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

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


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

Journalism

Salihu Shola Taofeek

Salihu Shola Taofeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gitau wa Njenga

Gitau wa Njenga (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 journalist and political candidate. There exists no sigcov from reliable sources about Njenga, and most of the cited sources in the article are articles he wrote. Jordano53 20:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Hossain (journalist)

Elias Hossain (journalist) (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)

Vanity spam, sourced to nonsense and non RS - see previous deletions as well. I'll outline more when I have access to a computer but this has been a long term spam project in terms of attempts to get an article. In any case, the subject doesn't meet even the bare requirements for notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep: Recognize I'm coming here before the AFD nomination is completely filled out, but some of the sources seem to have reliable coverage:
The only other thing he appears notable for is a bunch of announcements saying he was arrested, among which one of the better ones is:
Some followup coverage of which is here:
Not sure how reliable this source is, although it exists:
This source appears to just summarize a video he made:
And this one summarizes a social media post after giving a little information on him.
Didn't search for any more, but based on what's there, it's kinda debatable -- there is 1 good source, and a bunch of not-great not-super-thorough sources covering him getting criminally charged, which might be questioned under WP:NOTNEWS. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy brought up it meets WP:BASIC and I read the article again -- it's definitely written in a promotional way and has tone issues, but (importantly) given the multiple-paragraph summary of his work in the one good source and the apparent continuing coverage in various sources of his interactions with various legal systems it seems worth a keep, if it needs a bit of a rewrite. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing seems to be sufficient for general notability. How the article is written isn't relevant - AfD isn't cleanup. Cortador (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking significant coverage, with extremely poor sourcing. Most egregious are the basic reporting errors. He's not a journalist, he's a content creator. There's no such thing as "Queens Criminal Court": it's Kew Gardens criminal courthouse, or Queens County, Criminal Term, Supreme Court.[1] Those are just two examples of basic BLP errors riddled throughout. See WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He is described as a "former crime reporter" and someone who "reports" and generates "reporting". The Dhaka post uses the term সাংবাদিক which Google translate translates as "journalist". Financial Express calls him a "former journalist". So what exactly is your basis for saying he's not a journalist? Because he's not employed by legacy media? Do we disregard what secondary sources say because we choose to apply a more confined definition to journalist?
    Regarding the term "Queens Criminal Court" that's the term used by the Financial Express. The New York State court website uses that term. And if it's really an error fixing mistakes is easy. Oblivy (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I don't think he meets WP:NJOURNALIST but he does meet WP:NBASIC. The tone of the first half of the page is not right, and some of the sourcing is poor (like everything under Early Life), but he has plenty of reputable outlets writing about him and nobody has seriously disputed that. I do think there's some argument that what this guy is getting press coverage for seems to be youtube vids about a murder in Bangladesh, and something about famous people in New York[1] and some alleged extortion[2] but I guess he'd say he's being persecuted. I'd like to see an RS citation about his prior career but I don't think that's fatal to the AfD.Oblivy (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmeen Manzoor

Jasmeen Manzoor (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)

Coverage is mostly based on routine mentions or from affiliated organizations (like joining BOL News results in brief coverage in BOL News itself ([3])) Lacks direct and in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Bakhsh

Ayesha Bakhsh (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)

Brief mentions are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV requirements. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanand Dhume

Sadanand Dhume (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)

The notability case for this writer/columnist is unclear. They've produced one book with a couple of reviews that represent the only secondary sourcing on this page (and are mainly about the work, not the author, and so do not really report a standalone BLP). The other two sources are primary references from institutions – one where the subject works and another that gave them an award, without any evidence of secondary coverage lending weight or notability. It's unclear which, if any notability criteria might apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhume writes op-eds every two weeks at the Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/news/author/sadanand-dhume
I left the citation at the end of the page earlier. Why shouldn't editorialists be notable? He'll sure become notable after suggesting that following a policy that killed 2M Indians should be fine. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not about whether someone has a certain job or said a bunch of really hot takes. The notability guidelines require covering in reliable secondary sources, and only one out of the five sources is secondary. Two of them are his own work. Blagai (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His wife has a wikipedia page, would that make any difference. Alyssa Ayres Theofunny (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and @Venu62. The subject doesn't meet WP:N as of now. Eelipe (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR as having created...a significant or well-known work... [that has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. His book, My Friend the Fanatic, was reviewed in the Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review, Jakarta Post, and Inside Indonesia among others. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reviews alone doesn't make the book a "significant or well-known work", and while those reviews contribute to the notability of the book, they are far more trivial as sources for the purposes of supporting a BLP, which should really feature some secondary sources focused on the biographical subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are frequently kept based on WP:NAUTHOR passes on a single notable book, particularly one with as many reviewes as this one has. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually if it's just one notable book, we just redirect the article on the author to the book and put whatever relevant biographical info in there. I don't think I've ever seen an author bio close as keep as WP:NAUTHOR pass when there was an extant book article. The edge case tends to be when we don't have a book article to redirect to in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The timing of this AfD nomination by a PIA-topic-banned user is certainly suspect, but the decision should be based on merits. Relisting for additional source assessments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Photography

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

No indication of notability; only significant coverage is press releases/churnalism. "It has won annual awards" is false; it presented the awards that are mentioned. This can be redirected to Network18 Group#Digital and publishing divisions, but there isn't really anything to merge. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", I have undeleted and relisted this discussion as requested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 20 February 2025 (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.

Jolyon Jenkins

Jolyon Jenkins (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:DRAFTOBJECT prevents me from returning this to draft unilaterally. I am unsure that would be my preferred action now it is in mainspace. Jenkins is presented as a good but WP:ROTM journalist doing his job. Many, most, of the references are his work, but they are not reviews of him nor his work, thus they provide no verification of any putative notability. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia and is not satisfied. As presented and referenced I cannot see a pass of WP:BIO. A WP:HEY outcome would be acceptable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been substantially rewritten to clearly demonstrate the subject's notability through multiple independent sources. It now includes national press reviews from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and Radio Times, industry-recognized awards such as the One World Broadcast Trust Award and the Sony Radio Award, and evidence of significant contributions to public debate, including testimony before the House of Lords Select Committee on data protection. Given these factors, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for journalists and media figures Frobisher2021 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this as an opinion that this be kept, and not draftified.
I am slightly saddened about this. Of the references that I can access, two only point to an award, which might confer notability. The others are simple evidence of Jenkins doing his job, which cannot verify notability. One is a programme listing, which shows that he has a programme, and another does not mention him. I have not changed my view, nor my willingness to accept a request to return this to draft as an outcome of this discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some citations are intended to verify that Jenkins produced or presented the programmes mentioned. In such cases, a programme listing is a valid source, as it confirms authorship and broadcast history. If there is a specific citation where Jenkins is not mentioned, I would appreciate clarification so it can be corrected.
Regarding notability, multiple citations go beyond listings and are national press reviews from The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and Radio Times. The consistent critical acclaim over decades from respected critics (e.g., Gillian Reynolds provides strong evidence of notability, as it is not just passing praise, but exemplary recognition, going beyond “run of the mill”. If more evidence of this is required, it can be provided.
Additionally, Jenkins was Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a major political magazine. His work has been frequently cited in peer-reviewed academic research and journalism studies, including publications like the British Journalism Review, Index on Censorship, and the scholarly book Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis). These citations further demonstrate his impact on journalism and public discourse. A section on this could be added.
Regarding awards, while only two currently have citations, further research is likely to provide more. The fact that industry-recognized awards cannot so far be backed up by citation in itself is not a reason for deletion, especially given the additional press and academic recognition.
Finally, if the objection is based on access to citations, Wikipedia's verifiability policy explicitly allows print sources, even if they are not personally accessible to all editors. Many of these sources are accessible through newspaper archives (e.g., Newspapers.com, The British Library), and all are fully formatted with author, title, and date, allowing verification through standard research methods. Frobisher2021 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I left this for this long in case the creator would agree to draftify, but that is not going to happen. In fact there is little point draftifying what is currently, and likely to remain, a non notable journalist. The problem with the sourcing has been explained by the nom., but to be clear: sources must not just be from reliable sources, they must have significant subject of the page subject (such that the page can be written) and, importantly, they must be independent. Interviews are not independent. Their own work and listsings of their work are not independent. There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability. We don't have that. So sourcing is lacking. We also have no indication of notability from any of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. The discussion of awards would be a criterion under WP:ANYBIO which states, under criterion 1, likely notability if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. "Well-known" and "significant" are where this falls down, and that is even supposing those awards are for the journalist (some are) and not for the programme team (as, for instance, here [7] ). So there is no pass of ANYBIO on criterion 1. Even if there were, ANYBIO is only a refutable indication of notability, and the lack of sources that talk about Jenkins is the real reason that we should not be covering this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I would agree to draftify but I don't know how. Please take this as my assent. I am puzzled by your comments, which is not to say that I disagree with them but I simply do not understand.
    I don't think any of the sources are interviews, so I don't see how that objection applies.
    When you say "their own work or listings of their work are not independent" - but surely a listing of a work on a BBC website is sufficient to demonstrate that the work exists and that the subject was producer and/or presenter of it? (Because the listings say so and the BBC is authoritative on this point)
    When you say that "There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability" surely multiple reviews from independent reviewers in the national press, which refer to Jenkins by name, in terms that make it clear that they consider his work to be notable, demonstrate exactly that? Again I am trying to understand, not argue.
    On the awards, there are citations for all but two. The Radio Academy (Sony) awards are as significant as they come, and the others are (or were) major industry awards. It is true that broadcast journalism awards are given to programmes and not individuals, but in the case of the one you link to, Jenkins is both presenter and producer, i.e. the entire team. This is true of many of the other ones too. In the case of File on 4, each episode had two journalists (producer and reporter) as the BBC listings show. So the credit would be equally shared. Frobisher2021 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of Why This Article Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria

Although I would accept draftify as a compromise, I believe that the article does in fact meet the notability criteria

  • Press Coverage: Multiple reviews in The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Daily Telegraph Radio Times over decades.
  • Major Industry Award: One programme awarded Sony Radio Academy Award—described as “the Oscars of British radio”; two others nominated.
  • Parliamentary Impact: His work was cited in a House of Lords Select Committee report.
  • Academic Recognition: Cited in Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis) and British Journalism Review and many other academic papers.
  • Senior Editorial Role: Former Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a leading UK political magazine.

Specialist Awards: Recognized in One World Media Awards, * British Environment & Media Awards, Medical Journalism of the Year awards (twice) which have honoured major BBC and other journalists and which are widely recognised as prestigious. Frobisher2021 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The two Medical Journalist of the Year awards, the Sony, the praise cited from reviews of his work ("The Glasgow Herald described him as 'the go-to guy for quirky subjects which require intelligence and chutzpah in equal measure', while the Radio Times has noted that 'Jenkins makes some of the most original documentaries on Radio 4' and in the same publication, David Gillard noted 'Whatever subject Jolyon Jenkins is dealing with I will listen ... I regard him one of our finest broadcasters'"), and "The Liquidators. This documentary is extensively discussed, including Jenkins's role, in the book Investigative Journalism" clearly indicate notability; as does the subject's role presenting programmes on a national radio station. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are the problems that I see: 1) we have no sources ABOUT him other than to name him in some brief reviews in newspapers, which are not enough for GNG 2) most of the facts here are not from independent sources - his name on a BBC show listing isn't an independent source, and is very thin for sourcing 3) I have no idea if the Medical Journalist Awards are important enough to reach GNG, but that is all we have to go on. To Frobisher2021 I would recommend a review of the WP:Reliable_sources and WP:Notability since these seem to not met in the article. I removed some WP:PROMO and exaggerations in the language; I also removed the Google Doc spreadsheet citations (not a reliable source), and other non-reliable sources (linking to a Swedish TV listing of a documentary was particularly odd). My recommendation is draftify and for the editor to take this through WP:AFC where they might be given help with the problems. Lamona (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. The mentions from the reviews are indeed brief, but the reviews themselves are not. For example, if you follow the to the Guardian review for the "Brixmis Story", which was shortlisted for a Sony award, you will find that the reviewer goes on to say " It's an amazing story, for the full substance of which I really urge you, listen again, listen again". This is not untypical, but to quote the reviews in full would turn the article into a hagiography, which is not my intention - they are included only to demonstrate notability. The Medical Journalist of the Year awards are definitely prestigious - other winners include Michael Mosley and Marjorie Wallace. I am uncertain how to demonstrate authorship of particular programmes other than through BBC online listings. I imagine print listings in national newspapers would qualify, but would the Radio Times? Frobisher2021 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked up the Guardian article and although there is the praise you quote, there is only a scant paragraph, and that is not what we call "substantial." You need to source as much as possible to articles ABOUT the person, and I mean ARTICLES - longish pieces (pages, not sentences) about the person. If various programs are notable (as WP defines WP:NOTABILITY) you need third-party, independent sources for the programs - more than a quick review in a piece that is essentially: this is what was on this week. Mere listings, whether on BBC or in a newspaper, are not sufficient to establish notability and are not independent. As for the awards, who has won them is not what makes them prestigious - again, we need sources that are independent that explain the importance of the awards. I looked for those and didn't find any. If you have some you should add them to the article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frobisher2021, I'm glad you've dropped the AI - as you've perhaps noticed, ChatGPT (or whatever LLM you're using) is really quite terrible at understanding Wikipedia. I strongly suggest avoiding it for both writing articles and conversing with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of sourced evidence of awards and recognition for his work. Yes minimal biographic info, but that is not uncommon among people who are known for their work and not for their private life. From this I could have added that his mother was a teacher for 45 years and (I think we can logically infer without OR) that he studied journalism at City University, but he appears to have chosen not to share his life on LinkedIn etc, and is no less notable for that. PamD 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you saw what you consider "plenty of sourced evidence" for the awards? I looked at all of the "awards" and other than the medical journalism award (which I'm still trying to find information about, beyond its own web page) I can't access the Ariel sources, and the book that is cited has only a mention of Jenkins, nothing that supports the award. Note, also, that the Sony awards for both years are nominations, not wins, and the number of nominees is quite large. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To me this looks like a "no consensus" at this time: opinions are reasonably divided on borderline sources and other evidence. Relisting in the hope of more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkarnain Saer Khan

Zulkarnain Saer Khan (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)

The individual Zulkarnain Saer Khan partook in the orchestration of a dossier denominated All the Prime Minister's Men. Consequent to the helping of this dossier, he was the recipient of a commendation entitled the Global Shining Light Awards. The Global Shining Light Awards is bereft of eminence or substantial prestige in any capacity. The mere attainment of the Global Shining Light Awards does not fullfill the criteria of notability (person), as the dossier All the Prime Minister's Men itself fails to consummately fulfill the stringent prerequisites of notability.

Furthermore, the article is an absolute dearth of elucidation absent his academic credentials. Additionally, the article harbors superfluous and extraneous verbiage, including allusions to assailments perpetrated against his brother. Hydronex (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
But no other work by the individual in the article can be found apart from All the Prime Minister's Men, and All the Prime Minister's Men is neither a significant nor a well-known work. This means the individual does not fulfill point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Hydronex (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the Prime Minister's Men is definitely a well-known work. It got wide coverage in Bangladeshi and some international media apart from Al Jazeera Media.[8][9][10][11][12] [13] Al Jazeera also won the top prize for "Best Human Rights Journalism" (investigation category) in the 8th annual Amnesty Media award for 'All the Prime Minister's Men'.[14] Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable journalist in Bangladesh. He is widely recognized for impactful investigative work with Al Jazeera and OCCRP. His contributions, media coverage, and awards meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria WP:NJOURNALIST.
— Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cerium4B (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Koshuri (グ) 13:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan, He hasn’t asked for any support in his favour. He has just asked me to take a look. Maybe because this article is related to Bangladesh. [15] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is the responsibility of those who vote keep to provide a solid argument. Nothing can be gained from canvassed or paid votes. The article is highly promotional and lacks neutral tone. It overemphasizes achievements while downplaying controversies, making it more like a PR piece than an encyclopedic entry. The subject fails WP:NBLP, as most coverage comes from sympathetic or affiliated sources rather than independent, in-depth analysis. NXcrypto Message 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. But, at the least, this should be a redirect to All the Prime Minister's Men which I'm surprised editors arguing for Delete didn't mention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
No ~ Okay for nickname, maybe for alma mater No ✘ No
No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No Two sentences ✘ No
~ Much of it sourced from him Yes Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yes No One sentence ✘ No
Yes Yes No Brief mention in list ✘ No
Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Brief paraphrase ✘ No
Yes Yes No Doesn't mention him ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that he meets WP:NJOURNALIST #3. As well as All the Prime Minister's Men, per the Business Standard article already cited in the article, he has contributed significantly to a report about Aynaghar, a secret internment centre - this is currently mentioned in this article only in the lede (it's what he won the Global Shining Light Award for), and a report alleging corrupt activity by another politician close to the former Bangladeshi PM (this is referred to in this article, 'Journalists in Bangladeshi diaspora say govt targets them through transnational repression', not currently cited as a source). This Benar News article also describes unevidenced allegations and slurs that have been made against him in an effort to discredit him, which is not yet mentioned in this article. Re the nominator's reference to "superfluous and extraneous verbiage", (1) this would be a matter of improving the article, not deleting it; (2) the attack on his brother was directly related to his journalistic work, and is described as such in the sources. (I'd note too that the spelling of his name on IMDB is Zulkarnayn Sayer Khan, and there may be other variants, which could make finding sources challenging). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with your explanation. TIA. Hrksmp (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nargiz Absalamova

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

Fails WP:N and WP:1E. The person has not been the subject of any reliable source on her own and has not got significiant coverage in any reliable source. She herself has not been of interest to any reliable source individually. The person only has name mentions or notes about some facts related to her arrest in the sources. There is no other information available to use in the writing of a balanced biography. As you can see from the article, most of the content is facts about the arrest. Participating in an event or being one of the individuals affected by it does not make a person notable. She is simply one of the individuals listed in the context of the case. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hökümətin sözü ilə, gəlib burda məqalə silməyə çalışmağınız sizin özünüz üçün acınacaqlıdır. Bəlkə də, sizi inandırıblar ki, hansısa mistik informasiya müharibəsi ilə məşğul olursunuz özünüzü önəmli hiss etməyiniz üçün. Amma Nərgizin biosun bir daha oxuyun bəlkə də sizinlə yaxın-yaxın yaşda etdiklərinə baxın və bir də özünüzə baxın. Cəsarət, dünyada təqlid edilməyən yeganə şeydi))))
I strongly disagree with the assertion that Nargiz Absalamova fails Wikipedia’s notability criteria (WP:N, WP:1E). The argument that she has only been briefly mentioned in sources without significant independent coverage is misleading and inaccurate. Multiple reputable, independent sources, including international human rights organizations and well-established media outlets, have reported on Nargiz Absalamova. Her case has been documented as part of a larger crackdown on Azerbaijani civil society, demonstrating that she is not just an incidental figure but a recognized political prisoner. The idea that she is “simply one of the individuals listed in a case” ignores the fact that many notable political prisoners worldwide have been recognized in similar circumstances.
WP:1E does not apply to cases of political repression that are part of an ongoing human rights crisis. There are multiple precedents on Wikipedia where political prisoners and persecuted activists—arrested in crackdowns—have notability established through human rights reports and international coverage. If Wikipedia hosts similar biographies of other Azerbaijani political prisoners, removing this one would be inconsistent and unfair.
I also want to highlight concerning patterns in the behavior of the editor opposing this article, which may indicate a conflict of interest (COI) or agenda-driven editing. There have been frequent removals or attempts to undermine content related to Azerbaijani political prisoners, edits that systematically favor the Azerbaijani government’s narrative while dismissing reliable independent sources, and targeted efforts to delete information about human rights abuses in Azerbaijan. Wikipedia’s mission is to ensure neutrality and reliable documentation—it should not be used to erase politically inconvenient subjects at the request of authoritarian regimes.
I encourage all editors to review the reliable sources available before making broad claims about notability. If necessary, I will request an administrator review this editor’s activity for potential bias or government-aligned influence. I am also open to further expanding the article with additional sources to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. It is crucial that Wikipedia remains a platform for factual, independent knowledge and does not become a tool for state propaganda or information suppression. I welcome further discussion, but I urge all editors to act in good faith and according to Wikipedia’s core principles. Kromvell 1968 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)— Kromvell 1968 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I also disagree with the deletion. Nargiz Absalamova is a notable Azerbaijani journalist whose work and subsequent persecution have received significant international attention, meeting Wikipedia’s notability criteria.
Professional Contributions: As a journalist with Abzas Media, one of Azerbaijan’s few independent outlets, Absalamova has played a key role in reporting on critical issues such as environmental protests and corruption. Her investigative work has provided essential insights into topics often underreported in the region.
International Recognition and Coverage: Absalamova's arrest in December 2023, widely regarded as politically motivated, has been condemned by major international organizations. Amnesty International has highlighted her detention as part of a broader crackdown on dissent in Azerbaijan, and the Committee to Protect Journalists has reported on her case, emphasizing the silencing of independent media voices. Such coverage demonstrates her impact and the broader significance of her work.
Alignment with Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria: According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, a topic merits an article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Absalamova's work and the international response to her arrest have been documented by reputable organizations and news outlets, affirming her notability. WP:GNG
Furthermore, Wikipedia's notability criteria for journalists state that individuals who are main personalities at notable news sources or have received significant coverage for their work meet the standards for inclusion. Absalamova's role at Abzas Media and the international attention her situation has attracted clearly satisfy these criteria.
Recently, I have observed multiple deletion nominations targeting independent Azerbaijani journalists who have been arrested. This raises concerns about potential politically motivated attempts to remove their presence from public discourse. Wikipedia's mission is to document notable individuals and events objectively, and erasing articles on persecuted journalists undermines that goal. Maintaining Absalamova’s article ensures that Wikipedia remains a comprehensive and balanced resource. Aspectreishauntingeurope (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming a conflict of interest (COI) here? – The Grid (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been nominated for deletion on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, and I haven’t even participated in that discussion. In that discussion, Kromvell 1968 argued in favor of keeping the article, stating that if the person in question is not notable, then why was the article approved on the enwiki? Since this user attempted to manipulate the discussion with such an argument, and because I was genuinely interested in the enwiki community’s opinion on the article’s notability, I proposed its deletion here as well. I have clearly outlined, within the framework of the guidelines, why I believe the subject of the article is not notable. Kromvell 1968 insulted me in the comment he wrote in Azerbaijani above and has openly violated the rules. I am providing a translation of his comment below for you to read:
Trying to come here and delete an article just because the government says so is honestly pathetic—for your own sake. Maybe they’ve convinced you that you’re part of some kind of mystical information war just to make you feel important. But go read Nargiz’s bio again, take a look at what she achieved at an age close to yours, and then take a look at yourself. Courage is the only thing in the world that can’t be imitated.)))
His writing style in the comment and such admiration to the person indicate that the user has an interest in the article. Moreover, this user is making baseless accusations against me simply because I nominated the article for deletion, attempting to discredit me. It is clear that he is highly interested in keeping this article. Kromvell 1968 even attacked to the user who nominated the article for deletion on the azwiki. The contributions of both users involved in this discussion is entirely focused on this article, and in my personal opinion, they are either sockpuppets (the same person) or are closely connected, indicating a serious conflict of interest. This is why I am being attacked in this manner. This is just my opinion, but I think everything is clear. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Azerbaijani Wikipedia, a user named "RəqəmsalTaleh" initiated discussions to delete articles about prominent political prisoners, systematically nominating multiple individuals for deletion. When I engaged in discussions with this user, I demonstrated—using Wikipedia’s own rules—that their arguments were factually incorrect and did not align with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.
As a result, this user was blocked—not arbitrarily, but because they were found to have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia, violating Wikipedia’s conflict of interest (COI) policies. Despite the block, another user (who appears to be closely connected with "RəqəmsalTaleh") has now resumed this effort, nominating Nargiz Absalamova for deletion.
It is evident that this user has not conducted proper research on Absalamova’s case. Her reporting on the Soyudlu protests, as well as other critical topics, has been widely covered within Azerbaijan and internationally. Leading human rights organizations and international media outlets have recognized her work and condemned her politically motivated arrest. These sources clearly establish her notability as an independent journalist persecuted by an authoritarian government.
Given the Azerbaijani government's history of targeting Wikipedia editors and administrators who document human rights violations, I find it crucial to highlight the coordinated nature of these deletion attempts. The goal appears to be the systematic erasure of political prisoners and persecuted journalists from Wikipedia—a blatant attempt at information suppression.
I could provide extensive documentation on how similar smear campaigns have been orchestrated to manipulate public perception and suppress critical voices. Many of the sources this user considers "reliable" are themselves aligned with state-controlled narratives. However, I do not wish to engage in an extended dispute over this user’s motivations.
The objective fact remains:
Nargiz Absalamova is a widely recognized journalist in Azerbaijan.
She has received extensive international coverage from reputable sources.
She is currently jailed by the Azerbaijani government in retaliation for her reporting.
Attempts to delete this article are not based on Wikipedia’s rules but on political interests. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for authoritarian censorship. Kromvell 1968 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Grid the user who created the original article on AzWiki was imprisoned on 30 January, his imprisonment was announced on 31st. These profiles then started to nominate the articles the original author created half an hour after the announcement of their imprisonment. Sura is a government troll 188.253.208.251 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added more information and sources. The first source has significant coverage of Absalamova. Other sources individually have less coverage, but it adds up to WP:NBASIC. If this is not kept, it should be Merged to Abzas Media (there are many sources here that are not included in that article, which currently has many sources by Abzas Media). I note that the article Media freedom in Azerbaijan is 10 years out of date, and has no mention of these arrests. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would editors, in general, stop insulting each other. This discussion is not about a country, another Wikipedia, your opinion of the subject or the articles this subject has written but about coverage of this article subject by reliable sources. A source review would be helpful and if you know of mainstream sources that have covered this journalist, her career and her situation, please bring links to them to this discussion. Remember, on the English WIkipedia, we are concerned about writing articles on notable subjects, not "righting great wrongs" for whatever political stance you personally have.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The Amnesty International piece is about the individual... The rest deal with journalists (plural) being arrested. This in the Columbia Journalism Review [16] talks about a few that were rounded up. I don't see this person is more notable than other journalists. Could be briefly mentioned in a sentence around the COP 26 meetings, but this journalist isn't notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also count the Radio Free Europe article has having significant information about her case (nothing in English that I can access is about her apart from her arrest). It's true that in the other sources she is either just mentioned or the information is limited, but I'm for keeping it based on what we have in English, with the assumption that among the non-English sources some will be more significantly about her. Lamona (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any support for RebeccaGreen's idea of merging into Abzas Media? That would certainly alleviate the notability shortcomings.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

  1. ^ "11th JD - Criminal Term, Queens Supreme Court ... Kew Gardens Courthouse & Annex". NYS OCA. Retrieved February 27, 2025.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Journalism
No tags for this post.