Draft talk:Churna–Kaio Islands

Notability

@Saqib: This article is not about just Churna Island. It is about the group of islands it is part of. Yes, Churna is by far the largest part at about 0.6 sq km but the island group is a distinct concept that extends over a 400 sqkm area. Of the seven sources, six of them refer specifically to the Churna–Kaio Islands. Those sources are:

• The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
• The University of Sargodha
• The Balochistan Environment Protection Agency
• The Dawn newspaper
• and most crucially, the Government of Pakistan itself through its own Ministry of Maritime Affairs.

All of these are very reliable sources, so I think the notability is very much established. Perhaps ten years ago this term didn't exist but where multiple reliable sources use the term in English, I don't think there is a case for questioning notability. Gedrose (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib: can you elaborate on why you think there is a lack of notability? Gedrose (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gedrose, I just don’t think it meets GNG or even NGEO, but you've right to challenge me and move it back to the main namespace. In that case, I might take it to AFD or you could submit it for AFC review, where it can be improved. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You don't think it meets guidelines even though there are five separate sources including a United Nations body, a national government and a provincial government. I'm not sure what more would be needed for you to accept it has notability. This is why I asked if you can elaborate on why you think there isn't notability. Gedrose (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Gedrose, You need to understand that GNG doesn’t just mean any coverage; it has to be SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Saqib: have you looked at any of the sources in the article? The first one is a submission to a United Nations body to classify the islands as an "Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area" (EBSA). The second one is from that body and listed the islands as an EBSA, not just a brief mention but a case study over three pages specifically about the islands. The third one discusses the effect that the ship breaking industry might be having on the islands. The fifth one includes the islands as "ecologically significant". The eighth source repeatedly covers the ecological sensitivity of the islands and how it will be endangered. The eleventh source spends a significant amount of text on how important the islands are. All of the sources are independent of the subject, reliable and several of them give significant coverage to the islands. I am not convinced that you've looked at any of the sources before moving the article. Gedrose (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thilsebatti: did you actually read the article or look at any of the sources in the three minutes between edits or did you base it on Saqib's poorly-reasoned assertions of it not being a separate topic? The article you're suggesting it be merged to is about one small part (0.6 km2) of a 400 km2 area. That same article is allowed to stand with just four references but this draft has eleven references. I'm not convinced you have genuinely reviewed the draft. Gedrose (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Firstly please assume good faith. I haven't anything more than to say than what Saqib said here and in his talk page. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thilsebatti: It is difficult to assume good faith when people make apparently rash edits. I could have reacted badly to Saqib's unilateral move to draft space but I've instead asked reasonable questions and avoided rashly moving it back to main space. I've even added to the draft and submitted it to review. I did assume someone would make a good faith assessment but yours seems to be based entirely on Saqib's knee-jerk reaction that it can all be merged into one article. You can see how rash he is with his proposal to merge another article (Kaio Island, now also unilaterally moved to draft by him) when he proposed to merge an article about an island with Churna, an article about a mixture of powders and herbs. He still has not admitted that was an error. Neither of you seems to regard international and national bodies as reliable sources. Several of the sources give more than trivial coverage to the archipelago. As an article it is almost as long as Churna Island (which has just four references). When you say AGF, you're saying it as a defence of your apparent agreement to a knee-jerk move by Saqib. I do not believe you made a sincere assessment of the draft before you clicked the reject button. You just assumed Saqib was right because he's been here 10 years and made thousands of edits. Unless you can explain why the sources are not reliable and how much content would satisfy you, I'm going to assume a case of bad faith on your part. Gedrose (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you to read a similiar other article exits which says that just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. If you believe this topic is notable, you can boldly go ahead and create it. After all the AFC reviewing process is mostly based on the judgemental skill of the reviewer. The rest is upto you. I can firmly says that my intentions were only to improve this site. Assuming good faith or bad faith is upto you. Thanks and regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)