Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatari soft power (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The only question before us is whether the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. This view seems to have consensus here among P&G-based opinions. I recognize the fact that the page could have been speedy-deleted under G5 immediately upon its creation, but at this point, with dozens of editors in good standing having participated, it no longer qualifies under G5.

As for WP:DENY, this essay discusses dealing with disruptive vandals and trolls, not with paid editing and encyclopedic content. It certainly doesn't compel us to remove an article about a notable topic just to "punish" a banned user, harming the project by this deletion. However, we can easily remove the banned sock's contributions from the page history with selective RevDel, although I'm not sure what would be achieved by doing so.

In the end, an editor got paid to create an article about a topic for which we actually want an article, albeit not the one they wrote, of course. WP:UNDUE, NPOV and other content issues should be dealt with editorially, not out of WP:SPITE. Any admin may procedurally close a renomination before 18 June 2024. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Qatari soft power
AfDs for this article:


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

Nominating this for deletion per norm. This current nomination has nothing to do with the tone of the article or its content or notability but per WP guidelines against blocked sock puppet accounts. Page creator is a confirmed sock puppet of TronFactor – the master of what looks like a well-oiled sock farm which has been blocked accordingly. Retaining this page will be a reward for unethical behavior and will encourage the sock farm to expand and create similar pages for whatever reasons they are creating them knowing that their accounts will only be blocked and the pages retained. In the last AFD, some of their socks participated and supported keep. When deleted, the article can be recreated by an ethical editor. Ludamane (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Sports, Central Asia,  and Qatar. Ludamane (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I can't support deleting this article for these reasons. It may have been created by a sock, but it's since been edited by 30 other people. Personally, I've never agreed with the blanket deletion of sock contributions. While I understand WP:DENY is a thing, I also think it's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Does the article stand on its own merits, regardless of the author? I think that should be the deciding factor. — Czello (music) 15:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If sock edits and articles created are retained what then is the deterrent? It will only encourage socks to do more while discouraging anti sock puppet editors. Nothing prevents this article from being recreated by a different editor if deleted. Ludamane (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose the question is which option, on balance, benefits Wikipedia. While I can support the deletion/striking of sock comments on talk page discussions, deleting what is otherwise constructive work strikes me as detrimental to the project. Deleting this article only for a legitimate editor to immediately recreate it (which it almost certainly will be as it appears to be notable) strikes me as needlessly bureaucratic. — Czello (music) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it is somewhat satisfying to see someone pay for an article that gets deleted, then recreated for free. That's the whole point of a free encyclopedia, the "free" part. Oaktree b (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Satisfying, perhaps – but not necessarily beneficial to the project. — Czello (music) 09:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close - I actually agree with the nom. and argued in the previous deletion that this was a cynical expenditure of significant sock resources to get a paid article in place with a slant that would be hard to remove by a sock who would know that their article would be retained after their own removal. I stand by that, and think it would be better for the encylopaedia if this were gone. But the last AfD finished less than a month ago. It is too soon to relitigate this. AfD demands considerable editor time, and merely rehashing the arguments just weeks after the last close is going to waste that time. Rather than !voting, I request someone speedy close this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should not have been re-nominated for deletion after the exact same arguments failed to produce a consensus for deletion quite recently.  The topic is valid, and any issues with the contents can be addressed through the normal editing process.  There's no benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this article.  P Aculeius (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is mish-mash of sports, airlines, news reporting and a whole bunch of stuff.Sources used aren't about this topic of "soft power", but are used in OR to draw conclusions that aren't there. Fine if you want to create a separate article about each subsection here, but without some scholarly journal analyzing this "soft power" topic, you've got an article cherry-picking facts and mushing them together to draw a conclusion that isn't stated in any sources otherwise. At the very least Draft this thing so it can be sorted out... Oaktree b (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Source 57 appears to be in a peer-reviewed journal, but CiteHighlighter marks it as Red, so very likely a pay to play journal, or not a RS for some other reason. The rest are news articles, which will tend to be biased one way or another. I'd !keep this if we had scholars writing about this and had peer-reviewed sources discussing it. Popular media is spinning the story one way or the other, and the fact that this is a paid article doesn't fill me with hope that this is in any way neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Czello. \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per the facts presented by and also support moving it to draft and be properly worked on. Lagdo22 (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - As we are all !voting anyway, I'll re-affirm my view that this should be deleted as the cynical complete creation of a sock farm that expended considerable resource, almost certainly paid, to establish an article they knew we would be reluctant to delete. The page continues to represent the decisions and slant of the sockfarm creator. and per Oaktree b it is OR. I am inclined to believe some kind of soft power article is possible, but only if it is built on reliable secondary sourcing, which this article is not. At the very least it needs WP:TNT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: much of the argument for deleting this article is unchanged from the previous discussion. We already addressed whether the article should be deleted as the creation of a sockpuppet, but as the nominator here acknowledged, the topic is notable, the content of the article is okay, the tone is no longer at issue.  And as Czello points out, a lot of other editors have worked to improve the article since it was created; it is not solely the product of a sockpuppet.  Claims that the creator was paid to write it were made then, and not substantiated by anything; and they're still just somebody's guess, based on the above comment.  The only thing new here is the notion that all of the sources can be disregarded, because they're "news articles, which will tend to be biased".  This is a novel approach; since when are all news sources considered unreliable on Wikipedia?
 * AfD is an evidence- and policy-based process; articles aren't supposed to be deleted for reasons that are plainly contrary to policy, based on mere suspicion of impropriety by an editor who hasn't contributed to the article in some time, and who is banned from doing so in future. If WP:TNT is the "very least" that should be done to it, what further, stronger measures can we take?  Erase all mentions of Qatar, scour the internet for bad press, blow up the whole encyclopedia?  Here we have a coherent article about a notable topic with verifiable claims based on reliable sources.  Deletion based on nothing more than the suspected motivations of its creator is ridiculous; or as an experienced editor noted in another discussion I was recently involved in, this article may be in need of improvement through ordinary editing—as has been done by quite a few perfectly legitimate editors.  AfD is not cleanup; it is the wrong process for this article.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A reminder should not be necessary: there was no consensus whether the article should be deleted as the creation of a sockfarm, and no consensus as to whether the article was balanced. You made 12 comments on the previous AfD. How about we step back now, and let other editors see if they can find a consensus where we had none previously. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And yet, here we are, having the same discussion over the same issues. How about you step back and stop trying to maneuver the conversation the way you want it to go, by telling other editors whether they should or shouldn't be replying to all of the nonsense being posted in an attempt to show that no consensus is actually consensus?  Even the nominator here isn't taking issue with the content or tone or notability of the article, but solely with the identity of the article's creator, even though two dozen other editors have worked to improve it since that time.  What a pointless exercise this is!  P Aculeius (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete agreed that AFD is evidence based and the evidence available shows that this article's sources do not support the topic. I am allying with Oaktree b. This is not a straight topic that requires only routine news coverage to prove notability but more of an invented topic that ought to have been covered or discussed extensively in peer reviewed journals or publications. The sources cited are mere news stories about several events that the subject had been involved and does not discuss the topic of this article itself. Wikipedia relies entirely on third party secondary sources to present a view, but that is not the case here as the creator merely invented the idea of what to write about and went ahead to use only news sources without presenting reliable sources to support the topic. The sources cited are reliable but their discussions not relevant to the topic of the article and should all be discarded. Ednabrenze (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This just went through a long deletion discussion and resulted as "no consensus". What is the grounds for the new nomination immediately after? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging contributors from the last discussion (excluding those since blocked): BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural close: I think it's silly for this to return to AfD so soon. The arguments here seem to be the same as the previous AfD, in which I !voted Keep. sum up my views. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is constantly infested by pro-Qatar socks, who are almost definitely state-sponsored. John Yunshire (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense: there was one sockpuppet, who was banned shortly after the previous deletion discussion began, along with his aliases who tried to participate in that discussion. Who are all the other sockpuppets who you claim are "constantly infesting" this article?  In the previous discussion, the claim was that the article was biased against Qatar.  Who are the "pro-Qatar" sockpuppets, what state is sponsoring them, and what evidence is there, besides the perceived bias—which can't be particularly strong, if people are reading it as both pro- and anti-Qatar at the same time?  P Aculeius (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are two sockfarms involved in this area, one holds an anti-Qatar POV (TronFactor SPI) and there another is pro-Qatar and participated in the initial AFD (see Morgan1811). That being said, while the pro-Qatar sockfarm is very active in Wikipedia (overview), they had a minimal role in this article. My primary concern is TronFactor, because of their apparent use of compromised accounts across various articles, not just this one. MarioGom (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. While other editor have made edits to the article, 95% of it is from one sockpuppet account. Delete as per WP:DENY. Cortador (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That essay—not policy—is about vandalism. This article is clearly not vandalism.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 14 March 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 this is not eligible for deletion as ban evasion precisely because editors other than the blocked sock have made non-trivial contributions. The article seems to be well-written, well-referenced, and genuinely neutral. Merely because there was some sockpuppet involved in its creation does not warrant it being deleted. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this article was not nominated to AFD, it would have probably ended up speedy deleted per G5. That boat has sailed though, and I doubt subsequent nominations will result in delete. But I still think this should have been deleted to avoid incentivizing a group that seems to be actively compromising accounts of other editors. My original rationale is here. MarioGom (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nobody WP:OWN's an article, so an article can't be deleted due to the owner. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - this topic easily passes GNG and as per @Red-tailed hawk WP:NOTCLEANUP Mr Vili   talk  04:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:DENY. TunGunPun (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I also think it is notable. I'll write what I wrote last time, I don't think it matters who created it, what matters is the quality of the content. I think many editors have worked on it and now the article is at a good state but others can continue working on it to make it better. I agree with Red-tailed hawk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajoub570 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I do agree with the delete !votes that the topic needs to be completely WP:TNT'd, but it is a notable topic with several easily found academic articles directly covering the topic. I would not mind a close where this is moved to draft space, or where the article is completely restarted from scratch, because it does need heavy editing. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per my !vote above (for Procedural Close), we seem to be re-running the previous AfD. I have two questions:
 * 1) For Delete-supporting editors, has anything changed since the previous AfD (which closed as no consensus)?
 * 2) If nothing has changed, then procedurally, is there a way for comments in the previous AfD to be considered by the closing administrator for this AfD as well?  I am quite concerned about the possible precedent here of previously-nominated articles returning to AfD with the same deletion rationales in such a short space of time with the hope of a different result.
 * Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing really changed, and I wouldn't mind a procedural close. Anyway, this will certainly end up in keep or no consensus in a couple of days, and a single AFD rarely sets a strong precedent (this is not a common law court, etc). MarioGom (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per MarioGom and Cortador. Lokotim (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.