Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Ex Muslim Sahil: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:23, 23 November 2024 edit4meter4 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users109,185 edits →Ex Muslim Sahil: keep← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:34, 8 December 2024 edit undoBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,644 edits →Ex Muslim Sahil: Closed as delete (XFDcloser) 
(27 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed archived mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ] ] 23:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
⚫ ===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=Ex Muslim Sahil}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude> | ]) :{{la|1=Ex Muslim Sahil}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude> | ])
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ex Muslim Sahil}}) :({{Find sources AFD|title=Ex Muslim Sahil}})
Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. ] (]) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC) Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. ] (]) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Line 9: Line 14:
* '''Delete''': The subject fails to meet ] as no ] sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. ] - ] 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB GrabUp--> * '''Delete''': The subject fails to meet ] as no ] sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. ] - ] 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB GrabUp-->
*'''Keep''' Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. ] (]) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. ] (]) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@]: The 2nd source, , is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. I really don’t understand how one can label this source as independent and also state {{tq|above voter misstates}} when labeling an interview as independent. Regarding the 3rd source, The SportsGrail, I really don’t think it’s a reliable source; it looks more like a blog. ] - ] 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Keep''' By the simple fact of being a Muslim against ] you can maintain and improve. ] (]) 19:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*::An interview that is editorially overseen by a reputable source is sufficiently independent. Misplaced Pages's trend in the other direction--to deprecate all interviews--is wrong and I reject it. ] (]) 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::According to ], interviews are ] sources and do not count towards notability because they consist only of the subject’s statements. There is nothing in the article written by an editorial team—just sayings or quotes. Additionally, the article cites a Hindi interview by Dainik Bhaskar, which Delhi Magazine merely quoted, with no editorial input from Delhi Magazine. ] - ] 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::I've already said I disagree with the cited essay. Regardless there remain two sources, so GNG is met ''even if'' INTERVIEWS were a guideline or policy, which it's not. ] (]) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
⚫ *<s>'''Keep''' By the simple fact of being a Muslim against ] you can maintain and improve. I added several important sources. ] (]) 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)</s><small> strike sock-- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
*'''Keep'''. Passes ] per the analysis by Jclemens.] (]) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Passes ] per the analysis by Jclemens.] (]) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Delete''': The article includes a source from NewAgeIslam.com, which does not seem particularly reliable. It is authored by a staff reporter rather than a credible or identifiable individual. Another source from ] appears more trustworthy and credible. Additionally, the article references some interviews, which qualify as primary sources (]) but lack sufficient corroboration. Beyond these, no other highly reliable sources are present. ] (]) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC) <!--VCB Jannatulbaqi-->
*'''Keep''' as per ]. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination, I can see more RS'es that are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. ] (]) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Which one is an RS? ] (]) 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' {{collapse top|chatbot-generated post}}- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the ] criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Misplaced Pages entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.
{{collapse bottom}}
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

**We want to keep the discussion among humans, and this preceding post looks like it was written by AI/language model. ] (]) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

* '''Delete''' - Per ], interviews are considered ] sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (] or ]), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage
:'''- ]&nbsp;&bull;&#32;]''' 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|chatbot-generated post}}
* <s>'''Keep'''</s><small>striking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. </small> - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as ], HW News, and ]—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Misplaced Pages entry.
{{Ping|আকাশ নাথ সরকার}}, {{Ping|ExclusiveEditor}}, {{Ping|Saurmandal}}, {{Ping|Mr. Bishnupada Roy}}, {{Ping|Bharatiya}} what you people like to say regarding this ? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
{{collapse bottom}}
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.<br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] ] 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --></p>

*'''Delete'''. The article fails ] and ]. Of the cited sources, many are problematic: interviews that constitute primary sources per ], unreliable websites like Delhi Magazine and TheSportsGrail, and others with passing mentions only. While ''India Today'' and ''Times of India'' are RS, their coverage is not substantial enough to establish notability for a standalone biography. The subject's prominence appears to stem mainly from social media following and controversy, which ''alone'' do not merit inclusion. Without multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage, the article should be deleted.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ] (]) 22:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Delete per the comments above. ] (]) 01:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 23:34, 8 December 2024

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. Just Step Sideways 23:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Ex Muslim Sahil

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

chatbot-generated post
- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Misplaced Pages entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

  • Delete - Per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
chatbot-generated post
  • Keepstriking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as India Today, HW News, and Times of India—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Misplaced Pages entry.

@আকাশ নাথ সরকার:, @ExclusiveEditor:, @Saurmandal:, @Mr. Bishnupada Roy:, @Bharatiya: what you people like to say regarding this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Of the cited sources, many are problematic: interviews that constitute primary sources per WP:INTERVIEW, unreliable websites like Delhi Magazine and TheSportsGrail, and others with passing mentions only. While India Today and Times of India are RS, their coverage is not substantial enough to establish notability for a standalone biography. The subject's prominence appears to stem mainly from social media following and controversy, which alone do not merit inclusion. Without multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage, the article should be deleted.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Madeleine961 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete per the comments above. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
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.