Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatari soft power


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

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There isn't much disagreement regarding whether there is coverage that demonstrates this topic's notability. However, there is disagreement as to whether the article as it exists should be scrapped and rewritten on the basis of having been created by a now-blocked sockpuppet. In the course of discussion, there is no consensus as to whether the article currently suffers from neutrality issues, with some editors arguing that these are egregious and others arguing that the article is well-written as-is, with disagreement on these points within the keep-!voting side of the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Qatari soft power
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The page created by author Ghalbeyakh lacks credibility as the content added by the author on this page is completely a case of misinformation as the topics added by him on this page are incomplete and doesn't give the full disclosure of the matters or claims added. The page is clearly created to attack the reputation of the mentioned country. And not only this page the author seems to have a propaganda of defaming Qatar as he edited multiple pages to spread misinformation. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Finance, Business, Education, Sports,  and Qatar.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic seems to be a valid one, and the article seems to be supported by a number of independent, third-party sources that appear to be valid themselves, although this could be rebutted in individual instances.  The article might have some neutrality issues, but that could be addressed by finding more sources to address the claims made by others.  We don't usually delete articles merely because some of the sources present only one viewpoint.  I note that this nomination for deletion is parallel to that for Italian soft power, a much shorter article created by the same author, and nominated for deletion using this deletion discussion as justification.  That's probably what the nominator is referring to as "edit[ing] multiple pages to spread misinformation".  P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Does it even matter who the author of the article is? Because it seems that the deletion discussion is against the author and not against the article. Its an important article and there are enough reliable sources. Medellinir (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've recently been studying soft power in various countries and decided to write this article as part of my research. I've gone ahead and written up this article, using third-party sources I thought were reliable. I know it is not ready yet, but I decided to upload it in its current form anyway so other editors who are knowledgeable in this topic could contribute. I'm hopeful that with collaborative input, we can further develop this article. Ghalbeyakh (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)  Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Comprehensively sourced. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic of Qatar's use of soft power is extremely notable, and easily passes the general notability guideline. If we want to have some sources listed here for sake of positivism, I'd link these three works, all of which are scholarly or from reputable think tanks (Brookings Institution), in addition to The New York Times writing about it (particularly in post-blockade times). Deletion is not cleanup, and the nomination seems to be a misguided attempt to resolve a content dispute. I'd strongly urge the nominator to withdraw this. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am aware this was created by a now-banned user, but I do think that this is a well-written article, and banned users are not the only users with substantial contributions. As such, I oppose speedy deletion, or deletion altogether. Draftification would be more than sufficient to deal with any potential bias, as it could be edited there and re-submitted through AfC. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - The article is notable, has news coverage, and does not have much primary sources. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, Speedy delete. As SirFurBot stated, unless the article is fixed, it will have to be completely remade to fit Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - G5 - created by a banned user. Yes, there are edits by a few other users, but these appear to be attempting to remove material to fix the article rather than additions. And yes, I agree that soft power of a country is likely to be sufficiently treated in sources that it merits an article. I am not opposed to some article, but that should not be this article. The problem with keeping this article is that the monster of a creation will very likely always retain the structure that the paid sockpuppet chose for it. The early decisions on a page tend to stick, and so this page will tend to present the subject as the sock wanted it, even though editors will try to deal with clearly problematic sections. Thus if speedy delete is declined, this one needs WP:TNT. Blow it up and let a neutral editor write on this subject. Don't reward paid sock puppetry. I note that there is heavy socking on this AfD too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On further reflection and looking at all of the very considerable number of sockpuppets identified, it appears they were all identified after the page was created. Although the user was clearly socking long before, G5 won't apply here. I am therefore content with draftify as a WP:ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: as I understand it, the author was banned for using a sockpuppet, I think to oppose deleting this and a related article. That doesn't really affect the quality of the article or its sources.  Issues with the article's neutrality are not arguments for deletion; others have already pointed out sources, just as good as those in the article at the time of its nomination, that could be used to balance its point of view better.  The main argument for deleting it is that it's defamatory toward Qatar, and while it may be based primarily on sources with a negative viewpoint, it doesn't read as defamatory.  That claim reads like a demand that the article not contain any facts or cite any opinions that are critical of the country, and that's just nonsense; certainly not a valid basis for deleting the article.  P Aculeius (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete: Delete per nom. But I must confess that I am truly amazed by the magnitude and intricacy involved in crafting this Wikipedia page. A perfect example of a state-sponsored Wikipedia page for influencing global opinion. Charlie (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, state-sponsored? There's no evidence of that.  If anything here bears the hallmarks of state sponsorship, it's the nomination for deletion!  But there's no evidence of that either—just outrage at a topic critical of a country that the nominator doesn't think should be criticized!  And that's not a valid reason for deletion.  In fact nothing said so far in this discussion justifies deletion.  If the discussion in the article comes across as one-sided, then add more sources to present a more neutral point of view, per Wikipedia policy.  The status of the editor who created the article is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept or deleted; please base arguments on the topic and the article's contents.  An emotional claim that the article "defames" a country by citing independent, third-party sources critical of it is not a proper basis for deletion.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I will recuse myself from this voting process because there seems to be a mix of promotional language and a potentially confrontational or attacking tone within the text, which complicates my comprehension process. Charlie (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per my comments at Articles for deletion/Italian soft power, the topic is certainly of encyclopaedic value, as I suspect articles on most countries' soft power would be. See also Soft power of China.  Any issues with WP:NPOV can be fixed by impartial editors.  Per Red-tailed hawk and Sirfurboy, I would be happy with draftification as an alternative to deletion if the impartiality concerns are deemed too significant. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: The neutrality of this article on Wikipedia is questionable as it appears to contain negative content that could be seen as defamatory towards a particular country. Additionally, there are concerns that the article has been manipulated by selectively including only partial information. Although the article may rely heavily on sources with a negative perspective. Policies and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.252.188.127 (talk • contribs)
 * This is a very suspicious comment coming from an anonymous user with no recent editing history, and apparently no grasp of Wikipedia policy (for instance, signing comments, or citing specific policies rather than a blanket reference to all of them). Just as in the original nomination, there are no specifics: what information is "partial" or "incomplete"?  Is anything in the article incorrect or unverifiable?  We don't delete articles because some (or all) of the sources cited have a negative view of something.  The remedy for NPOV issues is to add other sources for balance; the remedy for "partial information" is to add more.  This comment presents no valid, policy-based rationale for deletion.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: So far, policy-based consensus is that the topic is likely notable, but the question remains whether the current content should be deleted for having been written by a now-blocked sockfarm. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: In the "Overview" section, criticism is mentioned regarding sports washing during the FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar. However, it does not include FIFA President Gianni Infantino's statement. Additionally, some missing arguments showcasing that Qatar's human rights record is comparatively better than Russia and China (who faced less criticism for similar issues when hosting major sporting events). This evidence highlights a one-sided portrayal of based nature of the author. As there are numerous unaddressed aspects in this article, it is difficult to contribute to each statement. Therefore, I support the deletion of this page. Morgan1811 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * None of these are valid reasons for deleting an article. They are reasons for improving it by adding content and sources that you think will provide a more neutral point of view.  "This criticism is unjustified because others are more deserving of criticism" is not an argument for deletion, because the validity of sources and their contents does not depend on a comparison of what could be said about other subjects.  P Aculeius (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This page falls under G3 (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes) as the whole page seems misinforming about Qatar. Morgan1811 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As it's obviously neither vandalism nor a hoax, this rationale for deleting the article is invalid. P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This can be categorized as pure vandalism, as the created page intentionally deceives readers and/or editors by providing manipulative and misleading content. Morgan1811 (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not what "vandalism" means. The claim that the content is "manipulative" doesn't make sense; there is nothing wrong with stating facts or citing what sources have said merely because they might persuade someone to believe something.  The only argument here is that the article is one-sided, and that's not a reason for deleting it.  That's a reason for improving it.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I read several articles on the subject and thanks to this article I was able to see a more comprehensive picture. It is necessary to add more content to the article, but there is no doubt that the article must remain. It doesn't matter who created it, what truly matters is the current quality of the content within it.Rajoub570 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Wikipedia has a policy of removing defamatory content as soon as it is discovered. Defamatory content, sometimes referred to as libelous material, has a reasonable chance of harming the reputation of an individual or organization and may put Wikipedia in legal trouble. And neutrality of this article as we can see is questionable, there are many parts where the now blocked user has added the information which is no doubt fully sourced but may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, which is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ‪
 * As the nominator, your delete !vote is assumed. You don't need to state it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As you are only allowed one !vote per AfD, I have taken the liberty of striking through this one. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you name which person this is defaming? If there is content that defames a person, it should be removed, but I frankly don't see any upon another read-through. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK let me explain for instance this paragraph from this article "The 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar was accused of being "sportswashing," using sports events to improve a country's image. Qatar faced criticism for its alleged mistreatment of migrant workers and was accused of using the World Cup to divert attention from these issues. Qatar's investments in sports extend beyond the World Cup, with significant stakes in football clubs and sports broadcasting.[3][4][5]"
 * The article contain only this much information which can mislead the readers perception about a country. "There’s a further information from the Wikipedia itself from page 2022 FIFA World Cup SECTION Bidding corruption allegations, 2014 “In 2014, FIFA appointed Michael Garcia as its independent ethics investigator to look into bribery allegations against Russia and Qatar. Garcia investigated all nine bids and eleven countries involved in the 2018 and 2022 bids.[387 ]
 * At the end of the investigation, Garcia submitted a 430-page report. The FIFA governing body then appointed a German judge, Hans Joachim Eckert, who reviewed and presented a 42-page summary of the report two months later. The report cleared Qatar and Russia of bribery allegations, stating that Qatar "pulled Aspire into the orbit of the bid in significant ways" but did not "compromise the integrity" of the overall bid process.[388 ]
 * Michael Garcia reacted almost immediately, stating that the report is "materially incomplete" and contains "erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions".[388 ]
 * In 2017, a German journalist Peter Rossberg claimed to have obtained the report and wrote that it "does not provide proof that the 2018 or 2022 World Cup was bought" and stated that he would publish the full report. This forced FIFA to release the original report. The full report did not provide any evidence of corruption against the host of the 2022 World Cup but stated that bidders tested the rules of conduct to the limit.[389 ]”
 * According to Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, prior to the tournament, "the new Kafala system tranche of law will put an end to Kafala and establish a contemporary industrial relations system."[356 ]
 * and this paragraph is from section Migrant workers
 * FIFA President Gianni Infantino has defended Qatar's decision to host the tournament.[357 ]Others have asserted that Qatar has a better human rights record than Russia and China, which were subjected to less harsh criticism for the same problems when hosting important athletic events in the years before the tournament.[358 ]
 * There are many instances where this article lack further and proper information which can mislead the readers and there are numerous pages containing the proper information that's why I don't think so that this page is required, as at first place this is created by the user already blocked because of vandalism. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are reasons to add additional sources placing what you feel are one-sided claims in context, not reasons for deleting the article. They do not "defame" a person; they present criticisms of state actions or motives, which may or may not be rebutted by other sources—some of which you're citing here, but not, evidently, adding to the article.  It would be inappropriate to delete an article merely because some of its claims support criticism of a government.  That's a content issue that should be resolved by adding more sources and context.
 * Also, the assertion that the article's creator was blocked due to vandalism seems to be incorrect: as I read it, he was blocked for abusing sockpuppets. However, unless the reasons for the block are germane to the content of this article, they shouldn't determine whether the article is kept or deleted.  Misconduct by editors is not usually grounds for deleting all of their contributions to the encyclopedia, nor is whether the editor's point of view toward the subject of the article was positive or negative.  While neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia, editors are free to cite sources that are critical of an article's subject: neutrality does not mean that the sources cited must not have any opinion.  Any editor may add sources that might present a more balanced view.
 * This article should not be deleted unless it is about a non-notable or non-encyclopedic topic, or so badly written that it cannot be salvaged; and none of these appears even remotely to be the case. The topic is notable and encyclopedic, and can easily be improved as explained above.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with here. Of course, this is a topic that will excite different viewpoints. On such topics, Wikipedia provides the strongest possible entry when editors with competing viewpoints collaborate towards the shared article, not drag articles through processes like AfD.
 * above suggested draftifying the article, so that editors can work on it in an incubated space, especially on more problematic sections that violate the impartiality expected of Wikipedia articles. Once the article is ready, it can then be returned to the mainspace. How do you feel about this suggestion? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't ask me, but I think the article is fine where it is, and can be worked on in mainspace. I understand if other editors disagree.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (I agree – or more accurately – I think if we had each expended the same time and energy on the article as we have done the AfD, we wouldn't be still here discussing it.) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. The topic is notable, encyclopedic, and the article can be salvaged. The reasons for deleting it aren't valid, they are reasons to improve the article, which I agree needs to be one. However, AfD discussions aren't for cleanup. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article probably passes WP:GNG. However, I'm going to vote delete on WP:IAR grounds. This is part of an undisclosed paid editing operation (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TronFactor) that seems to involve the ongoing compromise of accounts. We should disincentivize hacking operations in Wikipedia, and not reward this group, which is an ongoing threat to the project. We should treat this in a way analogous to WP:G5. MarioGom (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article unquestionably is about a notable topic. But the sockpuppet investigation doesn't mention anything about undisclosed paid editing.  And creating sockpuppets doesn't involve "hacking".  Is there any discussion or evidence of undisclosed paid editing in this case?  I can see from the tone of the article that the author possibly had an axe to grind, but there does seem to be at least a good faith attempt at moderation or the inclusion of sources that both are and aren't critical of Qatar's use of "soft power".  I'm definitely an inclusionist, so it was always going to be hard to convince me to vote "delete".  But if there's evidence that the original author was paid to write an article and tilt its point of view in a certain direction, I'd like to know what it is.  P Aculeius (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read the investigation? The sockfarm had some very old and unused accounts that were either hijacked or else were sleeper socks for a decade. It took hours of admin time to work through. This is not some guy popping in a new subject for no reason. Significant sockfarm resources were deployed, probably in the full knowledge that we would likely be reluctant to delete something that looks like a complete sourced page. It should not be in mainspace, and deletion remains my strong preference. Don't underestimate the intelligence of those spending that much resource to game the system. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Other than the behavioral evidence, at least two checkusers noted there appears to be technical evidence of account compromise. This is spelt out in the investigation I linked and I have also reported this to WMF Trust & Safety team. MarioGom (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The words "undisclosed paid editing" do not occur in the sockpuppet investigation, so it seems reasonable to ask for an explanation and evidence. That some of the sockpuppets are old and have gone unused for years doesn't really tell me anything about payments.  The idea that some accounts were "hijacked" by others could be plausible, but even if demonstrated—and I'm not sure that's possible, it doesn't go toward anything in this article.
 * This article is about a notable subject, and it appears to be well-sourced. Although the author may have used several sockpuppets to link to it, none of the contributors to this article appear to be other aliases of that author, and substantial editing has been done by other editors, while the original author and his known sockpuppets are blocked.  Nothing about the article seems to be beyond the reach of ordinary editing to improve or correct.  Were the articles that the sockpuppets linked to it wrongly linked, or is the only issue that someone used sockpuppets to create the links?
 * I see a lot of inferences and assumptions being made about the author and his motivations, but even if we suppose they're all true, there is nothing unsalvageable about the content this article. This is not the fruit of the poisonous tree: an article can be started for the wrong reasons, by someone who ignores policies such as verifiability or neutral point of view, and still be worth keeping and improving—as a number of non-sock editors have already done.  Dynamiting an article just to prove a point about the author really would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article looks like criticism of Qatar (note there is Criticism of Israel, perhaps merge or rename. IgelRM (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Although much of the article is critical of Qatar—it's about the use of "soft power" by Qatar, which isn't simply a list of grievances. In fact, it would be hard to justify an article that solely consists of grievances, even though I can understand why some might exist.  But this article isn't solely critical; some of what it says is neutral at worst.  If its focus stays on "soft power", then it might contain positive things, or at least mention praise by some sources for the way it exerts "soft power".  For instance, by acting as a peace broker in the current Israel-Hamas conflict.  I think that would get lost if the title were changed to indicate only criticism, or if the article were merged into something else (and what, BTW, might we want to merge it with?).  P Aculeius (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Soft power would be a direct merge, but I see that would certainly need significant shortening. I suppose Criticism of Israel is more of a section split out by article length. But the Soft power article currently barely mentions Qatar. I somewhat struggle with soft power name, diplomacy would be neutral while soft power seems to have a generally negative connotation. I see there are also Italian and Chinese soft power articles but both don't seem to justify there separate existence in my opinion. IgelRM (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article just needs a clean up to remove potential bias but otherwise passes GNG Mr Vili   talk  14:10, 26 February 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.