Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Qatar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Qatar|~~~~}} 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 Qatar. 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.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.

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


Qatar

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

The result was delete‎. The lack of coverage is the issue. Habst, if you would like this as a Draft to see if you can find coverage I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 14:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Abdi Hassan

Jamal Abdi Hassan (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. Only sources are entries in tables showing the individual participated in the Olympics. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Qatar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV that could be used to help this subject, one of the many WP:LUGSTUBS overfilling this site still, meet the WP:GNG. Unfortunately, I don't see a clear redirect target. Let'srun (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Runner is a multiple-time international gold medallist satisfying WP:NATH and he has been covered in print media under his Arabic name "جمال عبدي حسن". A lot of print media from his era hasn't been digitized, but there are some remnants of prose online i.e. from Al Jazeera. He also had a viral moment falling on the water jump at the '96 Olympics which caused him to not make the finals. I don't have the text yet (working on it), but I know for a fact that infamous fall was covered in a The Times issue (transcribed in a news stream here) so that's another avenue for sourcing. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think enough breadcrumbs are here to justify keeping the article with some work. --Habst (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NATH is definitely not satisfied in the absence of any IRS SIGCOV sources. The Al Jazeera source above has all of one sentence on him in a list of event results, and categorically does not count towards notability. In the 5000m race, Qatari Jamal Abdi Hassan Abdullah came in seventh with a time of 13.04.65. Moroccans Salah Hissou and Abdel Rahim Al-Ghomri came in eleventh and sixteenth with a time of 13.16.87 and 13.36.08 respectively.
    We have zero indication that anything in The Times is non-routine SIGCOV, or even anything beyond a photo caption. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, WP:NATH is definitely not satisfied in the absence of any IRS SIGCOV sources -- can you please provide a policy source that states this? It's definitely not supported by the text of NATH or the WP:NSPORTS2022 consensus on this issue. WP:NEXISTS is a valid policy to cite in this context while we work to comb through print media from the 1990s. --Habst (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do people have to explain to you that meeting SPORTCRIT is required for an athlete to meet NSPORT? You can meet a sport-specific sub-criterion via achievement, but you still have to meet NSPORT for any presumptions of coverage to apply. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, I greatly respect your contributions here and hope you can extend the same respect to me. I think that WP:NATH and WP:SPORTCRIT are two separate parts of NSPORT without a clearly defined relationship to each other. Prong 2 of NATH is clearly met here by the subject's multiple international medals in distance running. To say that NATH isn't satisfied despite that simply isn't supported by the policy.
    Also, NSPORT is only a guideline along with other more established guidelines such as WP:NEXISTS. If we can determine together that coverage exists of this athlete meeting the bar for notability, a keep vote would be justified. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread "NATH" as a synonym for "NSPORT". But regardless, all sport-specific criteria are subordinate to the overarching requirements at SPORTCRIT. Otherwise SPORTCRIT #5 would make no sense and the robust consensus at NSPORT2022 would be functionally ignored. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, if a consensus is functionally ignored, then that means it's not actually a consensus. I don't think your description of NSPORTS2022 matches the text of the summary, which says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support, which includes WP:NATH as a part of NSPORTS. Speaking of subordination, all of NSPORTS is subordinate to broader guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NEXISTS, so if we can fulfill those, there is no need to fulfill SPORTCRIT.
    If we delete this article, my understanding is we would effectively be saying that Abdi Hassan is the only steeplechase Olympian since 1924 to have not met the notability guidelines. I'm not ruling out that it's possible, but it certainly deserves more effort than we have put in so far. For example, prompted by the below comment I looked at the page history and found several alternative names for the subject we can use as leads for name-searching. --Habst (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus has been observed in literally thousands of AfDs by this point. Only a very small cohort of editors ignore it or are ignorant of it. Your understanding of PAGs is clearly at odds with the rest of the community's. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, my views are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines which I strive to follow. If you have a particular issue, please cite the policy or guideline which you think I misinterpreted and we can discuss it. As I said before, I greatly respect your work and viewpoints here, and I hope that we can converse respectfully without resorting to personal comments. --Habst (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are claiming that a recent strong global consensus to require citing a GNG-contributing source in all athlete biographies is invalid because the same discussion didn't find a consensus to deprecate the entirety of NSPORT, and therefore its pre-RfC guidance is still in effect. As if following (your misreading of) one of the sub-outcomes of that RfC moots all of the findings of consensus for change in the same closing statement, all the subsequent consensuses at NSPORT for implementing those changes, and all the thousands of AfDs and major followup RfCs like LUGSTUBS 1 & 2 enforcing those changes.
    Stop wasting people's time with this trolling. JoelleJay (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, I'm following my understanding of the consensus. a recent strong global consensus to require citing a GNG-contributing source in all athlete biographies -- that's not what the consensus was, per Special:Diff/1246440039, an athlete biography could still be kept even if it doesn't cite a GNG-contributing source as long as it fulfills broader policies like WP:NEXISTS. This is a direct quote from the person who established SPORTCRIT: SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule.
    I still appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia which we are both here to build. Your last comment was unnecessary. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...You're quoting one of the editors who most vehemently opposed NSPORT2022, repeatedly tried to stifle its implementation, and was cautioned at ANI for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT #5, as if his opinion reflects any kind of consensus. And anyway we have the creator of SPORTCRIT #5 also saying in the same discussion that Such circumstances are very rare, and I've only come across one circumstance in the past two years (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier) where I concluded that it was appropriately applied. That is far from the application of NBASIC you have been attempting so you should interpret #5 as overriding it.
    If you're going to keep making utterly nonsensical claims about NSPORT I'm going to continue calling them out. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, thanks for this information. Can you please link to the ANI archive where Cbl62 was cautioned to for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT prong 5? I tried searching and couldn't find it. I also searched for your quote ("Such circumstances...") at both WP:Articles for deletion/Esraa Owis and WP:Articles for deletion/John Vehmeier and couldn't find it.
    Regardless, when I use WP:NEXISTS I assure you it's based in policy and made in good faith. If you disagree with the sources existing, please make claims to that effect. Broad guidelines like GNG and NEXISTS are not invalidated just because there is some smaller subject-specific guideline on Wikipedia. --Habst (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Cbl62. I guess "warning" isn't the right term given its more specific meanings here, but certainly cautioned: BeanieFan11 should still be well aware that that warning did enjoy significant support and the consensus may be more clear if this comes up again.
    NEXISTS doesn't mean you can just assume coverage exists merely because the subject meets your arbitrary presumptive standards. JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quoting one of the editors who most vehemently opposed NSPORT2022 ... [who] was cautioned at ANI for enlisting others to ignore SPORTCRIT #5 – FWIW, there was no warning given at that ANI, which resulted in no consensus. You also enlisted that argument at the Vehmeier AFD; as an admin said there, There was no consensus to warn anyone at ANI and you should strike the comment as incorrect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I should have used "cautioned". I forget "warning" has a specific meaning here. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the son of Jamal Abdi. I keep editing this wiki page because of some information. It has come to my attention that the page is in threat of deletion, I would greatly appreciate it if we don’t decide to delete it. 78.101.160.239 (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) Copied from talk page. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 18 September 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, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:58, 28 September 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 delete‎ and SALT. None of the Keep views carried any P&G weight, and there was no support for the draftification proposal. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legends League Cricket

AfDs for this article:
Legends League Cricket (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)

Recreation of a deleted article following this AfD. Apparently because the wording and WP:REFBOMBS are different, it cannot be a G4 speedy... Non-notable, just as it was a month and a bit ago, with WP:REFBOMBS and no establishment of WP:GNG. Just because retired players are taking part, doesn't mean notability is inherited. Coverage within the refbombs is routine. AA (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Among other things, let's see how that sock investigation goes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SPI is hopelessly backlogged,but I've protected this discussion for some laundry free discussion as there's no consensus among established editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The creator of the page, along with the associated pro-page IDs and IPs, clearly shows signs of WP:UPE. Also, the page focuses on a cricket league filled with retired players, making it seem more like a promotional one. Charlie (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the so-called league is not run by a sports governing body or organization, but by a company named Absolute Legends Sports Pvt. Ltd. This highlights that it is not primarily a cricket league to begin with. This information should be taken into consideration until and unless it's proven otherwise. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting the re-protection is not related to the initial SPI but rather the ongoing AfD troll. Closers should not see this as action re: the SPI. Star Mississippi 13:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural delete and SALT. Even if not G4-eligible, a community consensus just two months ago determined this to be a non-notable subject for an article. If the page creator wanted to bring this article back, the appropriate forum was first a Deletion Review to overturn that AfD. I see no need to engage with the sources again without a clear rationale offered that the previous AfD was flawed (and it doesn't appear to be). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Qatar&oldid=1246178504"