congress events, and a few big-talkers making claims about pursuing non-FIFA recognition that are, in a word, bullshit.
    Walsh90210 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

That is simply not true... it literally played in two non-FIFA organization tournaments (COSANFF Cup and Zamenhof Cup) among other games against teams in non-FIFA organizations (Mapuche etc), and on top of that it does meet WP:GNG by any means. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in a non-FIFA tournament is not the claim to fame you think it is... GiantSnowman 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG is the claim to notability we think it is, and I don't know how you could argue against the articles here which were published in clearly reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Thanls, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to World Esperanto Congress or Universal Esperanto Association. The subject is notable given the multiple reliable sources talking about it, but there's not much long-term coverage and not an enormous amount that needs to be said about it, so it fits better in context with other things the same people have been doing. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third option could be Esperanto, maybe in the Culture section Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also like to say that if it does not get merged or deleted, it should be moved to "Esperanto (football team)". I would move it, but this is during an AFD. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this article has been shown to meet GNG which no editor has refuted so should be kept. Thanks , Das osmnezz (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the article show that this clearly meets the GNG. I think it should be moved to "Esperanto football team" – some sources call it a national team, but one of those also then goes on to say "Es un equipo que no juega por una Nación o por un club". Common sense says it's not a national team. Toadspike [Talk] 19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not opposed to a selective merge to
  Walsh90210 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Unity Football Alliance

World Unity Football Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An "international football" organization article that is a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on GNG, but this is very clearly not a hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As but one example: there is a "Karen" team listed under Asia, but it is a local group in Minnesota.
    Walsh90210 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    You are likely unaware that the Karen are an ethnic group from Myanmar who have a diaspora in Minneapolis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Karen Football Association, which you can find can find plenty of details about through internet searches are a Karen diaspora group based in Minneapolis. Sherms95 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The Kashmir team is a local club in Bradford. The organization (and the article) pretense to be "national teams for sub-national entities", but it isn't; it's a few random local clubs with ethnic ties that signed up for a press release with this group.

    Walsh90210 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Delete – It may not be HOAX, but it didn't even organize any competition to be relevant. Svartner (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024

• That's not true - the BBC even lists Chagos as the winner of one of their competitions: [13] SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Most of the coverage isn't independent, but there's some coverage, including from Bradford, [14], BBC mentions, the Non-League Football Paper, and the nomination was based on a mis-understanding. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They basically do not organize any relevant competitions, a single mention does not prevent failure in

  WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Peshawar (1758)

Capture of Peshawar (1758) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does this pass GNG?

Its not a battle (even a minor one) and seems to have only the briefest of mentions in sources (one line, at most). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had previously closed this as a soft delete, but only just realized that this article was formerly considered at AFD in 2022 under the title "Battle of Peshawar (1758)", see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Peshawar (1758). Thus, it was ineligible for soft deletion. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment pinging User:Mohammad Umar Ali who made the following case that the article does pass the general notability guidelines on my talkpage here. I assume this user wants to add these comments below. Malinaccier (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
• Keep The editor who nominated it for deletion argued that it did not pass WP:GNG[15] but it actually does pass it. WP:GNG deals with following points mentioned below I have explained how this article passes every point.

1.) "Presumed" It's not an assumption but a fact as per the sources cited in the article (I have mentioned the sources in 4th point). Moreover it does require its own article as it helps to demonstrate the territorial peak of Maratha Confederacy which was in 1758 just after the capture of Peshawar Fort. Also it helps to understand the regional history of Peshawar which you could see as it has been included in History of Peshawar Wiki article.

2.) "Significant coverage" It does have significant coverage not just in one or two WP:RS but almost every WP:RS which deals with Maratha history or Afghan-Maratha wars, etc. Even various news articles including The Times of India have covered this event see this link; [16]

3.) "Reliable" As told before it's supported by multiple WP:RS sources. And as per the the wiki guidelines availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

4.) "Sources" All the below sources are considered reliable WP:RS.

i.) Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 - Jaswant Lal Mehta - Google Books link [17] pg 237 quoting; Thus nature did provide a golden opportunity to the Marathas to establish their sway over whole of Punjab and northwest India, upto Attock and Khyber pass, although the spell of their rule proved very shortlived.

ii.) Pletcher, Kenneth (2010). The History of India link [18] pg 198 quoting; Thus in 1757 Ahmad Shah's son Timur, appointed governor of Punjab, was forced to retreat from Lahore to Peshawar under the force of attacks from Sikhs and Marathas.

iii.) Pradeep Barua,The state at war in South Asia link [19]page 55; quoting: The Marathas attacked soon after and, with some help from the Sikhs, managed to capture Attock, Peshawar, and Multan between April and May 1758.

iv.) The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4) : New Cambridge History of India link [20] pg 132 quoting: First, we shall look at the expanding areas controlled by the Marathas, and there were many. Maratha leaders pushed into Rajasthan, the area around Delhi, and on into the Punjab. They attacked Bundelkund and the borders of Uttar Pradesh. Further east, the Marathas attacked Orissa and the borders of Bengal and Bihar.

v.) Moreover, Govind Sardesai, New History of Marathas Vol 2, It has a whole chapter based on this article and conquest of Punjab by Marathas (See the below links)
Above book Pg 400 link [21] quoting; At Lahore, therefore, Raghunath rao and his advisors found the situation easy and favourable. Abdussamad Khan who was a prisoner in Maratha hands, with characteristic double dealing offered to undertake the defence of frontier agasinst Abdali on behalf of the Marathas. From Poona the Peshwa dispatched Abdur Rahman with all haste to Lahore with instructions to Raghunath to make the best use of him in the scheme he was now executing- Raghunathrao, therefore, consigned the trans-Indus regions of Peshawar to these two Muslim agents, Abdur Rahman and Abdussamad Khan, posting them at Peshawar, with a considerable body of troops.

5.) "Independent of the subject" All the sources stated above are independent as it includes both Indian as well as foreign authors. All these sources are considered reliable (WP:RS). Advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not included in the sources (4th point).

So, it clearly does pass WP:GNG for which it was nominated for deletion.
Also, I am not so active on Wikipedia nowadays due to certain reasons so I might not frequently reply to any replies (if any) to my comment here, don't take it as my unwillingness to participate in the discussion, kindly wait for my reply. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those do not even seem to discuss its capture (or even it). Please read

wp:synthesis Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

*Suggestion I recommend changing this article's name to "Maratha Conquest of Punjab" and in territorial changes it could be mentioned that Attock, Multan, Lahore, Peshawar, etc. ceded to the Maratha Empire/Confederacy. Sources which I mentioned in my 1st comment support it. Then we can expand the article include background, have sub headings like Battle of Sirhind and Battle of Attock, Aftermath (the territories which were gained by Marathas, etc.) That will be more presentable and also address your concerns! Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see you already had a detailed discussion with other editors when you nominated this article for deletion for the 1st time. So why nominating the same article for deletion again, you should have resolved your doubts when you first nominated it for deletion. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did I accepted it was at least a battle, it is not even that now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Mohammad Umar Ali completely fails to understand what significant coverage means, a sentence or two in several books is not significant coverage. I can find no significant coverage of this, presumably for the rather obvious reason that (assuming the article is correct) the Maratha forces simply took control over a city bereft of Afghan forces. So as absolutely nothing happened during the capture, there's nothing for us to write about. I would object in the strongest possible terms to a move to
  WP:POVFORK of Afghan–Maratha War where this capture can easily be covered in context. So I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to that article either. FDW777 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not fulfil the
  WP:RS. PadFoot2008 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Junior League

Midlands Junior League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable,

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Update after 1 week: Non notable junior competition - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a contested PROD, this does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  Walsh90210 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Walsh90210, that is not an appropriate target article as it is a Redirect. It should be appearing with a green font color. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing

2024 Lakki Marwat bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NEVENT. No lasting effects. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "No lasting effects" seems rather early to call three days since the bombing, the day after an overnight operation resulting from it was held. There's arguments that could be made in regards to

WP:LASTING is not the one (yet), since that one specifically states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable, and less-than-a-week-ago is certainly recent. AddWittyNameHere 01:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

AddWittyNameHere, Noted. How about WP:TOOSOON ? — Saqib (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. Pakistan has so much terrorism that the odds of an individual incident getting long term coverage are slim unless it is exceptionally high profile and deadly, which this is not. However, it is notable as part of Pakistan's overall problem, so the information should be retained. This is what we did with the 100 past Pakistani terrorism articles that were AfD'd the past few months (though a few stayed their own articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA, Sure - I'm fine with merge into Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2024. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the event has received
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in international media: 9 June 2024, 11 June 2024, 16 June 2024. Maybe rename the article, but such events are almost always notable due to Pakistan Army connection. I'd suggest to defer this AFD for a year so we can see the lasting impact. 103.12.120.46 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • IP- As per this report, Pakistan witnessed as many as 245 incidents of terror attacks and counter-terror operations during the *irst quarter of 2024, resulting in 432 fatalities I'm sure each of them received similar amount of press coverage but do we need a standalone WP article on each one of them? I don't think so. This barely two paragraph long article should better be merged. WP is NOTDIRECTORY of terrorist attacks in Pakistan so we better focus on quality of our articles, not quantity. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per above. The event does not seem to be too outstanding from other terrorist activities in Pakistan to merit its own article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China

2024 official visit by Shehbaz Sharif to China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. WP considers the enduring notability of events and its WP:TOOSOON to determine enduring historical significance or widespread impact of this visit. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The content of this articles meets the criteria for inclusion and meet
  WP:FAITH. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • TinaLees-Jones, But the problem here is that the article just doesn't meet the WP:N. It's not about needing improvement; it's about meeting the criteria for inclusion on WP. And just so you know, I don't need anyone's permission to nominate articles for deletion. Still, I do want to acknowledge the effort you've put into creating this article. — Saqib (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • As far as Nawaz Sharif's visits to China are concerned, there have been five in total, one in July 2013, one in April 2014 (to attend Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia), one in November 2014 to attend APEC 2014, one in 2015 December 2015 SCO, and once in May 2017 at the 2017 Belt and Road Forum. then the correct way would have been to write the 2013 official visit by Nawaz Sharif to China as an independent article, with the rest to be merged into the corresponding conference ones, and if I am happy I would write it later. The correct editorial logic, however, is that diplomacy is all about reciprocal visits, and entries on reciprocal visits that corroborate each other add to the credibility and readability of the articles - one by one, gradually. --TinaLees-Jones (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:LASTING states An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. State visits are usually routine and we've no way of knowing if this particular visit will be historically significant or even momentous event, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are some news reports, which are WP:ROTM coverage. Nor this visit yielded any significant outcome or significant effect on the Pak-China relation so I think that it's just like another routine state visit without enduring significance and so clearly fails WP:NEVENT. The press coverage of this official visit doesn't automatically fulfill the requirements of WP:NEVENT. I won't delve into this further. I feel I've expressed my perspective adequately so now I'll leave it to others to make their own assessments. — Saqib (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. This is a rare case where I believe
  WP:ROUTINE applies. All state visits are covered extensively in Chinese media. However, the Al Jazeera and Reuters sources make it hard for me to !vote delete in good faith. Toadspike [Talk] 04:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Toadspike, But I don't really see anything particularly extraordinary about this visit. Take, for example, Nawaz Sharif's visit to China back in 2014. That was a big deal because it kicked off the CPEC project in Pakistan, which was worth billions! But we don't even have an article about that visit. So, why should we have one for Shahbaz's recent trip which was a pretty routine stuff. WP isn't a newspaper, right? — Saqib (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see anything particularly extraordinary either, but the significant coverage in Al Jazeera and Reuters, which are not based in Pakistan or China, makes it seem vaguely notable. Your other argument is just

    WP:OTHERSTUFF. I already marked my !vote as "very weak" and the closer will interpret it accordingly, what more do you want? Toadspike [Talk] 06:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Delete per Saqib. - Amigao (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (or merge) to
  WP:SUSTAINED coverage due to this visit being way too recent. It may or may not gather sufficient coverage to justify keeping the article in the future, but as it currently stands, it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a standalone article. Pilaz (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: A non-notable visit. Not deserving a
  news of the event with no lasting historical significance. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rojda Aykoç

Rojda Aykoç (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate. Kadı Message 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Turkey. Kadı Message 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is a notable singer, mostly known for musical performances in Kurdish. More than enough sources are available, from reliable news outlets like Rudaw, Evrensel, NTV, Hurriyet, Gazete Duvar

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are promotional content for promote her new album. These sources do not contribute for passing notability criterias. You can read trwiki discussion by translating in order to see the analysis. Best wishes. Kadı Message 09:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the references in the article and listed in the first AfD at the top left of this listing shows a pass of
  WP:GNG in my view, including a 25 minute radio programme about her. Also she still has an article on the Kurdish wikipedia, and the deletion on the Turkey wikipedia may have a political context, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:SIGCOV per the sources above and those given in the first AFD. The claims that the sources are promotional are entirely spurious. These are independent mainstream media sources, not all of which are positive (such as the first source given above). The deletion on the Turkish Wikipedia does appear to have been politically motivated and based in a flawed and unethical argument not rooted in Wikipedia’s policies. That is concerning, and hopefully an admin on that wiki will do an AFD review on the Turkish wiki page. That article should be restored.4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Jonathan Charles

Jonathan Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Have now added the archive of his BBC profile, but don't think that changes notability status. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Opening this deletion discussion per

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Thibaut

François Thibaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article subject does not look notable generally or as an academic or educator. All of the citation links in the article are actually to the same New York Times article, which only briefly mentions the article subject: "In 1994, the school had fewer than 50 students learning Spanish; now, there are 180, said Francois Thibaut, the school's director. A class had to be added this fall to accommodate the increasing demand, he said." [22]. I was not able to locate most of the other links/sources, and what I found did not mention the article subject. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Language. – notwally (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nevin (diplomat)

Michael Nevin (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated quite a few of the diplomat articles I previously created for deletion, but I left this one out as there was coverage of his time in Malawi in the Nyasa Times and other Malawian sources. : [23], [24], [25], [26] [27]. May be more available. Unsure if this fails GNG. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Gill

Stuart Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Malta, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important Ambassador key to negotiations on the completion of the EU’s Single Market. KEEP Cantab12 (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if not notable then this list List of high commissioners of the United Kingdom to Malta is just useless. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree. The list is not useless even if not all office holders on the list are inherently notable. The ones with knighthoods/damehoods would be considered notable, almost by default. Uhooep (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Whitting

Ian Whitting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iceland, Montenegro, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Malcolm (composer)

Carlos Malcolm (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Two different Carlos Malcolms, the other of whom invented Ska music, make it hard to source this one. Doesn't seem very notable though. — Iadmc♫^talk  18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc♫^talk  18:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The article currently cites two sources. I think this article provides significant coverage. The book Cuban Music from A to Z has a passing mention on page 65 and a one-paragraph description on page 129. I can provide the excerpt if needed. I think it could be given similar weight to a dictionary of national biography, where inclusion alone indicates notability. I also found this, a statement from a Cuban embassy, and this SPS (possible from a subject-matter expert), which don't count for much. This isn't a lot, but he's definitely a real musician who's composed some stuff and has probably had some musical impact. Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  More marginally helpful sources: [28] (kinda self-published, again might be a SME), this (not sure if it's about the right guy). Toadspike [Talk] 19:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also found two mentions in this book chapter, one of which cites a paper as "Brouwer, “La vanguardia en la música cubana,” Boletín Música no. 1 (1970): 3". I cannot find that paper anywhere. Although these are just passing mentions, they confirm that Malcolm was part of the "1960s Cuban musical vanguardia" and moved to Poland (which was apparently common for Cuban musicians, as Poland was less "conservative" than alternatives in socialist Eastern Europe). Toadspike [Talk] 10:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Toadspike. Not sure how helpful these are as they are just passing mentions. Keep looking though! — Iadmc♫^talk  10:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Singh

G. B. Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable individual. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Politics, Sikhism, Colorado, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. No sources provide him any biographical coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:GNG. Only mentioned in passing over 2 non-notable books. Orientls (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject

  .
  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). "Sing, G.B. 1954–". Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields. Vol. 270. Detroit:
     ISSN 0275-7176. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive
     .

     The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."

  2. Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). "Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

     The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment: Pinging the only AfD participant from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh who has edited in the last three years: David Eppstein (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Further comments: he not only passes

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Sources by Cunard only prove that this is a case of
  WP:BLP1E; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't "one event". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any "reviews" that would make him notable and in any case, it does not change the fact that per

  WP:BLP1E, we need to assess that "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and this subject fails that. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  ...that isn't what BLP1E is for? He has multiple, full length author profiles. His books have plenty of reviews. There isn't even an "event" here. He writes books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This person wrote books, that have been talked about in media, as has this person. As shown above, these are RS. Scandalous or not, notability is established. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:BLP1E. Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books
  WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There does seem to be an effort from this editor to remove things that are not complimentary of Gandhi, but that does not make a strong case for deletion. True or not, these "things" have enough coverage to be kept here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Only 2 sources provided above includes a database of many non-notable authors and a 20 years old random coverage from Colorado's The Gazette,
  WP:GNG, let alone gaining significant coverage from the expert sources of this field. Orientls (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Striking duplicate "delete" comment. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable fringe writer. Agletarang (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: G. B. Singh received 820 words of coverage in
  WP:BLP1E does not apply because neither "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" nor "The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" apply. G. B. Singh clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

  Cunard (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: More than enough coverage in the sources listed above; regardless of the validity of the theories, this person has been talked about in RS, enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The prior AfD was also a keep, for passing AUTHOR. Notability is not temporary, there was a valid discussion 13 yrs ago and it was notable then and still is today. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It makes no sense to cite past AfD in order to evade the existing concerns, otherwise there would be no option to renominate the article for deletion. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

M2001

M2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG, no SIGCOV outside the original paper Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The original paper from 1998 (a "technical notice" in a special-interest-group newsletter) has no citations in Google Scholar. This appears to have had no traction and we have no coverage at all (let alone SIGCOV) in sources independent from its author. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails
  WP:GNG, I could find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity

Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Book from conspiracy theorists that failed to attract any coverage or reviews. At best it has only received little coverage over disinformation it spread. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The coverage in the Kansas City Star and The Historian, as well as from other authors, makes it notable. Critical coverage is still coverage. Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Garbage books that are written specifically for getting attention should attract coverage from more than just 2 twenty years old sources. If this book was published today it would be best fact checked on a fact checking website and we wont count it as coverage towards notability. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There have now been three journal reviews found, which is more than enough to meet NBOOK. If these reviews are critical of the book, then the article should make note of that. Astaire (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep: It passes NBOOK and is therefore notable. The reviews seem to adequately address the book's fringe claims. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NBOOK? Ignore the misleading claim above that there is coverage from "Kansas City Star" because it simply not verifiable. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @ArvindPalaskar On proquest, there are:

  • review in Choice, proquest id 225800157
  • a review in Free Inquiry, proquest id 230077014

  Above NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also a review in The Humanist, proquest ID 235297768. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've verified that the reviews in Choice and Free Inquiry exist. Those two reviews, plus the existing sources in the article, are enough to more than meet the NBOOK threshold. Astaire (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At best we have only 1 review that meets
  WP:NBOOK. Azuredivay (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete, one review doesn't prove notability. Artem.G (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, that's why we've found at least 6 below that prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Indeed there is only 1 review and that too only tells why this book is faulty. NavjotSR (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  flap copy
  , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. EBSCOhost 19009759. Archived from the original
   on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

   The review notes: "If the author had managed to present credible evidence for both theses, his book would have been nothing short of a scholarly sensation, not only invalidating diametrically opposed assessments emerging from nearly eight decades of academic “Gandhiana,” but also dismantling the Mahatma’s popular image. In addition, Singh’s study would constitute a valuable contribution to the existing social science literature on Indian politics. Concerning G. B. Singh’s first thesis, however, this reviewer could not find hard evidence for the sinister manipulations of the “Hindu propaganda machine.”"

   The review notes: "Numerous criticisms of Gandhi’s moral flaws do exist; one only needs to consult pertinent works authored by Ved Mehta, Partha Chatterjee, Joseph Alter, or this reviewer. Yet, out of fairness, these authors balanced their critiques against Gandhi’s impressive moral strengths. By launching a one-sided attack without offering the larger, more complex picture of Gandhi’s ethical and political engagements, the book under review turns into a strident polemic, thus diminishing the considerable value of some of its criticisms."

2. Clark, Thomas W. (July–August 2006). "Gandhi in Question".
   ProQuest 235297768. Archived from the original
   on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

   The review notes: "G. B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity subjects Gandhi the saint to death by a thousand cuts. The man is portrayed as an impostor who harbored racist attitudes toward South African blacks and whose efforts on behalf of Hindu "untouchables" were misguided half-measures, designed merely to build his own reputation and political influence. Using dozens of quotes from newspapers, letters, and biographies, most of which actually show Gandhi in a positive light, Singh aims to deconstruct what he calls Gandhi's pseudo-history. ... Singh also offers an unsubstantiated hypothesis that Gandhi, in cleaning out files, deliberately destroyed some incriminating documents sometime after 1906. But he has no evidence as to what the missing documents contained. That their content was racist and their destruction part of a coverup is simply speculation on his part."

3. Terchek, R. J. (February 2005). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity".
   ProQuest 225800157
   .

   The review notes: "For career military officer Singh, Gandhi's character and record are dark and troublesome. He finds his subject a racist, "macho," a propagandist, beholden to special interests, a liar, a "superb manipulator," a "witch doctor of the worst kind," the "most bribable of all Congress Party leaders," and the list goes on. The book lacks balance and refuses to acknowledge that people can grow and develop, learn from mistakes, and try to move forward."

4. Narisetti, Innaiah (October–November 2004). "A Critical Look at a National Hero".
   ProQuest 230077014
   .

   The review notes: "Mr. Singh's book attempts to expose the racial prejudices of Gandhi and his followers in South Africa and the sometimes violent nature of his satyagraha movement there and asserts that facts from that period were concealed as biographers, in years to come, relied primarily on Mr. Gandhi's own writings rather than independent research. The author provides a lifeline for Gandhi and a select bibliography as appendices. The book also comes with three unusual caricatures of Gandhi: "Dawn of the New Gandhi," "The Hindu Face of Gandhi the Avatar," and "The Christian Face of Saint Gandhi.""

5. Volin, Katie (2005-01-02). "Gandhi as a racist doesn't add up".
   Newspapers.com
   .

   The review notes: "Although changing people's notions of history can be done, it would take a strong argument to convince many people that Gandhi was racist. Establishing the book's incendiary premise becomes the Achilles heel of G.B. Singh's Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity. ... Singh's failure to first define racism and second to demonstrate how Gandhi's behavior with regard to other races was socially aberrant in his lifetime weakens the author's argument irreparably. It is rather difficult to market one's book as a scholarly work if basic definitions and sociological conditions are not even given mention."

6. Xavier, William (October 2004). "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reviewer's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

   The review notes: "The mud slung at Gandhi by G.B.Singh only adds to the greatness of the Mahatma. (Mahatma means large minded)."

7. Less significant coverage:
   1. "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity". Reference and Research Book News. Vol. 19, no. 4.
      ProQuest 199666401
      .

      The review provides 78 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "A career military officer and student of Indian politics, Hinduism, and Gandhi, Singh tries to make some sense of the widely divergent images of the Indian leader by various interests appropriating him for their cause"

   2. Sudeep, Theres (2021-08-17). "Rediscover Gandhi this weekend". Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

   The review notes: "The book written in biographical form nearly 60 years after the assassination of Gandhi, challenges his image as a saintly, benevolent, and pacifistic leader of Indian independence. It is told through Gandhi’s own writings and actions over the course of his life. ... The book has been criticised for it’s one-sided approach and sweeping statements."

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]