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

Assyrian–Kurdish conflict

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

This article is a wp:nor mess. Some of its content is lifted from articles that I wrote, but I have seen no evidence that the article topic exists. It makes about as much sense as an article about the "Asian - African conflict" throughout North America from 1700 to present. For most of history there have been more conflicts between different Assyrians and Kurds and it still doesn't make sense to consider either of them a cohesive group that is involved in an armed conflict. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was to move this page to Assyrian–Kurdish relations as we already have many pages describing bilateral relations, but I got pushback and was reverted. I will also note that an older version of the page almost seems to be about a different topic entirely - and one presented coherently - so my (tenuous) vote is to Keep and revert to version as of 3 May 2025. Koopinator (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bilateral relations articles are about relations between two state or state like entities, not between different ethnic groups that don't have an institution representing them. I am still skeptical about that framing as well as the "land dispute" one, which I don't think it's supported by the cited sources. The characterization that there is a land dispute between the Kurdish and Assyrian people or between Assyrians and the KRG (as opposed to individual Assyrians and Kurds) is disputed. But the chosen article title makes it seem like a fact. (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be be better to have an article about land usurpation in Iraq, which leaves more room for covering non ethnic causes because it lacks the biased framing that presumes a conclusion. (t · c) buidhe 15:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As someone who created this article (which has been significantly altered as I can see), I will be a little biased of course, hence my position. But we have to be honest with ourselves that there is some preexisting Assyrian-Kurdish conflict (which is still ongoing) and as well as some landgrabs by the KRG (as per the sources in the page). Also, Kurdistan is a semi-autonomous federal region that controls land (so it is a "country" in a way), whereas Assyrians don't have much power there. Bringing up "Asian-African conflict" is misrepresenting and heavily trivializing the history in the region, and it's comparing apples and oranges – Africans and Asians are NOT native to North America. Whereas, Assyrians and some Kurds too are native to Upper Mesopotamia, and the conflict there (which the media doesn't really focus on much) is not something to be ignored or scoffed at. Oh, forgot to mention that, thanks to the recent editor of the article (Ilamxan), the article has been excellently and thoroughly sourced. It will be a huge waste if it's deleted. Yucalyptus (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan is not a single political entity. If the intent was to write an article about Assyrians in the KRG governed areas I think "Assyrians in Iraq" would be a better location for the content. There is no basis for shoehorning in content about the Ottoman Empire, Syria, etc. We do not have sources covering the entire topic so it doesn't meet the criteria for having an article. (t · c) buidhe 13:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the article, I did not include the Ottomans (if you check the earlier edits). Another user included such content (in good faith though). You are right. The Ottomans pillaging and massacring Assyrians in the early 20th century have nothing to do with the modern day Kurdish-Assyrian land disputes/conflict. I would hope that somebody would remove content about Ottoman Empire, as it is already covered in other articles regarding modern Assyrian history. Yucalyptus (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: While the article’s structure and framing may need refinement, deletion is not the appropriate course of action. There is a clear body of reliably sourced content documenting tensions, disputes, and episodes of violence between Assyrian and Kurdish groups across different historical periods and regions. This is not a synthesized or invented topic-the subject meets notability under WP:GNG due to sustained coverage in reliable sources. Comparisons to fabricated constructs like an “Asian-African conflict in North America” are both inapplicable and dismissive of the real and tragic history of marginalized groups in the Middle East. Deleting this article would erase a significant and underrepresented regional dynamic, undermining Wikipedia’s mission to document the full scope of notable human history. ElijahUHC (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have never seen this much information compiled in one article on the subject matter. This type of information is only available in bits and pieces which I have seen in the last 10 years. For the sake of history this must be kept. Gevergiz (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Could be reworked but the only reason to delete or merge this article would be to remove and/or hide potentially negative aspects of Kurdish nationalism - There's been well documented attacks committed by Kurdish polities (whether or not in service of an empire or by their own volition) against Assyrians, and vice versa.

⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's worth reposting my talk page message:

This is a massive WP:COATRACK article discussing a bunch of barely related historical incidents and trying to fit it all in a narrative of an ethnic conflict that has supposedly been ongoing since the 19th century. Just some lovely excerpts:
When Kurdish rival tribes fought each other, the bulk of the violence was directed at the Assyrian subjects of the opposing tribe.[6] Assyrian tribes would often fight each other on behalf of their Kurdish protector tribes.[7]
This is fighting between Assyrians

During the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, the Ottomans armed the Kurds to fight Russia. At the end of the war, the Kurds refused to return the weapons, putting the Assyrians at further risk.[8]
An incident in a war that tangentially relates to Assyrians

On 10 May 1915, the Assyrian tribes met and declared war against the Kurds and the Ottoman Empire.[20]
This one is particularly gratuitous - Kurds were fighting Assyrian rebels in their capacity as Ottoman rank-and-file - this is best understood as an episode of World War I rather than some ethnic conflict that began in the 19th century.
My initial instinct was to bring this to AfD, but I recognise there has been an effort to gather historical facts. We already have many pages describing bilateral relations - in that light I suppose that this article could be salvaged as long as it's not WP:SYNTHed into a "conflict". Thus, I will move this to "Assyrian–Kurdish relations".
— Myself, on Talk:Assyrian–Kurdish conflict. I was reverted and then this AfD happened.

Koopinator (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issue pertaining to WP: COATRACK (on my part). I removed content that is not related to the Assyrian-Kurdish conflict, such as Ottoman attacks in the 1910s and other unrelated incidents and battles in the 20th century that have nothing to do with the modern conflict in subject. Yucalyptus (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa

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

This is a student article that has become a bit of a coatrack article with a POV split. The article itself requires a § Terminology section just to define its own criteria and then is otherwise mostly determined by exhibitions and events, festivals and initiatives pertinent to that criteria. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Sexuality and gender, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also, the article is an essay. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 01:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll vote Draftify per Bearian. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 22:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - while the terminology section is a disaster, it can be fixed and it's not yet the end of the semester. The student editor should be able to fix the mistakes in the article. I think college is all about learning from mistakes. FWIW, I'm a gay man who identifies as "queer". Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noninator's comment: not opposed to draftify. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think this article could use some editing, to make it both more concise and easier to read. I don’t think that warrants it being deleted. The information is still useful. Vvbudh (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Copied from AfD talk page by Suriname0 (talk), because I think it is appropriate to include here in the main discussion. Vvbudh, you are welcome to vote explicitly in this AfD by writing a comment on this page that begins with '''Keep''' (for example). Suriname0 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Somewhat to my surprise a look at the sources shows that this is a topic covered in reliable sources and not simply a synthesis of original research. No need for deletion. Should be kept and improved, or perhaps condensed into a section at Queer art or a similar article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, issues with the writing are not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources (which are in this article) and therefore passes GNG.

(Though I have no prejudice towards merging with Queer art, if others think that's a better idea) ApexParagon (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: in its current form, its an essay and apparently original research. I suggest draftification to give a chance to the author to either split the content to relevant articles, or better delineate the subject for a standalone article. MarioGom (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, possible to make this an article at some point, but i'd rather it remain in Draftspace until its essay tone gets sorted out. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

Akram Abd Rabo

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

The article lacks reliable secondary sources and does not establish notability. The player appears to have had a brief and low-impact career in lower leagues without coverage in significant media. Fails both general and WP:NFOOTY notability guidelines. Ziad0tarek952005 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--@Ziad0tarek952005: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay

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

The app is not notable by its own, and it does not have enough reliable third party sources with journalistic significant not just press-released coverage. All the sources within the page and the ones I managed to find BEFORE are only event-based - Egypt's central bank launched... Norlk (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep InstaPay is a nationally significant app in Egypt, launched under the Egyptian Central Bank's strategy for digital payments. It is widely adopted and integrated into government and private banking systems. many sources talked about it such as her bankygate.com and enterprise.news and ahram.org.eg Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article subject could be mentioned in the article about the Central Bank of Egypt and this article redirected there as an alternative to deletion. Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable product in the financial world, with notability backed up by reliable sourcing.Simxaraba (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are sources reporting on it, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing that addresses the subject directly and in detail, with their own independent analysis. The WP:ORGTRIV announcements we see would fail multiple criteria out of WP:SIRS, and all four of those criteria must be met for any individual source to contribute to ORG/PRODUCT notability. I am also hesitant to recommend a redirect as the product shares a name with the Philippines version of the same thing (and also a payday lender), though I would not be entirely opposed if that does end up being the result. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:28, 22 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

Gupta–Kidarite conflict

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

Lacks notability as a standalone topic; minimal sourcing, limited content, and better covered within broader articles like Gupta Empire or Kidarites. Duplicative and does not meet WP:N. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Hinduism, Pakistan, Iran, India, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. BharatGanguly (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khole Piza

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

References fail WP:SIRS so article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and Iraq. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Idk why my csd was removed for no reason but I still support its deletion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent references that demonstrate the notability. Fade258 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 00:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Ghorbani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Attempted to draftify but OP recreated it in mainspace. It was noted this was the "english" version so I looked at Wikidata and it appears there is a mass posting campaign across many languages. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Behrad Ali Konari

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

I am not sure that getting arrested and then released is sufficient basis for a claim of notability. The subject’s arrest certainly generated media interest at the time, but WP:BLP1E may apply. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E

DankPedia (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep Contrary to what some esteemed colleagues have suggested, this biography is not based on a single event. In fact, it is expandable, and there are sufficient sources available to support its development. For example, in this source, you can see that the individual in question was imprisoned again two years after the initial incident and release, this time due to their artistic and protest-related activities. ^🅣𝓗𝓪𝓻𝓸𝓵𝓭 𝓚𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓼 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one, but I'm leaning keep. Not a low-profile individual; ongoing protest activities; a fair bit of coverage by the rather challenging standards of coverage of anti-hijab protesters in Iran. We're a little bit over my personal threshold for keeping a biography.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per WP:BLP1E Iranian112 (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Najafi

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

Second-tier footballer who fails WP:BIO. All citations on page are database entries; search is a little tricky due to news articles about several murderers with the same name, and it's possible I missed something in Iranian, but I note the lack of any article on the Iranian wiki. — Moriwen (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. — Moriwen (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify per GiantSnowman Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kindly include policies applicable with the vote. Can we have any arguments for favor or oppose per policies on draftifying? All other suggestions are also welcome. Hoping to have a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not opposed to draftify. Svartner (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

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

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.

OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.

This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. See WP:NOPAGE. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a thin line between using a "special interest" to build an encyclopedia – and using us a free web host to your synthesis of original material. This has crossed the line. Bearian (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I give up. Let's just delete my article. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The insistence on calling it "my article" by the originating editor tends towards this being a special interest. Parts of the article's tree could be salvageable as part of the related articles, but only parts. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I call it mine because I was the one who made the entire article, including all of the family trees and everything else in it. Other editors made only minor edits. I probably shouldn't call it mine, as this is an encyclopedia for all. However, let us just delete the article. I do not know if any of the trees could be salvagable, maybe some are, but I don’t know which ones could be saved. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Javadi

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_27#Ali_Javadi * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A cursory search of his name in English and Farsi returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 19:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no online sigcov that I can see and no proof, therefore, that he meets WP:GNG to any extent. I have given it some cleanup but that doesn't excuse the blatant faliure of notability guidelines. JacobTheRox (talk) 14:35, 25 May 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.

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]
Comment: WhoIsCentreLeft, did you assess the existing Farsi sources? MarioGom (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if not then redirect to Esteghlal F.C., which this paper was apparently focused on. The only source in the article is obviously not independent sigcov. Farsi Wikipedia has four sources, one of which [1] could count toward the GNG. Doing Google News searches for "روزنامه استقلال" and "روزنامه استقلال جوان" with a date range until 2015 turned up [2], which also seems to be sigcov. There are also a bunch of articles listing headlines or summarizing reports from multiple newspapers, including this one – they don't count towards the GNG but might demonstrate the impact of this newspaper, e.g. [3][4][5]. I don't speak Farsi, but I think this is a good start. Pinging @MarioGom, who asked about Farsi sources. Toadspike [Talk] 10:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Esteghlal F.C. or probably better to Ali Fathollahzadeh (former director of the newspaper and also Esteghlal F.C.). Notability is not established. It is a fan newspaper of Esteghlal F.C. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there are several redirect targets floating in the conversation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Proposed deletions

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

Iraq

Battle of Haj Omran (1966)

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

Battle may or may not exist, none of the three sources are verifiable. One goes to a dead link, another to a newspaper article that does not exist per the newspaper's archive, the third is a print book that is not available online and has no preview on Google Books. There was a battle on a different date during the Iran-Iraq War, but nothing noted by Google or Google books for 1966. I was able to find a CIA document that might be what the dead link was supposed to point to, it mentions Haj Omran but is about a visit in 1974 and only mentions that there was fighting in 1966, it gives no details. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick check to the article and checked one of the links, specified under the name of the "CIA" and it was a dead link. I support the Delete of this article R3YBOl (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All three sources are inaccessible. Skitash (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator i agree it should be deleted or put into a draft DataNomad (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khole Piza

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

References fail WP:SIRS so article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and Iraq. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Idk why my csd was removed for no reason but I still support its deletion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent references that demonstrate the notability. Fade258 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 00:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016)

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

The article lacks sources and fails WP:GNG; the topic is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, the title is misleading as it implies that the perpetrators were not also Iraqi, which is factually incorrect. Skitash (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article in fact does have reliable sources such as Human rights watch, amnesty international but i will add more cause of this. And what do you mean the perpatrators were also iraqi what is your evidence? It makes no sense to why iraqis would expell there own people DataNomad (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the article needs a few more sources i still dont see how this is reasonable to nominate it for deletion DataNomad (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's concerning that you're reintroducing material from a previously deleted article (Deportation of Iraqis), especially when the deletion was likely due to policy issues. Repeating the same content under a new title can be seen as evading consensus. Wikipedia isn't the place for pushing personal or political narratives. R3YBOl (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Zemen (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG is met, as best I can tell. There is SIGCOV from reliable sources, including news coverage of UN concerns published by Reuters, a variety of other news sources, and commentary produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While the title is bad—this should be more generally entitled something like Kirkuk expulsions (2016)—that alone is insufficient to support a deletion. I don't see a basis to believe that this article should be deleted for pushing personal or political narratives, either, as no evidence that it is doing so has been raised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article uses multiple reliable sources and keeps a neutral point and doesnt seem to have any problems at all. 185.244.152.248 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Nimal Bandara (Diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not automatically notable, just because of their appointment. Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage not press releases about them presenting their credentials. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Israel. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by secondary sources to justify WP:GNG, mostly passing mention about his post. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage by secondary sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist as a pejorative

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

This article is a POV coatrack that lacks a clearly defined scope and makes a variety of elisions. The introductory sentence, "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel treats three different terms as if they were the same and fails WP:Verifiability. Some content, if properly disentangled and if supported by quality sources, could perhaps be merged into Anti-Zionism. إيان (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved this article last year from Zio (pejorative) to Zionist as a pejorative. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For participants here, citing that the article move was the result of community discussion. Longhornsg (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg thanks for linking to it! Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge - agree w/ coatrack, this would make much more section as a subsection in Zionism/Anti-zionism etc. Would still need a rewrite e.g. why is the lead giving weight to ADL's alleging it is being used as a slur when ADL is listed on WP's unreliable sources when being used in contexts of Israel-Palestine and antisemitism? "...general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Yours ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeSchmoker saying that the ADL has a position on something is still in line with WP:NPOV, even if it can't be used as a source. I gave a longer explanation of the policy over at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be inclined to disagree given this part in the opening para of NPOV policy: "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis my own) I stand corrected in that it is not sourced in the lead (FWIW they are however explicitly cited in the Reception section) but given the results of this RfC (chiefly the part re ADL and antisemitism in the context of Zionism specifically) I would err heavily on the side of caution in giving them weight at all in this topic . Ignoring this, there are further issues with sourcing in general e.g. see the second para under History - the statistics (80% and 85% figures) are given in the cited articles but where is the rest of this paragraph coming from? I would hope maybe a couple citations have dropped off along the way but as it stands it does look like an egregious bit of synthesis. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the topic is introduced as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. What the ADL says is that this terminology is used as an antisemitic slur, or in other words a slur against Jews. "Supporters of Israel" ≠ "Jews" —This is one of the conflations/elisions central to this article's status as a POV coatrack lacking a defined scope and to why it should be deleted. إيان (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for reasons listed on the article's talk page, primarily by @Longhornsg, prior to this AfD, related to attempts to improve the article being the appropriate remedy for any concerns rather than article deletion, especially in light of the prior move discussion. To the extent this AfD is an extension of that talk page conversation, direct notification on @Longhornsg's talk page would probably have been an appropriate courtesy. Coining (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg was actually the one to suggest an AfD in that talk page discussion. After more than a week had elapsed since I asked them to provide a quality source supporting the scope of the article, of which they had assured me there were ample, I assumed they had lost interest.

If they do indeed have any of the ample reliable sources supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are still welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Politics, Judaism, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially created this article as Zio (pejorative). At some point it was changed to "Zionist as a pejorative" and seems to have taken a much broader scope than I initially intended. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD seems misplaced. The nominator is rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page. The question for AfD is whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, not whether the article has an purported POV issue, should be renamed, or how individual editors interpret the term. The concept easily meets WP:GNG. The article already includes solid coverage from academic and journalistic sources, many of which were cited during the (successful) move discussion in September 2024. AfD isn't the venue to revisit discussions that already have consensus. Let's stick to policy for notability, which this article easily meets. Longhornsg (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous of this user to characterize this as rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page when they themselves abandoned the discussion for over a week when asked to provide a single reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel.

As the first sentence of this AfD clearly states, this is not about whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, but rather that it is about a lack of a defined scope and the POV elisions thereby made. This article groups a variety of distinct terms ("Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio"), treating them as if they were the same, and discusses sources claiming they are used pejoratively for different groups ("supporters of Israel" and "Jews"). It's not an issue of notability—it's an issue of the POV, WP:OR grouping of individually attested claims as if they constituted the single topic of "Zionist as a pejorative." Additionally, which reliable source would claim that "Zionist" is a pejorative for "supporters of Israel"? Is Zionist a pejorative for Zionist?

If this user has any reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, not an issue of notability. AfD is the wrong venue. Longhornsg (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding. Longhornsg on 16 May 2025: If there's an issue with this as a topic, try your luck with WP:Afd.

There's clearly an issue with this article as a topic. That's what this AfD is explicitly about. Please stop Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT. Just admit that you don't have a single reliable source to support this as a topic with the scope defined as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. إيان (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lian Suharevich

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this teenage athlete. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Israel. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvell Software Solutions Israel

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:NCORP ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 20:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into its parent Marvell Technology per ATD and PRESERVE. Classroom example of excessive fragmentation. Thanks for nominating! gidonb (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now - Although it has since been deleted, the notability flag on the article was only placed on it on 17 May, a day before this AfD was initiated. It would be better for interested editors to be given time to improve the article first in response to the notability or other concerns, without imminent deletion hanging over the article. The notability flag should be restored, and if the article isn't improved in a meaningful amount of time, then the AfD can (and should) be reinitiated. Coining (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Not taking the ATD, given the lack of enthusiasm for it and the strong possibility that it also does not meet WP:NCORP. asilvering (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SafePeak

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

A WP:SPA article on an IT company which was active 2007-14 when it was acquired by ScaleBase, itself then acquired by ScaleArc. I placed a WP:PROD on the article in 2015, which was removed by an IP, after which the original article creator posted this message on my Talk page. The partnership announcement references fall under WP:CORPTRIV and I am not seeing evidence that the firm attained notability. A redirect to ScaleBase is a possibility, but that article may itself be suitable for AFD, and the prior Prod probably means that an AFD is the better process. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it looks like a promotional page. Otherwise move to draft, but a lot of work would need to be done. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom - also not able to find much after few searches and current source link are are not working. Asteramellus (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find much in teh way of coverage and info available is WP:CORPTRIV as noted in the nom. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ScaleBase. This is technically the correct solution under ATD and PRESERVE as the parent has an article that was not nominated alongside. ScaleBase could have been nominated, as it is most likely also NN. gidonb (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if there were evidence that the two firms had a parent-subsidiary relationship. Here, it appears ScaleBase bought up IP on SafePeak's products. The only source I can find is this listing which seems to indicate SafePeak's board making a closure decision separately after ScaleBase's demise, so I think the companies were distinct and so need separate AFD consideration. AllyD (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. Even what you describe is a significant relationship and with the existing mention (and no misspellings), it meets the (low) bar for a redirect. This takes priority over delete by ATD, PRESERVE, and CHEAP. You mentioned the option yourself: A redirect to ScaleBase is a possibility. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 21 May 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.

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 [6]. 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 all 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. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. 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]
Delete or merge all, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre - lack of significant ongoing coverage in secondary sources. Can and should be merged as recommended by nominator if not deleted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree this is routine coverage. A lethal shooting attack on a bus and passing cars such as the one discussed in this article, is not considered "routine" under our policy because it is inherently unpredictable, violent, and has lasting national or international consequences, unlike scheduled or everyday events such as press conferences, sports matches, or local awards, which the policy provides as examples for routine events. Whizkin (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, all fail WP:NEVENT. Coverage is not WP:INDEPTH. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Emil Yaqub

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

Subject does not appear to passWP:NPROF. The sources in the Arabic Wikipedia article aren’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Lebanon. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPROF Criterion 6c "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." is specific. I see no evidence of any other criteria being passed. Fails NPROF and WP:BIO 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at all. Qflib (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete this seems to be hard to evaluate due to lack of sources in English, but it seems that he has entry in this encyclopedia on Arabian linguists which indicates notability. I am not convinced that we can use google scholar to easily assess Arabic linguists as easily as scholars at a Western University. What makes me skeptical is that I could find almost no information about the Suleiman International University where he supposedly works (apparently its an online university). --hroest 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for notability is a bit higher than just having been listed in an encyclopedia, unless I'm missing something here, in which case please advise. Qflib (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the encyclopedia, if its a scholarly work I would argue that this indicates notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Arabic sources to the article. The subject has clear notability in the Arabic academic community and is the author of significant linguistic dictionaries. -- Mohammed Qays (🗣) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple reviews of at least two of those? If so, subject might be notable under Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, but otherwise, just being an author isn't sufficient to establish notability here. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mohammed Qays for non-arabic speakers, can you please elaborate a bit on the sources you added? Are they WP:RS, how are the dictionaries significant (what is their reception in the field? how is this documented with citations / reviews?). It is just really hard to make a judgement in a field and a language that I am not familiar with. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources added are 1. A link to the catalog the national library of Israel 2. An offline encyclopedia entry 3.a piece of local press coverage. None of this comes close to demonstrating a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. Mccapra (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Oman

Mohamed Al-Hashimi

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

Declined prod. The only sources are databases/results which are insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 21 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 Oman. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oman at the 1984 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oman at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oman at the 1984 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, either in this article (only database sources are cited), corresponding wikis, or elsewhere. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Zionist as a pejorative

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

This article is a POV coatrack that lacks a clearly defined scope and makes a variety of elisions. The introductory sentence, "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel treats three different terms as if they were the same and fails WP:Verifiability. Some content, if properly disentangled and if supported by quality sources, could perhaps be merged into Anti-Zionism. إيان (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I moved this article last year from Zio (pejorative) to Zionist as a pejorative. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For participants here, citing that the article move was the result of community discussion. Longhornsg (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Longhornsg thanks for linking to it! Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge - agree w/ coatrack, this would make much more section as a subsection in Zionism/Anti-zionism etc. Would still need a rewrite e.g. why is the lead giving weight to ADL's alleging it is being used as a slur when ADL is listed on WP's unreliable sources when being used in contexts of Israel-Palestine and antisemitism? "...general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Yours ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToeSchmoker saying that the ADL has a position on something is still in line with WP:NPOV, even if it can't be used as a source. I gave a longer explanation of the policy over at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would still be inclined to disagree given this part in the opening para of NPOV policy: "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis my own) I stand corrected in that it is not sourced in the lead (FWIW they are however explicitly cited in the Reception section) but given the results of this RfC (chiefly the part re ADL and antisemitism in the context of Zionism specifically) I would err heavily on the side of caution in giving them weight at all in this topic . Ignoring this, there are further issues with sourcing in general e.g. see the second para under History - the statistics (80% and 85% figures) are given in the cited articles but where is the rest of this paragraph coming from? I would hope maybe a couple citations have dropped off along the way but as it stands it does look like an egregious bit of synthesis. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the topic is introduced as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. What the ADL says is that this terminology is used as an antisemitic slur, or in other words a slur against Jews. "Supporters of Israel" ≠ "Jews" —This is one of the conflations/elisions central to this article's status as a POV coatrack lacking a defined scope and to why it should be deleted. إيان (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for reasons listed on the article's talk page, primarily by @Longhornsg, prior to this AfD, related to attempts to improve the article being the appropriate remedy for any concerns rather than article deletion, especially in light of the prior move discussion. To the extent this AfD is an extension of that talk page conversation, direct notification on @Longhornsg's talk page would probably have been an appropriate courtesy. Coining (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Longhornsg was actually the one to suggest an AfD in that talk page discussion. After more than a week had elapsed since I asked them to provide a quality source supporting the scope of the article, of which they had assured me there were ample, I assumed they had lost interest.

If they do indeed have any of the ample reliable sources supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are still welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Politics, Judaism, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially created this article as Zio (pejorative). At some point it was changed to "Zionist as a pejorative" and seems to have taken a much broader scope than I initially intended. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD seems misplaced. The nominator is rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page. The question for AfD is whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, not whether the article has an purported POV issue, should be renamed, or how individual editors interpret the term. The concept easily meets WP:GNG. The article already includes solid coverage from academic and journalistic sources, many of which were cited during the (successful) move discussion in September 2024. AfD isn't the venue to revisit discussions that already have consensus. Let's stick to policy for notability, which this article easily meets. Longhornsg (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous of this user to characterize this as rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page when they themselves abandoned the discussion for over a week when asked to provide a single reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel.

As the first sentence of this AfD clearly states, this is not about whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, but rather that it is about a lack of a defined scope and the POV elisions thereby made. This article groups a variety of distinct terms ("Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio"), treating them as if they were the same, and discusses sources claiming they are used pejoratively for different groups ("supporters of Israel" and "Jews"). It's not an issue of notability—it's an issue of the POV, WP:OR grouping of individually attested claims as if they constituted the single topic of "Zionist as a pejorative." Additionally, which reliable source would claim that "Zionist" is a pejorative for "supporters of Israel"? Is Zionist a pejorative for Zionist?

If this user has any reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, not an issue of notability. AfD is the wrong venue. Longhornsg (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding. Longhornsg on 16 May 2025: If there's an issue with this as a topic, try your luck with WP:Afd.

There's clearly an issue with this article as a topic. That's what this AfD is explicitly about. Please stop Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT. Just admit that you don't have a single reliable source to support this as a topic with the scope defined as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. إيان (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdeen Kiswani

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

This article does not contain many actions done by NK, mostly things that have happened to her.

The subject of this article largely organizes local, student protests and does not meet the standards of WP:N. We do not have a wikipedia page for every student activist.

Often this article focuses on the actions of other, notable entities, such as Act.IL, rather than the actions of NK. We're left with a persecutory narrative of a student organizer that flirts between WP:PROMO and WP:SCANDAL via the actions of more notable entities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotanorange~enwiki (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Palestine, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BASIC, Kiswani is clearly notable, as evidenced by substantial coverage in multiple RS, including NYT, The Forward, Middle East Eye, Al Jazeera, Times of Israel, NBC News, etc. Rainsage (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frivolous AfD after much disruptive editing and repeated, unsuccessful POV pushing. إيان (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage across many established national sources, this NYT piece is especially in-depth. Subject is clearly not run of the mill student activist or only of local interest. Zzz plant (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage from both sides of the aisle (Mondoweiss and Jerusalem Post) among many other RS. Furthermore there are many non-WOL notable details about her in this article. Closetside (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

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

The community has expressed opposition to the misleading use of the country infobox at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. This spirit of this argument against misleading presentation extends to the wider article in this case. The core of this article is an unattributed WP:CFORK of Jund Ansar Allah. Much of the content is taken from there, and its conversion to imitate a country article is misleading to readers as per the RfC. The article presents a one day standoff in a mosque as a country. Development of the shifted material has furthered this. For example, that the entity "Collapsed" is stated in the lead and reinforced by the body, but there was never an entity that existed to collapse. Categories such as Category:Former countries in Asia are entirely inappropriate. The sources in the article, which mostly come from the Jund Ansar Allah article, are about Jund Ansar Allah and the Battle of Rafah (2009). They do not support the claim there was actually an independent state for one day. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Hi CMD. I've edited this article before, and IIRC, there were sources or other information on this article that I read that verified that JAA did declare a separate emirate, but obviously they're not on the page anymore if they were. I need to do some more research to come to a definitive conclusion, but I think given that the Battle of Rafah and the Emirate cannot really be contextually divorced from one another, it makes sense to merge and redirect this article into the battle of Rafah article. This is just speculating, but I think all three could possibly be merged into the JAA article. I need to do more research overall though. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clear the JAA "declared" a separate emirate; that's a different claim than supposing that this declaration actually created an emirate. I have done a bit of looking into whether the Battle of Rafah (2009) could be merged, and it probably could, but it does not have the same contextual issues as this article. CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: would your argument also apply to the Democratic Republic of Yemen article, which is about only a declared entity that wasn't really established? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible similar arguments might figure out into exactly how to present the information, but it seems to be very dissimilar situation to the article at hand. CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon:, reading your comment, would you accept merging Islamic Emirate of Rafah into Jund Ansar Allah at a minimum? Longhornsg (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I think that would benefit the subject of both articles Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into battle of Rafah 2009 JaxsonR (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i mean JAA JaxsonR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah, as this is a blip in JAA's history that warrants coverage on the militant organization's page, no more. Longhornsg (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think the Battle of Rafah (2009) article could be merged as well? Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no JaxsonR (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah per @Longhornsg's reasoning Evaporation123 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge target articles suggested and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 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 [7]. 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 all 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. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. 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]
Delete or merge all, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre - lack of significant ongoing coverage in secondary sources. Can and should be merged as recommended by nominator if not deleted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree this is routine coverage. A lethal shooting attack on a bus and passing cars such as the one discussed in this article, is not considered "routine" under our policy because it is inherently unpredictable, violent, and has lasting national or international consequences, unlike scheduled or everyday events such as press conferences, sports matches, or local awards, which the policy provides as examples for routine events. Whizkin (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, all fail WP:NEVENT. Coverage is not WP:INDEPTH. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

</noinclude>

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Mahmoud Al-Zabramawi

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

Declined prod. The only sources are databases/results which are insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 21 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 Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1976 Summer Olympics: Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, either here (where the only sources are databases), the corresponding wikis, or elsewhere. Redirect as a WP:ATD, but oppose merging of any content since his result is already included there. Let'srun (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1976 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no IRS SIGCOV has been identified. Also oppose merging, per Let'srun. JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aramco Financial Services Company

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

Insufficient independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:GNG; sourcing relies heavily on the parent company (Saudi Aramco) business reporting. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Saudi Arabia. AndesExplorer (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Certificate of Financial Responsibility written in 2014. Aramco Financial Services Company was written in 2006 and seems to be about the same subject matter. However, Certificate of Financial Responsibility seems to make more sense. In the long run, I'm not sure this subject matter is worthy of an article. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saad bin Abdulaziz Al Qanbar

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

Deprodded without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

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

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real, Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition is like saying that Manbij Military Council should not exist because of the city of Manbij you have to learn to differentiate between city or locality and armed forces Farcazo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying another editor "has to learn" something is casting aspersions. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to insult him, he just has to differentiate between a city and an armed group. Farcazo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I responded to the WP:GOCE copy edit request without realising it was up for deletion; I have assessed it as Stub, added a category and some minor fixes to the prose. I don't see any good reason to delete it, and I would tend to agree with Farcazo's point that the article for the Sheikh Maqsood locality should be separate from one about its armed militia. This is exacerbated by the fact that the locality article is almost entirely about the civil war, and barely mentions anything about its population, geography, amenities, landmarks, etc. that one would expect of a locality article. Perhaps instead of deleting this article, it could absorb more material from the locality article. — Jon (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he should stay because Sheikh Maqsoud is not the same as the militias that are there (that was what I tried to explain to Azuredivay but The Bushranger accused me of supposedly insulting him) and change the city's page, as you say, it has nothing to do with the city (neither its tourist sites nor its climate) and only with the Syrian civil war, I plan to merge the page with Ashrafieh Liberation Forces. Farcazo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

(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. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Death toll is not notability without sustained and in depth sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera: [8] Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete World-wide flash-in-the-pan coverage is not extended coverage, which is what WP:GNG actually calls for. It's depressing that accidents involving Muslim pilgrims in Saudi Arabia are all too common, but each individual such accident is a datum, not an event of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received widespread coverage outside of region.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with proposed deletion tags

Syria

Ali Mahmoud (military officer)

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

Per WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Farcazo (talk) 22:54, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality

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

The article is largely copied from elsewhere, with the copyvio tool showing a 74.4% similarity with existing sources. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. Skitash (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The copyvio is only of 2 paragraphs that can be removed. You didn't show anything about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH on the talkpage so I cant really talk about that. But, this topic is really notable and has lots of RSs reporting on it and deserves an article of its own. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that much more of the article is copied from sources that aren't flagged by copyvio tools, such as Google Books. Also, large portions appear to be copied from other Wikipedia articles (such as Presidency of Hafez al-Assad) without attribution.
WP:SYNTH/WP:OR claims include things like:
- "Assad's skill as a cool, proud, tough, and shrewd negotiator in the post war period enabled him to gain the town of Kuneitra and the respect and admiration of many Arabs"
- "Syrian Ba'ath Movement ideologically elevated Hafez al-Assad as its 'Immortal', 'god-like figure'"
- "Arab Socialist Ba'ath party initially manufactured Hafez al-Assad's cult of Arab socialist heroism in consultancy with Soviet state propagandists, mimicking the pervasive personality cults prevalent across Soviet Bloc dictatorships like Romania and North Korea"
- "In schools, children were taught to sing songs of adulation about Hafez al-Assad. Teachers began each lesson with the song 'Our eternal leader, Hafez al-Assad'"
And more. All of these are either unsourced, not directly supported by the sources, or poorly sourced (i.e. lacking page numbers). Skitash (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

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

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real, Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition is like saying that Manbij Military Council should not exist because of the city of Manbij you have to learn to differentiate between city or locality and armed forces Farcazo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying another editor "has to learn" something is casting aspersions. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to insult him, he just has to differentiate between a city and an armed group. Farcazo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I responded to the WP:GOCE copy edit request without realising it was up for deletion; I have assessed it as Stub, added a category and some minor fixes to the prose. I don't see any good reason to delete it, and I would tend to agree with Farcazo's point that the article for the Sheikh Maqsood locality should be separate from one about its armed militia. This is exacerbated by the fact that the locality article is almost entirely about the civil war, and barely mentions anything about its population, geography, amenities, landmarks, etc. that one would expect of a locality article. Perhaps instead of deleting this article, it could absorb more material from the locality article. — Jon (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he should stay because Sheikh Maqsoud is not the same as the militias that are there (that was what I tried to explain to Azuredivay but The Bushranger accused me of supposedly insulting him) and change the city's page, as you say, it has nothing to do with the city (neither its tourist sites nor its climate) and only with the Syrian civil war, I plan to merge the page with Ashrafieh Liberation Forces. Farcazo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Dogan Kımıllı

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also violates WP:CoI. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Architecture, and Turkey. Kadı Message 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. In theory, a mayor of a city of 250,000 people could be notable, but the SPA who created this mess is not helpful. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per faliure of WP:GNG and lack of WP:SIGCOV, which the refs are not.

Nurettin Güven

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

When doing WP:Before this person appears to not fulfill WP:BIO. The coverage that does exist in RS appears to link them to speculative allegations of serious crimes, but these are only allegations, which is not enough to fulfill WP:BIO. Nayyn (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Crime. Nayyn (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources on this exist. None of the sources in use in this article support 99% of the text in this article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Wiki page has its sources, no reason for deletion, Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources, Aboona 2008 devotes an entire section spanning several pages to "Armed Revolt at Asheetha, November 1843". The Seyfo Center devotes 3 paragraphs to a revolt in 1843. Nala4u.com seems to be of dubious reliability, and citations 2-5 are incomplete to the point of being almost useless, but I think there's enough to go on from the first two to surmise that additional sources likely exist, albeit potentially using different spellings of Ashitha and not necessarily calling it "Revolt" in a canonical sense. The article does indulge in unencyclopedic tone, although it is worth noting that our best source thus far, Aboona 2008, does describe atrocities at length. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It has good sources describing in detail what happened and it was an important event that took place in Hakkari in the 1800s. Termen28 (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Üyar

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

Previously deleted and salted at Emir Uyar... still doesn't seem to have significant coverage with most publications writing about his relationship with Adriana Lima. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Turkey. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obvious blatant circumvention of salt. Aintabli (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support salting this too for obvious reasons. Aintabli (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

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

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real, Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition is like saying that Manbij Military Council should not exist because of the city of Manbij you have to learn to differentiate between city or locality and armed forces Farcazo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying another editor "has to learn" something is casting aspersions. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to insult him, he just has to differentiate between a city and an armed group. Farcazo (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I responded to the WP:GOCE copy edit request without realising it was up for deletion; I have assessed it as Stub, added a category and some minor fixes to the prose. I don't see any good reason to delete it, and I would tend to agree with Farcazo's point that the article for the Sheikh Maqsood locality should be separate from one about its armed militia. This is exacerbated by the fact that the locality article is almost entirely about the civil war, and barely mentions anything about its population, geography, amenities, landmarks, etc. that one would expect of a locality article. Perhaps instead of deleting this article, it could absorb more material from the locality article. — Jon (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he should stay because Sheikh Maqsoud is not the same as the militias that are there (that was what I tried to explain to Azuredivay but The Bushranger accused me of supposedly insulting him) and change the city's page, as you say, it has nothing to do with the city (neither its tourist sites nor its climate) and only with the Syrian civil war, I plan to merge the page with Ashrafieh Liberation Forces. Farcazo (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fintilect

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

Non-notable software company. Routine coverage like M&As, renaming, investments, are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. UPE history is another issue. Gheus (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after article rescue work (again). Any recent UPE work (if that's what it was) had already been reverted by the nominator. Restore former material of historical interest, e.g. OS/2 software as highlighted in the previous AFD. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found anything outside of primary sources and routine business announcements. Many sources are "fintech" focused and I tend to view such sources with the same skepticism as crypto focused sites. I haven't found much in the way of notability for the previous iterations of the company either. The sources on the historic article don't seem to meet reliability or notability requirements either. The old page seems like a relic of a more lenient era of wikipedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable and does not have wide coverage in RS. Reads like a promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom: Absolutely promotional. Check this out: Fintilect is a group of fintech companies. Enter the source (UK FinTech) "...cementing its position as one of the largest global digital banking software providers". Not bragging are we? -- Otr500 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient media presence for a socialite, akin to Kardashians, "notable for being notable". --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

United Arab Emirates

CAFU (company)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. I find it rather concerning that an article like this was accepted in AfC. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, this nomination borders on the frivolous. CNBC? Check. Arabian Business? Check. The National;Emirates 24/7; Khaleej Times all national newspapers? Check. It's not even WP:BEFORE, it's staring you in the face, right there. The article is scrappy, but deletion as eny fule no, is not cleanup. The company is notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your perspective and it has already been discussed at RS Noticeboard. Kindly refrain from continuing this line of argument in a condescending tone, as it may be perceived as disruptive. Charlie (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in that discussion, in which I note I was an enthusiastic participant, to deprecate UAE media or to treat them as generally unreliable. My line of argument, which I will feel perfectly free to continue to pursue, is that these are all RS, we clearly and unarguably pass WP:GNG and this nomination is, in that case, incorrect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Matar

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject does not meet notability criteria for academics nor for government figures. The subject's most-senior position is having been an Undersecretary in the UAE Ministry of Health and having been involved in various UAE government agencies. All the coverage of the subject are puff pieces by outlets that are not independent of the UAE government and seek to promote the UAE government's health care system. There is no RS coverage of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news. Some of what I said in the 2022 discussion is still relevant:

(from 2022) The best sources are the two-page article in Emirates Woman from 2020[9] and The Arab Weekly.[10] Her work on genetic diseases has been covered in Gulf News,[11] the article by Sarah Townsend in The National (Abu Dhabi), and the article by Asma Ali Zain in The Khaleej Times.

In addition I have added a 2023 news article from the Gulf News (cited in the article, title From grit to glory: One woman’s mission to save lives and hearts) and other stories as an indication of on-going news coverage. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are propaganda outlets for the UAE government writing puff pieces for one of its government employees and for the UAE health care system. Thenightaway (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unfortunately, there is a lack of freedom of press in the country and all local media is government owned. This is a massive problem with most articles under the project as things that would 100% be notable have their notability questioned due to the reliability of the sources. Yeah, Emirati newspapers aren't the best for their coverage and have questionable bias and puffery - however, this particular person does have extensive coverage by Emirati newspapers AND publications from outside. The Arab Weekly, Cambridge University Press, this book, and Trade Arabia. Not to mention, she's won and been nominated for a few awards. jolielover♥talk 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Either I get permission to stubify this page, or we delete it as WP:TNT. Underneath the wreckage of self-promotion and nonsense appears to be a notable person. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG; deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Subject as discussed is notable. The consensus seems to be keep. It might require a cleanup with editing promotional tone out to meet npov. Also, hoping further discussion to discuss the suggestion by Bearian with focus on promotional tone and re-writing this. All other suggestions are welcome as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly baffled. The consensus is clearly to keep. The cleanup issues are not a matter for AfD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep I feel like we aren't all looking at the same article. The sources are sufficient and I do not read the article as being "self promotion". Any hyperbole that I see comes directly from the sources. In terms of "senior positions", I admit my knowledge of the local scientific arena is nil, but I found "Dr Maryam Matar, Chairperson, UAE Genetic Diseases Association Dubai, and "Dr Maryam Matar, Director General of the Community Development Authority". The article itself already says "Matar founded and directs the UAE Genetic Diseases Association." Lamona (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am unable to find any RS stating that the subject is not notable. ZachH007 (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A suite of substantial, independent RS – full-length The National feature (2017), Emirates Woman “Power Issue” profile (2020), Entrepreneur ME cover story (2024) and a 2025 Forbes Middle East ranking – plus scholarly treatment in Cambridge UP’s A Quiet Revolution? (2017) together satisfy WP:GNG, while her tenure as the UAE’s first female director-general and under-secretary for health meets WP:NPOL #1. Pollia (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Nation

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are PR stuff and no coverage from independent reliable sources, fails NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article reads like an advertisement for the company ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject is a UAE-based collective management organization that has received significant coverage from industry sources like Billboard, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article can be further revised for tone and neutrality. Cleanup or advert tagging would be more appropriate than deletion. Subject has no relationship to past deleted articles titles "Music Nation". Mrmctorso (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article with templates pointing out the promotional content. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a company which means it must meet WP:NCORP. In order to do so, there must be sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I can only find routine coverage such as this and mentions such as this, all of which do not add up to the coverage necessary for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User comment – If consensus leans toward deletion, I would prefer that the article be moved to draftspace rather than deleted outright. The article is based on verifiable, independent sources and documents a legitimate public–private rights initiative in the UAE. There will be opportunities to improve with additional coverage. Mrmctorso (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is that there is no additional coverage. This would fall under WP:OVERCOME. If the sources existed, I would gladly clean up per WP:HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen