Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Middle East. 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:

Edit this page 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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Middle East|~~~~}} 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 Middle East. 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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Middle East

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyarid conquest of Isfahan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). The topic is not covered in depth by reliable, independent sources. The article relies exclusively on obscure Persian-language sources without any internationally recognized English-language academic support, violating WP:RS and WP:WORLDVIEW. Furthermore, it fails WP:V due to lack of verifiable, broadly accessible references, It also omits essential information such as the year of the event (violating WP:MOSDATE). Overall, the article does not meet the standards required for an independent Wikipedia article. R3YBOl (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Middle East, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 27 April 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.

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

Jorge Veytia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The claim to notability for this actor/writer/lawyer is not exactly clear. It seems like the most coverage he has received was in regards to his epilepsy (see this interview). I'm having trouble finding much coverage at all (movie review written by the subject?), and it seems like the article itself was created way back in 2009 by a WP:SPA. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Law, Egypt, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Mansy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. The two Instagram sources cannot be used to establish notability (and one of the sources doesn't even mention her name at all). The PDF is just a table of scores from a competition. Although she has won an award, it was with a team, and WP:NGYMNASTICS requires individual awards. I searched for sources and even did a regional search for Egypt, but found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched and couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. No individual awards to meet WP:NGYMNASTICS either. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, may become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Egypt bus accident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Searching for sources after 2015 only turned up other bus crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Proposed deletions

Arab American Vehicles (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
East Mediterranean Gas Company (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Egyptalum (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
eSpace (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Herrawi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Ibrachy & Dermarkar (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Mo'men (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Olympic Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Seoudi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Shotmed Paper Industries (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Corona (confectioner) (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Starworld (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
Bahgat Group (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

Iran

Esteghlal Javan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Defunct newspaper that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Iran. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NTRUMP. The sources in the article and the sources that i can find are all centered around when the threats were issued and do not support any long lasting impact. There's nothing in this article's contents either that justifies it existing and not just being deleted and having its contents merged in other us-iran diplomacy articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." Politicians and elected officials make threats all the time - but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless it actually occurs.— Maile (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Seemingly no lasting coverage, and part of this wider topic. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC

Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Another one of those "things" by Trump. Unlikely to have lasting coverage nor continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Trump says a hundred unhinged things a day that he never follows through on. Nothing happened here. Move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not more than a mention of Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration would be needed. Shankargb (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. A perfect example of such. Conyo14 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish there was a "you supported him, you knew, you were warned, you agreed with my assessment of his status, but you voted for him anyway because eggs" option. Bearian (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation True Promise III

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely speculative article about a hypothetical attack (WP:CRYSTAL) with no substance, based primarily on synthesis of political rhetoric.

See its twin: American-Israeli airstrike on Iran Longhornsg (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments in twin article. Also noting that the creator of the article in question has had a history of WP:SYNTH, inaccurate translation of Persian-language sources into English and use of deprecated sources that raises questions over the veracity of the article itself. Borgenland (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" no substance " i just tried searching it on the news and there is DAILY updates TODAY Baratiiman (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until it actually happens or rather IF it happens no use having it Yesyesmrcool (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the mother of all crystal balls. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The sources cited in the article do not mention the siege.Iranian112 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [1][2][3] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kemah, Erzincan#History: Changing my vote to merge as the siege is surprisingly not mentioned by the town's Wikipedia article. I suggest discarding the municipality and governor's websites and keeping TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi when merging. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iran, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a scholar in the usual sense; more of an independent, which we can't quantify or assess without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally created this article 12 years ago. Back then, the size of the article was not much and so were the number of references. Per, 7-day deletion tag created about two weeks ago, I added more content and references. The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references of this article went through a round of modification ever since this deletion nomination started. I did that to make sure they are all accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you have made here are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which aren't really good arguments in this case and do not address the concerns raised by User:Bearian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my arguments are "largely" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mentioned finding several online-accessible sources in the last couple of weeks. I also mentioned that these sources are independent of the subject of the article. These are notability policies after all. As for what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am bringing up a point about a big existing category in the English Wikipedia, i.e. Tafsir of Quran. I think I can expect to see the same standard being applied to all articles in that category. Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deep Research by ChatGPT (in Farsi) produces an article with multiple sources: تفسیر مشکات. My conclusion it to keep it. However, as an existential question, if ChatGPT can create such a decent article on demand without referring to the Wikipedia articles, I guess we can argue that we don't need to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Taha (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the English article by ChatGPT, though it has referenced enwiki material too. Also, please don't remind me of Wikipedia policies. I am aware of them. I try to use common sense. Taha (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Research by ChatGPT" is virtually never a good argument for anything on wikipedia whatsoever. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but deep research produces really high quality articles. Also, it is more to the point than wiki articles. Disclaimer: AI is my research area and day job. Taha (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AI draft is slop, the sources are untenable including using Wikipedia itself. By all means, continue using it in your day job, but not here please. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubification can be used to improve an article, but I don't see that here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a procedural nomination. I declined the speedy tag this am, since the (dated) sources all date newer than the previous AfD (inappropriately closed as speedy delete by a non-admin closer). This latest incarnation is entirely sourced from Farsi outlets, so even with translation, I'm not comfortable with my own views on how direct the detailing is or how much is merely routine entertainment chatter. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macan Band

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of the band is disputed as not enough significant coverage provided (yet). Norlk (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Proposed deletions

Standardized Patient (via WP:PROD on 29 January 2024)

Iraq

Dilovan Kovli

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP and an autobiography. The previously deleted autobiography was about an Iraqi artist but this reincarnation has now put him down as a field commander in the Syrian civil war. I can see that Kovli has been added to Hêzên Komandos but this edit was made by a now-globally locked IP account, so is highly dubious. The only mentions of him online are Yahoo and NL Times, which are both image captions giving credit to the Wikipedia user Dilovan Kovli and making no mention of the field commander. Searches in Kurdish ( دلوڤان کوڤلی) yield zilch. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:REAL MOUSE IRL tagged this for speedy deletion but it was removed by a logged out editor for no reason. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see talk of socking, UPE, and AI hoaxing in the last AfD, which would go a long way in explaining the strange IP editor and shift in article topic. I G11'd it as a recreated autobiography, but it seems like multiple criteria would apply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found, two articles linked in article are dead, and I couldn't search them either. Article is highly promotional in tone, high chances it is written by AI due to the language used. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to being unsourced, the article is highly promotional in tone.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This will likely be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5 if it's confirmed that creator is a sock (which I highly suspect that they are). CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably salt too due to repeated recreations. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 03:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad University shooting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While clearly serious, this shooting involved no fatalities (fortunately), appears rooted in a personal dispute, and lacks any indication of broader significance, national/regional impact, or lasting consequences/discussion. Coverage is minimal and localized Mooonswimmer 05:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering deletion when I came across this in NPP earlier. I agree that this event doesn't seem to have had lasting impact and was only reported in passing in local news sources – one of which appears to have been closely paraphrased here. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only has local news coverage, there is not much impact. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find limited news coverage from the day of the event, nothing since. Does not appear to have any lasting effect, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: The dispute issue is clearly alleged & there is probably more into it. This was an attempted mass murder & should be treated like one. There are many victims aswell who were impacted by this shooting & although it only lasted 50 seconds, it could've been much worse if it wasn't stopped on time. Currings (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Shankargb (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the shooting was (allegedly) inspired by Western-styled school shootings, thus giving a sense of notability and broader meaning a part of a more global phenomenon.

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the sources is duplicated, that means 3 sources support the article, and the 4th source quite literally does not state what is said. This article is not notable enough. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by multiple reliable sources, including Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count, and ReliefWeb, all of which cover the Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash. The fact that one source is listed twice doesn’t change the reliability of the information. This event is significant and has been reported by independent sources. Deleting the article over this issue is not justified. DataNomad (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2/4 of your citations should be on this page, and 2 is too little. Furthermore, this is an incredibly insignificant clash which could easily be included somewhere else. Setergh (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't appear to meet WP:NEVENT guidelines for sustained or in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I don't see why this is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Iraqis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article makes significant claims, such as the forced displacement of over one million Iraqi Arabs by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) between 2003 and 2005, yet the cited sources do not directly support these assertions with verifiable evidence or numeric data.

For example:

The Forced Migration Review article addresses displacement but does not specifically accuse the KRG or offer detailed statistics.
The New Humanitarian report discusses internal displacement broadly and doesn't attribute mass expulsions to the KRG. (WP:SYNTH)
The Guardian article provides anecdotal reports of tensions in post-Saddam Iraq but does not claim widespread deportation by the KRG, nor cite figures.
The VOA News report focuses on Arab return movements and property disputes, but does not support the article's claims of organized deportations.
The CRS report broadly surveys displacement in Iraq without identifying the KRG as responsible for any mass forced removals.
The Brookings article examines Iraq's IDP crisis but contains no specific accusations or quantitative data about KRG-led deportations.

Especially who says 1,000,000 million? Additionally, the topic overlaps with more comprehensive and better-sourced articles such as Ba'athist Arabization campaigns in northern Iraq and Arabization of Kirkuk, making this entry largely redundant. What reasoning supports calling it "deportation" when Arab settlers, originally relocated to Kurdish areas by the Ba'ath regime, were simply returned to their places of origin? Finally, the topic fails to meet WP:N and WP:NPOV. Zemen (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents the displacement of Iraqi Arabs in the post-2003 period, which is supported by sources like Human Rights Watch, the Guardian, and VOA. HRW explicitly uses the term “reversing ethnic cleansing” and discusses Arab expulsions in detail and another 2003 article from The Guardian titled “Arabs flee revenge of the Kurds” describes how, in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion, Kurdish groups moved to reverse Saddam Hussein’s Arabization process. And the VOA says “Forced deportations of Arabs from Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq has the United Nations' top human rights official concerned”. this article reflects well-documented patterns during this time. The topic is distinct from Ba’athist Arabization—it focuses on the post-invasion period and its own displacement crisis. I’m open to refining the wording or structure, but the subject itself is notable and sourced, there is absolutely no reason for it to be deleted. DataNomad (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat wording that already exists in the article. My concern isn't that some sources aren't reliable, I never claimed that. The issue is how they're being used. You didn't even explain where the "1,000,000" figure comes from! there's no citation or numeric data supporting that huge claim!. Also, the sources don't accuse the KRG alone, most of them talk about general displacement, with multiple actors involved. Only one of them even says "Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq" and none directly blame the KRG by name for organized, systematic deportations. So why are other participants and contexts missing from the article? That's a clear WP:NPOV. Zemen (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Sikorki (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't even need to check sources, I can judge based on the person who made this and their response which doesn't even address the biggest problem, the 1,000,000 claim. It's clear asserting this to only the KRG as this is a Kurd nationalist who wants to flex the deportations rather than help out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setergh, please focus on the article and its sourcing, not on your personal opinion of the editor. You should check the sources before offering your opinion at an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, however it was just a random thing I mentioned. Either way the rest which I have stated is something I find to be valid, as once again, the user has not addressed the main issue. Setergh (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent, the user could simple change the “perpetrator” section of the infobox. Other than that, what else seems to be the issue? I’m aware that the KRG wasn’t directly responsible, but does that justify the entire deletion of the page? Etcnoel1 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:MOS. This user has a history of creating unencyclopedic content. Just because something appears on Google doesn't mean it deserves a place in any encyclopedia. just look at this (and its nomination for deletion). Some of the numbers in the sources pertain to neighboring countries of Iraq and even Fallujah! Since when have the Kurds established their own country and become Iraq's neighbors? This clearly shows the article was written in a biased manner. Zemen (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally targetting me this is the 4th page of mines you are on DataNomad (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laura240406 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like to be eligible for keeping; but this is fine if it attaches further references . 110 and 135 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hamek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". This also happened during the Iran–Iraq War, which is an incredibly well documented event, therefore I'm unsure why there would be no mention of this battle. Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a historical battle, not legendary. I intend to expand the article and add appropriate sourcing to support its notability. Zemen (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. - The battle happened during Iran Iraq War, If this engagement were real and notable, It would be almost certainly be mentioned in reliable sources covering the war in detail. Additionally the Article lacks of reliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@R3YBOl Are you aware that many incidents and genocides involving Kurds remain undocumented and largely unknown to writers and historians? This video features Najmadin Shukr himself speaking about the battle. Why do you think he has articles across multiple languages of Wikipedia? It's largely because of this battle. What writer or historian would easily uncover a battle that took place in a remote, desolate village. especially during a time when larger conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war, were dominating attention. Zemen (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video of the person supposedly involved in the battle mentioning it is still not a reliable source. The argument of the Iran-Iraq War dominating attention and therefore meaning this battle gets none is absurd, especially when there is not a single source I could find that wasn't affiliated with the Kurds (at least not a reliable one) about such an insane victory. If this battle was known to be real, at least a few people would briefly mention the battle, but this seems to have never happened. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video is from facebook, not yt. It features Najmadin, the commander in the battle. I know it is not a reliable source, and I'm still working on finding a credible version or a copy from a trusted place, or atleast find a source. but for now, I support deletion. Zemen (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Najmadin Shukr Rauf where the conflict is mentioned. We can’t have encyclopedia articles based on vague, unscholarly and highly partisan eulogies. Mccapra (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra The battle is already mentioned in the page of Najmadin Shukr Rauf, Yet still cited by unreliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree there aren’t enough reliable independent sources to support a standalone article about the battle. That’s a different thing to saying the encyclopedia should not make any mention of the battle at all because we can’t even be sure it happened. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Ronen Bar dismissal attempt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons:

Ronen Bar has resigned, and the question became theoretic.
At least two articles cover the topic: Ronen Bar, Qatari connection affair.
WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTEMP. _Dgw|Talk 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ronen Bar. The dismissal itself is notable, but there is no need for a separate page, as opposed to a subsection of his biographical article. Per WP:NOPAGE, the information about the dismissal attempt, the resignation, and the other life information about Ronen Bar are "best collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. The sequence of events described in the article is highly unusual in Israel. Such a dismissal is a one-time occurrence. Even if he ultimately chose to resign, the chain of events remains exceptional and warrants a separate entry.Hila Livne (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something being unusual or a one-time occurrence is not a policy-based grounds for making something its own page. Lots of unusual things happen to people on a one-time basis. Even if those unusual events are notable, the question is whether having all of the information in one place would create readability, WP:UNDUE, or other similar types of concerns. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ronen Bar: This happened just over a month ago, notability hasn't been shown outside of the individual. This can be discussed in Bar's article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Motion Control

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) into Bosch Rexroth. The company is a subsidiary of Bosh Rexroth, presently an underdeveloped article. While it could be claimed that Rexroth should be merged into its parent, Bosch, currently it has its own article. That article is desperately in need of some of the content and references of Elmo Motion. gidonb (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The app`s article lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish the app's notabili Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My doubts about the nominator aside, this is not a notable product, at least not according those sources, which basically has one decent article about the product/company, and three instances of the product being mentioned. This should have been worked on in draft space. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Israel. – The Grid (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI was in the middle of writing this article. I was doing research which I was planning to add. Then, without warning, somebody (who has only a few edits to their credit and obviously no understanding of how much work is involved) added a deletion notice. I have now added many more sections to the article, as I was intending, in any case, and every statement is backed up. I will continue to improve it, because I think the subject is an important one in this day and age. This particular app is certainly not the only one, and maybe not a perfect solution, but I don't see anyone adding deletion tags to every parental control app on Wikipedia.Simxaraba (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Simxaraba, you run that risk when you put things up in main space rather than write them up as a draft. If I had run into it I would have moved it to draft space, but the lesson here should be simple: don't put something up live if it's not ready. As for the "every other parental app", that's just not an argument at all. Subjects are regarded on their own merit and there is no conspiracy. Here is a long list of arguments to avoid. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a solid article. It is well written, has sources, and notes an award won by the app. It seems strange to me that this is nominated for deletion, even in light of the arguments made above. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any suitable sources (meeting WP:NCORP) for either the app or the parent company unfortunately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are suitable. Authors and dates should be included in the formatting of the references. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating the following related pages:

These articles fail WP:GNG. The only coverage is WP:ROUTINE news reporting in the immediate aftermath of the incidents, with no indication of WP:SUSTAINED or WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be the paper of record for every isolated act of violence, regardless of scale or tragedy, as part of broader conflagrations.

The presence of significant casualties is not, in itself, a criterion for notability under Wikipedia policy. Notability must be established through multiple, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage beyond mere event reporting. In these cases, such coverage is absent.

These nominations are being made in the interest of consistency and in light of WP:NPOV. Both Israeli and Palestinian-related events should be evaluated under the same criteria and to avoid selectively retaining articles based on the nationality of the victims.

By contrast, articles like 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack (Palestinian) and 2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (Israeli) meet notability due to broad and enduring media analysis and public discourse. These stand in stark contrast to the transient coverage seen in the articles nominated here and mirror the community's consensus to merge 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (Israeli) and Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses (Palestinian).

The nominated articles can be and should be merged into Timeline of the Gaza war. Longhornsg (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of 2025 al-Funduq shooting, 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike, and October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing

Generally, per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
The al-Funduq shooting was only 3 months ago, so it is still recent. The death of one of the perpetrators was also mentioned as recently as last week, so that seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
The Beit Lahia airstrike and Deir al-Balah bombing are both mentioned in South Africa's “Public dossier of openly available evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as of 4 February 2025” (although the latter is only in a footnote). That these events will be used as evidence in the genocide case makes them lasting. The events are also recent enough that it feels slightly over-zealous to delete.

Not WP:SIGCOV, mentioned in several of over 100 footnotes in a 220+ page legal document. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage was already established through WP:DIVERSE coverage in WP:RS, which is enough per WP:NTEMP.

I think you are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:NOTROUTINE, "if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage." EvansHallBear (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Support deletion of 2024 Ra'anana attack as event has had not lasting or sustained coverage over the past year.~~ EvansHallBear (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [4]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the article so assumed no subsequent coverage. Should have looked slightly harder. I'm now opposed to all deletions. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EVENT and NOTROUTINE. While it is a bit early for SUSTAINED, similar debates have shown that terroristic events get included in books and revisited in newspapers, reports (as above), and databases. Every such event gets included in the national database with ample information. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Starting to look a little like Trainwreckage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per EvansHallBear's comment, which you have not responded to. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like it is suitable for keeping and relatively has enough sources.110 and 135 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Shafrir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My WP:BEFORE results in insufficient sources and especially WP:RELIABLESOURCES for this to pass WP:GNG. The mention at best should be cited in another article about Palestinian re-settlement, but this person does not meet GNG for an article unto themself. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of sources, in the scholarshp and news: passes WP:ANYBIO. Senior character in the newly-independent Isreal government: passes WP:NPOL. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Easternsahara (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there's an appropriate redirect or merge target. All the sources added today are not coverage about Shafrir, and there were no sources presented that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Shafrir himself to satisfy WP:NBIO. From looking through the sources, these are simply singular, mostly single-line mentions of Shafrir's appointment in 200+ page books. We've deleted based on far more coverage. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Longhornsg (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two links that provide basic biographical details; per WP:BASIC multiple sources can be combined in lieu of significant coverage. His involvement in the redistribution of Palestinian property is of historical interest and his work is well documented (e.g, in this encyclopedia entry which quotes his report at length. The fact that other deletions proceeded under supposedly analogous circumstances is a non sequitur. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" So then it must just then be proven that these are not routine coverage or passing mentions in order for WP:BASIC to qualify. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are discussing him in the context of his project, and coverage of that project was more than trivial. You don't get to stop with "He was appointed to head the X project" if the rest of the paragraph is about X project.
If there was consensus for merge Iand redirect to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws I'd be prepared to support it. I still think this can live happily as a well-documented stub. Oblivy (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that over a Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people). There seems to be no SIGCOV of him. He seems solely known for being the first Israeli Custodian, a role which isn't itself notable enough for an article. Some of his work definitely seems notable for mentions in an article, but presumably they're already included here: Israeli land and property laws -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to presume; you can look at the linked article and see how it's handled. That's why I suggested a merge and redirect. Oblivy (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws. Per nom, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RELIABLESOURCES to justify a standalone article on the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus supports that, then I would support the merge to Israeli land and property laws#Absentees' Property Laws as you suggest. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (nominator here), updating my !vote to reflect the positive and most recent suggestions that instead of a full delete that the subject article title be redirect instead to Israeli_land_and_property_laws#Absentees'_Property_Laws. This is a good suggestion and the best AtD. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the editor who suggested merge and redirect as an ATD:

First, biographical coverage of the article subject appears limited, but his work is covered in great detail in a few sources, for example here at 69 et seq. Every time the word "custodian" is mentioned in relation to that period it means this one person.
Second, the more important topic is the initial redistribution of seized property, which is addressed at the target article but in an extremely clinical manner despite the lengthy quotes. The focus of that article is not history, but a series of statutes and institutions. I'm not sure how the merge would sit within that article but perhaps a short paragraph about the initial seizure and redistribution would be appropriate.

I still think this article is fine as a stub. It could be appropriately rescoped into an article about the custodian's office -- I'm not knowledgeable enough or in a position to devote time to doing it, but IMHO that would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. Oblivy (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone search Hebrew-language sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar has two links which are paywalled, one of which is on transfer of lands. He has an autobiography that's available in some Worldcat libraries. I'm pretty limited here. Oblivy (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

Roshdi Khalil

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I wrote on the article talk some time ago, "Heavy citations in mathematics, centered on dubious journals, can be less a sign of notability and more a sign that something suspicious is going on." See Science: Citation cartels help some mathematicians—and their universities—climb the rankings: Widespread citation manipulation has led entire field of math to be excluded from influential list of top researchers. The subject is exactly the sort of person this was targeted at: someone high on the lists of heavily cited mathematicians but whose name would be unfamiliar to most mainstream mathematicians. For this reason I think we need to base notability on something else other than WP:PROF#C1. I don't see any evidence of that something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the information that David Eppstein has shared. It's good to be aware of the fact that this sort of gaming of the system occurs in the mathematics field. A BEFORE search had revealed nothing else, and the awards are not notable, they are run-of-the-mill teaching awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on the analysis above. However it does raise the question of how NPROF#1 should be assessed in mathematics going forward, probably going by awards and recognitions? --hroest 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: IMU (IMU summary), AMS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [5]. Mass Deletions Across Projects – Conflict of Interest Maxpro2025 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person mentioned in the article is actually its own author! This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the person presented as a representative is virtually unknown in the Palestinian territories. The article violates all standards. The author is attempting to create an article about himself in various versions of Wikipedia, but he does not meet the notability criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be an autobiographyt but that is actually allowed, as long as it has been submitted to WP:AFC. Easliy passes WP:GNG though could do with some clean up. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page can be tagged with a maintenance template regarding COI, but the person is definitely notable, whether or not they wrote it themselves. It's written in a neutral tone, and from the oldest revision, appears to have been translated by the page creator from another wiki, so the content may have actually been written by various other people. Anyway, the subject is notable because of his arrest leading to mass protests (see this report, which is sourced in the article), media pressure leading to a conditional release, and being the director of several noteworthy TV shows. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it is spam. He also made his article in Indonesian, Nederland, German, Korean and other language Wikipedia so it can be considered as cross-wiki LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same opinion with ~~Badak Jawa~~ Fazoffic. Singasarská (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiographical article, emergency level conflict of interest. Seeing how the author of the article created an article with the same structure and content on many wikis at once, it is strongly suspected that this is an attempt at character promotion (or more accurately, self-promotion). See WP:YOU.
Absolute Strong Keep Per @Theroadislong, an autobiography article, no matter the potential WP:ACTUALCOI or whatever, is okay to make as long as it has many sources (WP:RS), is neatly written, and NPOV. This is also a very useful new knowledge for me. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the person unquestionably notable? If not for the arrests, surely as an actor/director for several TV shows. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTO has replied to your comment. This is not encouraged at all on Wikipedia, even if they try to be neutral. Paid contributors are still better than creating articles by hand. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover I suggest you read Wikipedia:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies and Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself Badak Jawa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Jolielover But making an autobiography on Wikipedia itself is prohibited, even if the subject is worthy. A figure on Wikipedia must be created by someone else, and must not be created by the person himself so that the contents of the article are more reliable and accurate, without any suspicion of adding spices, self promotion, also paid contributor. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my inclusionist point of view, I think there ought to be a community revision so as to check and assure the netrality of the article and to add additional information regarding the opposing view of Thaher, to make it more neutral. Because structure-wise, it is pretty decent. Your thoughts, @Jolielover? ANNAFscience (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serigala Sumatera That is absolutely incorrect, creating autobiographies is discouraged but NOT prohibited. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong And do you know if the autobiography article has many problems? Have you read Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about Yourself? Badak Jawa (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [6] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: So, making an autobiography article on enwiki is okay as long as it is written neutrally, neatly, has many references, and through AfC? Wow, this is very good news. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, basically. WP:AUTO says If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time. The thing is: this article did go through the AfC process (see here), making any argument for deletion irrelevant since policy explicitly states that autobiographies can be submitted and be approved through this process. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover and @Theroadislong Abduddaher globally blocked by EPIC Badak Jawa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remind

The author of the article has created or edited all versions of other projects, which is generally considered cross-wiki spam.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user translated this page from an original article in the Arabic Wikipedia, and the original Arabic page that contains most of the information was written and created by someone else about 11 years ago. It is not the same user, so he didn't write that article about himself. It is also noted that the person who is featured in the article is famous and has extensive work and presence on international websites and databases, and his biography is full of notable events, which are supported by many references. He is a candidate to still be on Wikipedia, from my point of view. 85.113.115.249 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter.

The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him.

Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories?

He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online.

So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories? — Osama Eid ^(talk) 04:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...because there is established SIGCOV of him? A report and several news articles concerning his arrest, or his TV shows/films? The number of followers he has is irrelevant. jolielover♥talk 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Osama if the person is NOT notable in English Wikipedia, he isn't so in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't find you nominate the Arabic article for deletion and I think he meets WP:GNG enough, so I lean to Keep it. The issue now is that there is a conflict of interest and I don't think it's a good reason for deletion, since there is a maintaining tags, e. g. {{COI}} and you can rewrite this article according to Wikimedia guides. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [7]. Mass Deletions Across Projects – Conflict of Interest Maxpro2025 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher filmography

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jordan and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although the director is notable, I don't think his filmography is long enough for a separate page as of yet. I think this should be merged to Abdulrahman Thaher as there are some pieces of media he's been in not mentioned on that page. jolielover♥talk 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per jolielover♥.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 512

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Plus, this incident is already covered in Lists of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134, so there is no need to have a separate article with almost 0 new information. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Jordan, and Russia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I found these sources on the matter: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The sources summarize the crash and circumstances (don't talk about investigation/public response since the crash was relatively minor), and seem to be enough to source a plane crash article, but I'll wait before making a decision. LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a bad article at the moment, but I definitely think that it's expandable based on sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond real-time news. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Even if it were notable, there's no need for an event to have an article if it can be adequately covered in a list of similar events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Tupolev Tu-134 § 1970s: First two sources suggested above appears to be unreliable; source 3 is WP:PRIMARY, and I don't have full access to source 4 to verify. Either way, Flight 512 fails WP:NEVENT because it lacks a lasting effect. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well you maybe right on the grounds that they don't give an encyclopedia-level analysis/investigation related to the plane crash. But, at least for the bureau source, it gives enough context for the crash, and I couldn't find any support against it. It was raised in these discussions but nothing definitive: Talk:Aviation accidents and incidents#Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives (B3A) and User_talk:Aviationwikiflight#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aeroflot Flight 11. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait

Saleh Faraj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. All sources are databases/results listings and insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep must show indepth sources LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article like many others was brought to AfD by the nominator just after I found several additional sources and expanded it. This mass nomination of hundreds of articles has been controversial and a better system is needed: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?.

Subject had a years-long career over multiple international championships as the best hurdler from his country, as confirmed by multiple reliable sources (Olympedia, ATFS, Tilastopaja, World Athletics) that are fully independent of each other. There is always SIGCOV available for these athletes when the relevant Arabic-language archives are searched, but in many of these cases the archives are never searched and then the article is deleted despite notability being based on the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. A better system is needed for these nominations. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling the good old NEXIST argument again. Many people including admins have you told you to stop using this in athlete AfDs. You must actually show evidence of in depth sources. Not assert they exist. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, which admins have told me to stop using NEXIST or any P&G with community consensus in AfDs? I agree that we have to show evidence of sourcing and asserting that they exist is not enough. That does not change the broader context of the scale of these nominations, and that notability is determined by the existence of sources and not their presence in articles. --Habst (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still use the tired NEXIST. Others have said your continued use is tendentious And continue to bludgeon discussions with weak argument. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have used NEXIST unsuccessfully in at least 30 maybe 50 athlete AfDs, what makes you think it will actually work? LibStar (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always respected consensus and I've only responded to your comment directly addressing me in this AfD. I think there is some misunderstanding here because AfDs are never about winning or being "successful", they're about finding community consensus founded on P&G. --Habst (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still use the tired NEXIST. Community consensus is that waving NEXIST is not persuasive in meeting notability when no indepth sources can be found. Others have said your continued use of NEXIST is tendentious. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using a policy-based argument, even if you disagree with the interpretation, when it has community support – it is part of WP:Notability, and if it was never able to be used then why is it there? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which clearly provides in mandatory terms: "All sports biographies ... must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Moreover, his performance (by far the slowest of all athletes in his event) does not suggest the likelihood of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics: Subject has no indication of notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. His poor performances on the international stage invalidate the WP:NEXIST argument. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

Ghassan Keyrouz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and all I could find elsewhere was some mentions like [[12]]. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazih Geagea

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and a search in GNews/TWL didn't come up with anything to help this subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this guy is an olympian, but doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NOLYMPIC requirements. This is also a BLP and good sources are lacking.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no sources are found, or redirect to Lebanon at the 1960 Winter Olympics. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Djsky

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not indicate how the subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. I'm unable to find significant coverage of him in reliable sources, either English or Arabic. ... discospinster _talk 21:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lebanon. ... discospinster _talk 21:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Fails in WP:NMUSIC. Svartner (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

April 2023 Israel rocket attacks (via WP:PROD on 12 September 2003)

Oman

Palestine

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [13]. Mass Deletions Across Projects – Conflict of Interest Maxpro2025 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person mentioned in the article is actually its own author! This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the person presented as a representative is virtually unknown in the Palestinian territories. The article violates all standards. The author is attempting to create an article about himself in various versions of Wikipedia, but he does not meet the notability criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be an autobiographyt but that is actually allowed, as long as it has been submitted to WP:AFC. Easliy passes WP:GNG though could do with some clean up. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page can be tagged with a maintenance template regarding COI, but the person is definitely notable, whether or not they wrote it themselves. It's written in a neutral tone, and from the oldest revision, appears to have been translated by the page creator from another wiki, so the content may have actually been written by various other people. Anyway, the subject is notable because of his arrest leading to mass protests (see this report, which is sourced in the article), media pressure leading to a conditional release, and being the director of several noteworthy TV shows. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because it is spam. He also made his article in Indonesian, Nederland, German, Korean and other language Wikipedia so it can be considered as cross-wiki LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same opinion with ~~Badak Jawa~~ Fazoffic. Singasarská (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiographical article, emergency level conflict of interest. Seeing how the author of the article created an article with the same structure and content on many wikis at once, it is strongly suspected that this is an attempt at character promotion (or more accurately, self-promotion). See WP:YOU.
Absolute Strong Keep Per @Theroadislong, an autobiography article, no matter the potential WP:ACTUALCOI or whatever, is okay to make as long as it has many sources (WP:RS), is neatly written, and NPOV. This is also a very useful new knowledge for me. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the person unquestionably notable? If not for the arrests, surely as an actor/director for several TV shows. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTO has replied to your comment. This is not encouraged at all on Wikipedia, even if they try to be neutral. Paid contributors are still better than creating articles by hand. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover I suggest you read Wikipedia:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies and Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself Badak Jawa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Jolielover But making an autobiography on Wikipedia itself is prohibited, even if the subject is worthy. A figure on Wikipedia must be created by someone else, and must not be created by the person himself so that the contents of the article are more reliable and accurate, without any suspicion of adding spices, self promotion, also paid contributor. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my inclusionist point of view, I think there ought to be a community revision so as to check and assure the netrality of the article and to add additional information regarding the opposing view of Thaher, to make it more neutral. Because structure-wise, it is pretty decent. Your thoughts, @Jolielover? ANNAFscience (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serigala Sumatera That is absolutely incorrect, creating autobiographies is discouraged but NOT prohibited. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong And do you know if the autobiography article has many problems? Have you read Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about Yourself? Badak Jawa (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [14] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: So, making an autobiography article on enwiki is okay as long as it is written neutrally, neatly, has many references, and through AfC? Wow, this is very good news. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, basically. WP:AUTO says If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time. The thing is: this article did go through the AfC process (see here), making any argument for deletion irrelevant since policy explicitly states that autobiographies can be submitted and be approved through this process. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover and @Theroadislong Abduddaher globally blocked by EPIC Badak Jawa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remind