Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch

Middle East

[edit]

The Will (1905 book)

[edit]
The Will (1905 book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you attempt a WP:BEFORE check? Because given the circumstances about who wrote this book I would be astonished if it wasn't notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be good to search in Urdu. As far as notability goes, per his bibliography page the guy was fairly prolific with his writings, publishing about 60-80 works that were eventually collected into 23 volumes. In my experience with religious writings, when someone puts out that much work the coverage tends to focus on the overall themes and styles in their writing rather than individual pieces. It's possible that there is coverage, so a search should be done, but I will say that so far I'm not pulling up much. A lot of it goes to SPS or are false positives.
Offhand my thought is to redirect to the bibliography page, where there's already a general overview of his writings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography. Barring there being sourcing in Urdu (original language of the work per the article), I just don't see where this specific work is independently notable from the author and his body of work. This figure was very prolific and as often tends to be the case with prolific religious figures, the work tends to be examined as a whole rather than in the individual parts so it's rare to see anything covered in enough individual depth to justify separate articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arba'in fi Ahwal-al-Mahdiyin

[edit]
Al-Arba'in fi Ahwal-al-Mahdiyin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. 0 sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country deletion sorting

[edit]

Bahrain

[edit]

Big Brother: The Boss

[edit]
Big Brother: The Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that this is not notable here. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 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) 02:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain Proposed deletions

[edit]


Egypt

[edit]

Ausar Auset Society

[edit]
Ausar Auset Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the chapter devoted to this in a Routledge book and the Encyclopedia source are enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also [1] [2] [3].
This group appears in basically every significant NRM encyclopedia - quite absurd for us not to have it! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also [4] [5] [6] [7]
This fulfills WP:GNG. WP:NORG explicitly says it does not apply to religions, but even if it did it would pass that too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above argument and sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, that's this. Definitely significant coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Right now the page has been around since 2005. But it looks so underdeveloped. Some previous revisions had more content about the movement but not much citation. As such it make more sense as a section than a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)
Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the development of the article. As far as I know, stubs aren’t against the rules - a section on what? That argument would make sense if you are proposing a merge, but you are not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's clearly enough sourcing to make a detailed article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Proposed deletions

[edit]


Iran

[edit]

Behzad Rafigh Doust

[edit]
Behzad Rafigh Doust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails both WP:NKICK and WP:MMA with only 1 pro Mma fight. The article has atrocious citations. I checked all of them and removed 95% of them. What is left are fight results with only his name mention, no significant coverage. As much as I love that the subject is a Lethwei coach, the award by Lethwei World itself is not sufficient enough to justify the standalone article. I cannot find any significant coverage about the subject, fails WP:GNG. Here is a brief analysis of the citations:

  • Profile on muaythaitv used 3 times: h
ttps://muaythaitv.us/fighters/behzad-rafigh-doust-f3980.html

In addition, the article has been written by User:MMA Kid, a sockpuppet of JRM2018 who is blocked indefinitely.

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

[edit]
Battle of Erzurum (1821) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Golshani

[edit]
Mehdi Golshani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication of notability as per WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. The subject probably passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a legislative body SCCR, but it's good to reach a clearer consensus. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, WP:SK3. What is the point of starting an AfD when the nomination statement itself states that the subject probably passes a notability criterion, WP:NPOL? But for the record I think he also has a good case for WP:PROF #C2 (Templeton prize), #C3 (Academy of Sciences of Iran), and #C5 (distinguished professor), so the nomination claim of "no indication of notability" through academic notability is both a WP:VAGUEWAVE and completely erroneous. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein. As for #C5 I couldn't find any independent sources for the distinction claim. As for #C2 how is "winner of a course program" and a "former judge" notable? As for #C3 it has hundreds of members most of which are not notable. So I don't think it passes WP:PROF as suggested. Xpander (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point. Why would you nominate a former member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution for deletion when you say yourself that it's enough for NPOL? People who are notable need only be notable for one thing; even if you don't believe he is notable as an academic, notability as a politician is enough. For that matter, he's also likely not notable as an athlete (because we have no record of any athletic accomplishments) nor as a musician (likewise); do you think that should be a valid rationale to delete someone notable as a politician? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Eppstein I certainly respect your points. The issue with SCCR is that it is not a de jure legislative body, and if it is, it is not a common one, i.e. as compared to the US, UK etc. where the only legislature is the Congress/Parliament/Assembly. On their website they mention:

      The duties of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution can be divided into three areas: policymaking, regulation development, and supervision[1].

      So it doesn't say lawmaking specifically, although it is mentioned in their by-law, that in case of needing law-changes they can ask the corresponding body to provide the necessary arrangements:

      Article 32 - If the Supreme Council resolution requires a law, regulation, or resources to be implemented, the matter will be sent to the head of the relevant authority or the highest official of the relevant body for legal procedures to be carried out, in order to provide the necessary arrangements.[2]

      So maybe it could be interpreted as an executive body rather than a legislative one? That's why I said probably. Some editors have rejected the notability claim based on membership of this body. So the rationale was to reach as clear a consensus as possible. Xpander (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "درباره شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  2. ^ "شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی". sccr.ir. Retrieved 2025-04-06.

Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821)

[edit]
Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-WP:NOTABLE article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. In that section, I originally proposed to simply redirect this to its main article Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and move its sourced content over there (another user suggested a merge, same same I guess). However, now taking another look at this article and the war article, I guess a deletion nomination is for the best, since this event is described in mere 2 lines in the "Ottoman invasion of Qajar lands" section, which lacks context. The "Qajar counterattack" section (not event part of this event) is already somewhat described in the war article. And most importantly of all, there is no special event named "Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands" in WP:RS, this is a invented name. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You are angry with me and want to be hostile to me. Let me create my page. Don't worry about me. I have read more about the Qajar-Ottoman war than you, don't worry. Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafasir Al Quran

[edit]
Tafasir Al Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a work authored by Mulla Sadra. The book was published later by someone who compiled various aspects of Mulla Sadra's writings. In this case, I find no notability for the book under WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 11:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Lankaran (1812)

[edit]
Attack on Lankaran (1812) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. Just another article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. Basically to get an easy win or "point" for the involved faction. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the sources and read a little about the Qajar-Russian war, you will understand that the war was real. But you will not be able to understand this because you plan to destroy the work of others and delete their pages. Eminİskandarli (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bickering is unacceptable and if it continues, it could lead to a loss of editing privileges. Please discuss the notability of the article and the reliability and quality of its sources and additional sources you have found and brought to this discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum where editors insult each other. Got it? Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then, can I tell you about the sources? There is a lot of information about this war, but it has not been added to Wikipedia. Historyofiran is just talking nonsense. Eminİskandarli (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom and failure of article creator (now blocked for incivility) to justify notability apart from battleground ranting and gaslighting throughout the discussion. Borgenland (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Alves (footballer, born 1982)

[edit]
Felipe Alves (footballer, born 1982) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:COOKIE sportsman who failed WP:NSPORT and WP:BEFORE. PROD failed because Geschichte (talk · contribs) thought Alves' career might indicate significant coverage, but I see it as subjective importance and doesn't actually adhere to WP:SIGCOV. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Proposed deletions

[edit]


Iraq

[edit]


Israel

[edit]

Richard Medhurst

[edit]
Richard Medhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Near zero independent third-party WP:RSes - article is substantially sourced to self-sources and non-RSes that are not sufficient for a WP:BLP. There are a couple of RSes, but that would make this a WP:BLP1E. No evidence here that this article meeds WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE did not turn up third-party RS coverage that would meet the requirements of the WP:BLP policy. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. PROD removed but without fixing the referencing issue - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who deprodded the page and I had added 3 sources including articles from Kronen Zeitung (02/25) & The Times of Israel (08/24). This was clearly not a PRODable article.... MUCH more exists. What single event? His arrest in Heathrow in August 2024? part of the coverage is about it. (a lot) https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/europe/artc-un-commentateur-politique-britannique-anti-israelien-detenu-a-l-aeroport-de-heathrow https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/-trying-to-make-an-example-out-of-me-british-journalist-fears-uk-using-his-arrest-to-silence-dissent/3314071 etc etc Not all. Other arrests, other events are also covered in a variety of languages and sources: https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/02/07/richard-medhurst-austria/ https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/02/austrian-security-agents-raid-home-of-british-activist-over-alleged-hamas-membership/ https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/journalist-richard-medhurst-detained-in-austria-after-police https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-805467 etc, etc. Most of all, all sources (hostile, favourable or neutral) present him as a well-known critic of Israel/defender of the Palestinian cause. -Mushy Yank. 00:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9 July 2024 Gaza attacks

[edit]
9 July 2024 Gaza attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no there there. This seems to be a few attacks that happened on a particular day during the midst of a war. It doesn't seem to be at all notable beyond a few "breaking news" announcements. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING.

Update -- based on the new information, I support the merge proposed below. The timeline is pretty much a list of attacks per days which suits this nicely. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also convinced that a merge, in light of recent information, is the best !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

[edit]
2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).
The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[9] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[10] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.
And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > The newspaper coverage is primary...
    I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct.  Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:
    "A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"
    Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
    In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.
    -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:
In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.
https://archive.is/CzIV8
Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence
Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/
The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's look at each of these:
  1. The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. Red XN
  2. The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Red XN
  3. The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. Red XN
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.
It only requires a few things:
  • At least one step removed from an event
  • Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas
And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:
  • Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument
Do you have a different understanding of the word?
And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?
    Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.
    As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. Red XN Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
      "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."
      But there's also this qualification:
      "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."
      I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
      "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news
      So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
      "This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'
      By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.

      Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 .

      Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [11] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.


Jordan

[edit]


Kuwait

[edit]


Lebanon

[edit]

Libnan (Lydia Canaan song)

[edit]
Libnan (Lydia Canaan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article on Libnan (Lydia Canaan song) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for music-related topics as outlined in WP:NOTMUSIC. The song has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and its only notable mention is its use in a Lebanon tourism commercial. This does not satisfy the requirements for standalone articles, such as having won a major award or being an official anthem of a notable entity, as described in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC.

Additionally, the article appears to violate WP:PROMO by adopting a promotional tone, emphasizing the song's association with the commercial and awards without independent verification. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV. Allowing this article sets a precedent where every soundtrack for every tourism commercial could be eligible for inclusion, which undermines Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and encyclopedic content.

For these reasons, deletion is warranted to uphold Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality. Mesoutopia (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Maronite flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969 TT me 10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diff of additions since the redirect. It looks like several sources have been added. "Complete Flags of the World" is a one-sentence mention that the cedar tree has long been a symbol of the Maronites. "The orange and the ‘Cross in the Crescent’: imagining Palestine in 1929" is a good journal article, but where it mentions Maronites it is mainly focused on the cedar symbol and how it ended up on the Lebanese flag. "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" is the same, explaining why the modern Lebanese flag has a cedar on it. "Double vision in Beirut" is a one-sentence mention in an opinion piece. Page 262 of "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World" does describe a "Maronite flag", but doesn't seem to (from my searching in the Google Books preview) spend more than a sentence describing the flag itself. "Flags and arms across the world" seems to have almost exactly the same text as "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?", which does mention that the Maronites used a white flag with a cedar on it but not much more. I can't search in the "National Eucharistic Congress" source and jeancharaf.org seems to be a dead link. Searching for "drapeau" in "Voyage en Orient, Volume 1: Les femmes de Caire; Druses et Maronites", the only mention about this subject seems to be the sentence "Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs." This sentence doesn't have any context and is very confusing to me – I suspect there was an accompanying image not present in the linked version. The last two sources are cited for mentions of the flag, not analysis, so I presume they contain none.
Some of these sources may already have been present in the pre-redirect version, it's hard to tell. Anyhow, I still don't think the concept of a Maronite flag has received any coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in sources explaining how the modern Lebanese flag came to be. Thus, I still believe this should be redirected to Flag of Lebanon. Toadspike [Talk] 17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charaf’s source is available via archive as sourced and National Eucharistic Congress is open to search. As for Nerval you have to read the entire quote: “—Allez où vous voudrez, dit-il; tous ces gens là sont fort paisibles depuis que nous sommes chez eux. Autrement, il aurait fallu vous battre pour les uns ou pour les autres, pour la croix blanche ou pour la main blanche. Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs.” Red Phoenician (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the Wikipedia policy for dealing with this situation? Should @Red Phoenician have gone to deletion review even though the page was not actually deleted but rather redirected? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review (DRV) is only for reviewing whether the close accurately reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, not for relitigating the issues discussed in the AfD, so it is probably not what what Red Phoenician was aiming for. Also, if the recreated page is a duplicate of the original, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:G4, but the new sources probably make this different enough that G4 does not apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD had a clear consensus to redirect, and I don't think it should be possible to overturn it in this way (with limited engagement with the new AfD) without the restorer of the redirect having made any effort to demonstrate that the changes to the article now establish notability. I.e. I don't think it makes sense to close this as "no consensus" simply due to lack of participation, since there is a preexisting consensus. Stockhausenfan (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The original reasoning was that there were not enough sources to back the existence of a flag. Now that there are plentiful sources on multiple flags the goalposts have been changed to require sources of even more detail. Must there be an entire book dedicated to the history of the Maronite flag? The sources include many vexillological books/articles which should be adequate. Furthermore the claim that the Maronite flag is identical to the Lebanese flag is disingenuous for two reasons. Firstly, it implies that Lebanon and its flag were created solely for the Maronites and disenfranchises other religious groups of Lebanon. Secondly, this implies that the Maronite Cross flag and flag under Bashir Shihab II have any relation with the Lebanese flag which is not true and to paint them as such would be misinformation. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flag of Lebanon: and page-protect so that we don't have to go through this yet again four months from now. Consensus was very clear in the November AfD, and none of the facts or sources have changed to vacate our previous decision. I assumed good faith in the previous AfD, but can't see this as anything other than POV-pushing now. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This page has enough sources to justify its existence
Maropedia1 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Flag of Lebanon, though we still need an analysis of the Charaf source mentioned above. Red Phoenecian's clarification concerning the Nerval source does not change the assessment that the mention in this source is only passing and not enough to establish notability. Although there has been a flurry of keep votes recently, I'm still of the opinion that the arguments they presented are not substantial enough to overturn the preexisting consensus established in the earlier AfD. Stockhausenfan (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Oman

[edit]


Palestine

[edit]

Richard Medhurst

[edit]
Richard Medhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Near zero independent third-party WP:RSes - article is substantially sourced to self-sources and non-RSes that are not sufficient for a WP:BLP. There are a couple of RSes, but that would make this a WP:BLP1E. No evidence here that this article meeds WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE did not turn up third-party RS coverage that would meet the requirements of the WP:BLP policy. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. PROD removed but without fixing the referencing issue - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who deprodded the page and I had added 3 sources including articles from Kronen Zeitung (02/25) & The Times of Israel (08/24). This was clearly not a PRODable article.... MUCH more exists. What single event? His arrest in Heathrow in August 2024? part of the coverage is about it. (a lot) https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/europe/artc-un-commentateur-politique-britannique-anti-israelien-detenu-a-l-aeroport-de-heathrow https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/-trying-to-make-an-example-out-of-me-british-journalist-fears-uk-using-his-arrest-to-silence-dissent/3314071 etc etc Not all. Other arrests, other events are also covered in a variety of languages and sources: https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/02/07/richard-medhurst-austria/ https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/02/austrian-security-agents-raid-home-of-british-activist-over-alleged-hamas-membership/ https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/journalist-richard-medhurst-detained-in-austria-after-police https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-805467 etc, etc. Most of all, all sources (hostile, favourable or neutral) present him as a well-known critic of Israel/defender of the Palestinian cause. -Mushy Yank. 00:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9 July 2024 Gaza attacks

[edit]
9 July 2024 Gaza attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no there there. This seems to be a few attacks that happened on a particular day during the midst of a war. It doesn't seem to be at all notable beyond a few "breaking news" announcements. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING.

Update -- based on the new information, I support the merge proposed below. The timeline is pretty much a list of attacks per days which suits this nicely. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, also convinced that a merge, in light of recent information, is the best !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

[edit]
2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).
The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[12] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[13] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.
And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    > The newspaper coverage is primary...
    I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct.  Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:
    "A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"
    Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
    In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.
    -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:
In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.
https://archive.is/CzIV8
Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence
Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/
The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let's look at each of these:
  1. The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. Red XN
  2. The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Red XN
  3. The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. Red XN
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.
It only requires a few things:
  • At least one step removed from an event
  • Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas
And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:
  • Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument
Do you have a different understanding of the word?
And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?
    Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.
    As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. Red XN Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
      "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."
      But there's also this qualification:
      "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."
      I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
      "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news
      So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
      "This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'
      By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.

      Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69 .

      Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [14] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

Deletion Review

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16. (edit | history)
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


</noinclude>


Qatar

[edit]


Saudi Arabia

[edit]

AfD debates

[edit]

Abdul Wahab Naser Al-Safra

[edit]
Abdul Wahab Naser Al-Safra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The 2 added sources don't really contribute to notability. The arabnews story is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. The Olympiads.sa source appears to be a primary source of the athlete's Olympic Federation. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

[edit]
Big Brother: The Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that this is not notable here. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 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) 02:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with proposed deletion tags

[edit]


Syria

[edit]

Richard Medhurst

[edit]
Richard Medhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Near zero independent third-party WP:RSes - article is substantially sourced to self-sources and non-RSes that are not sufficient for a WP:BLP. There are a couple of RSes, but that would make this a WP:BLP1E. No evidence here that this article meeds WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:GNG. A quick WP:BEFORE did not turn up third-party RS coverage that would meet the requirements of the WP:BLP policy. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would need to be shown. PROD removed but without fixing the referencing issue - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who deprodded the page and I had added 3 sources including articles from Kronen Zeitung (02/25) & The Times of Israel (08/24). This was clearly not a PRODable article.... MUCH more exists. What single event? His arrest in Heathrow in August 2024? part of the coverage is about it. (a lot) https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/europe/artc-un-commentateur-politique-britannique-anti-israelien-detenu-a-l-aeroport-de-heathrow https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/-trying-to-make-an-example-out-of-me-british-journalist-fears-uk-using-his-arrest-to-silence-dissent/3314071 etc etc Not all. Other arrests, other events are also covered in a variety of languages and sources: https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/02/07/richard-medhurst-austria/ https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/02/austrian-security-agents-raid-home-of-british-activist-over-alleged-hamas-membership/ https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/journalist-richard-medhurst-detained-in-austria-after-police https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-805467 etc, etc. Most of all, all sources (hostile, favourable or neutral) present him as a well-known critic of Israel/defender of the Palestinian cause. -Mushy Yank. 00:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Youth and Sports (Syria)

[edit]
Ministry of Youth and Sports (Syria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created the same day this ministry was announced. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. — Anonymous 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, it may be worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Affairs Office (Syria). Similar case with an outcome of draftifying. The main difference between these two nominations is that the former was nominated about a month after creation, by which point it was clear that its coverage was not sustained. WP:Notability is not inherited, so it's wrong to assume that a government ministry is notable by virtue of being of government ministry. Rather, those in other countries have actually done something notable other than merely be announced by a shaky transitional government. — Anonymous 14:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed with the editors which argue, correctly, that WP:TOOSOON is incorrectly being argued here by the nom. The article is notable upon review and will continue to be so.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn, how exactly can we prove lasting coverage if there has been no time for lasting coverage to arise? If the entire Syrian transitional government were taken out tomorrow in an ISIS decapitation strike, would there still be users arguing against the deletion of this article? It seems a little WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume that everything this fragile transitional government does will be successful. — Anonymous 11:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the entire Syrian transitional government were taken out tomorrow in an ISIS decapitation strike", that itself might warrant a new article as worthy of being notable if reliable sources supported it as so. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn, actually, I would like to come back to your argument. What makes this ministry notable? I feel that this discussion has somewhat spiraled out of control, but I'd like to get back to your statement that this subject is already notable (because if it is, we can put this chaos behind us). All I'm seeing are a few short news stories, most of which were published by the transitional government itself and therefore should be treated as primary sources. I also brought up the very similar case of the deletion discussion for Syria's Women's Affairs Office, which had an outcome of draftify. To be clear, are you saying that the aforementioned article was wrongfully draftified, or was this somehow different? — Anonymous 11:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your take on the matter. No one would disagree that the transitional period in Syria is fragile and uncertain, especially with Israel destroying whatever's left of Syria's military infrastructure. However, the factual basis of the two new ministries(the Ministry of Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management) being established is based on the decree that was published last week and the announcement that was made the week before. That in and of itself is notable and warrants an article and therefore, meets WP:GNG guidelines (in my view, at least) and isn't speculation. To say otherwise doesn't make sense.
    Also, isn't it a bit weird to invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL to judge the success (or lack thereof) of the new government as well as thinking that a possible or potential "ISIS decapitation strike" might happen? Isn't that pure speculation by itself? Forgive me for saying this, but that, by itself, sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me.
    And even if such an event were to take place, it doesn't take away from the notability of the two new ministries being established by itself.
    And about lasting coverage and speculation, bear with me because I want to show an example:
    If a group of celebrities went skiing in somewhere like Alaska or Norway for charity and it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article being created, would it make sense to propose that the article gets deleted purely based on the notion that any or all of the celebrities might get injured during the event? No, because said event hasn't happened. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.
    If that same group of celebrities went skiing in either of those same places, but any (or all) of them do get injured in the process, should said Wikipedia article be deleted? No, because the event itself would then become notable for itself and the injuries that took place at said event. Assuming most (or all) of the the event hadn't already taken place, what could've been wouldn't apply anymore, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be documented. In other words, the two events become interlinked and can't (and really shouldn't) be separated from one another. (By the way, I don't know any Wikipedia guidelines that would refer to such a scenario because I'm new to Wikipedia.)
    Therefore, I don't think lasting coverage, or any perception of it, is relevant here.
    I agree with @Iljhgtn, by the way. If such an event were to happen, it would warrant its own article in its own right, but also, like I said before, the two events would become interlinked and therefore, can't be separated, so it still wouldn't make any sense to delete those articles.
    Note: I used the words judge, thinking, possible and potential because you're giving me an impression that you're judging the articles' notability purely based on your opinion and speculation. As far as I know, creating or deleting Wikipedia articles isn't based off of whether anyone thinks the subject matter will survive, remain stable or remain the same based off of their own viewpoints, it's based off of past and current events and how covered said events are in the media.
    In other words, deleting an article based off of uncertainty and speculation alone doesn't make sense when Wikipedia is supposed to document past and current events (and, in particular, ones that are notable).
    In my view, there's already a lot that's wrong and/or poorly researched about Syria on Wikipedia, with regards to both past and present events. We don't need articles to be deleted based off of vague and speculative notions about the current government's stability and survivability. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @~Berilo Linea~, that's an egregious and frankly rather offensive misrepresentation of what I wrote. My point is that lasting coverage is necessary for notability, and the keep votes seem to be being made under the assumption that this ministry will definitely continue to receive such coverage. I gave a rather dramatic (but not wholly impossible) example of how this coverage would fail to be achieved. I'm not saying I think this will happen. Maybe they will decide to consolidate or abolish some of these ministries. Maybe they won't. We. Don't Know. We can't predict the future. — Anonymous 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you actually addressed my point here. My point is that you want the articles about the two ministries to be deleted based off of speculation. Your point is that things may suddenly change in the future... which is speculation, regardless of how you (or I, for that matter) would put it otherwise. That's why I said that it's weird that you invoked WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is a rule against speculation... based on speculation itself, especially because you've made a not-so-different point here:
    "I gave a rather dramatic (but not wholly impossible) example of how this coverage would fail to be achieved. I'm not saying I think this will happen. Maybe they will decide to consolidate or abolish some of these ministries. Maybe they won't. We. Don't Know. We can't predict the future."
    This is speculation. You are speculating. This is what's against WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is the point I'm trying to make here and in my honest opinion, speculation isn't and shouldn't become relevant when it comes to a decision like this.
    Speaking of lasting coverage, in my opinion, I think those two ministries will receive lasting coverage since they have been formed, but that's my own opinion and my own speculation and therefore, isn't relevant. As a given, if you were right and I was wrong, there wouldn't be an entire page with the image showing the decree that forms the new government(as I've already linked in a comment I made earlier here). No such document would exist and it would be pure speculation on my end. There also would only be an announcement and there wouldn't be any decrees or other types of legislation relating to the formation of the new government that would've been published or, at least, those that wouldn't have been published already.
    Speaking more about lasting coverage, I want to make it clear that there's nothing wrong with being concerned about lasting coverage and if my comment came off as saying that there's something wrong with that, then I apologise, but I think my point still stands about lasting coverage in that it's not as relevant as you think it is and even if it was, that still doesn't justify deleting the articles in question. Wikipedia is not meant to document everything, but it is meant to keep track of changes made to subjects like government institutions, even if those changes don't last long or are very sudden. It's not a perfect point, but I'd like to refer (again) to my example about the skiing event:
    "If a group of celebrities went skiing in somewhere like Alaska or Norway for charity and it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article being created, would it make sense to propose that the article gets deleted purely based on the notion that any or all of the celebrities might get injured during the event? No, because said event hasn't happened. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.
    If that same group of celebrities went skiing in either of those same places, but any (or all) of them do get injured in the process, should said Wikipedia article be deleted? No, because the event itself would then become notable for itself and the injuries that took place at said event. Assuming most (or all) of the the event hadn't already taken place, what could've been wouldn't apply anymore, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be documented. In other words, the two events become interlinked and can't (and really shouldn't) be separated from one another."
    Finally, I apologise if my previous comment came off as offensive or a personal attack, it wasn't meant to be that way, it's just that what you're saying so far doesn't make sense to me and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, at least in my eyes. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to be patient with you because you are a new user and English may not be your first language, but this is getting rather frustrating. I think perhaps I have failed to make clear the root of this issue, so let me be absolutely clear: as of right now, nobody has demonstrated notability. All we have are a handful of short news blurbs (WP:NOTNEWS), mainly directly from the transitional government (WP:PRIMARY SOURCE). Nobody in this discussion has brought anything else to the table. All arguments are being made under the assumption that this ministry will become notable. That is what CRYSTALBALL is. It is not CRYSTALBALL to say that it is possible that such coverage will fail to be achieved. Your analogy makes absolutely no sense because you explicitly state that the skiing trip is already confirmed as being notable. Yes, notability, once established, cannot be taken away. I'm saying that the subject of this article has not yet met the criteria for notability and there is no way of knowing whether or not it will. — Anonymous 11:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be time to put away the WP:STICK and not WP:BLUDGEON the AfD. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn, so rather than address my concern, you are accusing me of acting in bad faith. Got it. The fact that no one has made any effort to prove notability is actually making me feel more confident in my nomination. — Anonymous 16:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management (Syria)

[edit]
Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management (Syria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created the same day this ministry was announced. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. — Anonymous 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:TOOSOON doesn't really apply if sources are given to support notability, it's meant for things that don't actually have coverage because it is too soon. Passes WP:GNG regardless. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 14:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See my comment here for why I object to this proposed deletion. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Turkey

[edit]

Battle of Erzurum (1821)

[edit]
Battle of Erzurum (1821) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject already discussed in the ottoman Iranian war article. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Could easily blank and redirect this instead of AFD.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative list of World Heritage Sites in Turkey

[edit]
Tentative list of World Heritage Sites in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this should be merged with the List of World Heritage Sites in Turkey, as with other country lists. Leotalk 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article to itself? mwwv converse∫edits 11:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire

[edit]
Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is blatant propaganda that utilizes almost exclusively Turkish government or gov-linked or denialist sources in order to "counter" to the Armenian Genocide "claims" as Turkey sees it. --Երևանցի talk 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , it was already discussed in previous AfD, the article is written in vague language, sources are biased, etc Athoremmes (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIASEDSOURCES are allowed. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't just biased sources, they're unreliable. The Turkish article was deleted a few days ago. tr:Ermenilerce_Türklere_yapılan_katliamlar. ----Երևանցի talk 18:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article was deleted because there was already an article for the Armenian rebellions, the log states on Trwiki. If you think sources are unreliable, you should take this to WP:RSN. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why is that? Because mainstream scholarship does not recognize "Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire" as a thing. It's nothing but cheap propaganda. ----Երևանցի talk 18:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Type "Armenian terrorism" on Google scholar and you will see how scholarship recognizes it. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Armenian terrorism" ≠ "organized massacres of Turks by Armenian revolutionaries", let alone of 518,105. ----Երևանցի talk 18:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From 1910 to 1922, Armenian bandits had killed 523,955 Ottoman Muslims.[1] (p. 92) Wallis sabiti (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, per "International Law Expert" Sadi ÇAYCI in the "Review of Armenian Studies" with a reference to the "State Archives of the Turkish Prime Ministry". sounds as reliable as it can possibly get. ----Երևանցի talk 19:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What previous AfDs? This is the first one with this title so they must be under some other title. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ “TERRORISM AND ASYMMETRIC THREAT: ACTIVITIES AGAINST TURKEY, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE 20th CENTURY TO THE PRESENT (Armenian Terror Activities and PKK Terror Organization Activities since 1915)”. Review of Armenian Studies, no. 18 (May 2008): 89-99.

Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821)

[edit]
Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands (1821) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-WP:NOTABLE article part of this "Slicing history into pieces" trend. In that section, I originally proposed to simply redirect this to its main article Ottoman–Iranian War (1821–1823) and move its sourced content over there (another user suggested a merge, same same I guess). However, now taking another look at this article and the war article, I guess a deletion nomination is for the best, since this event is described in mere 2 lines in the "Ottoman invasion of Qajar lands" section, which lacks context. The "Qajar counterattack" section (not event part of this event) is already somewhat described in the war article. And most importantly of all, there is no special event named "Ottoman occupation of southern Iranian lands" in WP:RS, this is a invented name. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You are angry with me and want to be hostile to me. Let me create my page. Don't worry about me. I have read more about the Qajar-Ottoman war than you, don't worry. Eminİskandarli (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MedArt Hair

[edit]
MedArt Hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources cited are press releases, contributors (not newspaper editorial staff), or other paid advertising. Otherwise non-notable. jellyfish ✉ 20:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan in Turkey

[edit]
Ramadan in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of a series of articles by the same editor; I'd bundle them if I knew how. All the articles are like this, they are not about Ramadan customs peculiar to one country but are merely descriptions of common customs. The long list of foods (I've edited out the more preposterous bits) are likewise merely lists of commonn foods of the country, such as (in this case) kebaps. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Islam, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prob delete - seems to me that the topic likely is notable in the sense that there probably are distinctive Turkish cultural practices during this religious time. But I'm also not convinced that the page, as it is currently framed, addresses that. Maybe someone else could try again later and make a better stab. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do the same with all the other articles (or at least draftify). Agree with nom and JMWt that, from what I know about Ramadan and Turkish culture and from looking at the sources, much of the content is pretty generic and not necessarily specific to Turkey. The sources are not the highest quality don't really specify what makes Turkish observances unique among countries. Obviously social visits and common dinners are not any different from elsewhere. The author just translated this from Arabic wiki, but it's pretty poor writing to say lentil soup or lahmacun are Ramadan food when Turks eat these every day (if I'm wrong, the article should be clearer). Ramadan#Cultural practices is quite short and should be expanded to cover the instances where there are significant practices that may not be universal, perhaps expanded to a Ramadan by country page or similar that puts differences in context, but not standalone articles. I mean, Ramadan in the United States does have a couple US-specific facts, but then generic crap that there are Tarawih prayers just like everywhere else! Reywas92Talk 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This article have been created as part of the Wiki Loves Ramadan Editathon. The articles hav been created in various languages in addition to English. Tuhin (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is covered in many English-language books, not all of which are accessible through Google Books, but here are a few: How to Be Amazing at Speaking Turkish: Mastering the Heart of Türkiye [15], beginning of Chapter 7; Intellectuals in the Modern Islamic World: Transmission, Transformation, Communication [16] (the index shows that Ramadan in Turkey is covered on page 298, which is not part of the preview); World and Its Peoples Volume 1 [17] (again, the index lists Ramadan in Turkey on page 835, which is not shown in the preview). This book Introduction to Ramadan [18] may not be reliable (it looks self-published) but has info about Ramadan in Turkey which could be used to search for other sources (eg lighting traditional Ottoman lanterns apparently called fenerbahcesi). There are also several articles and chapters - "Celebratıon of Ramadan: The Case of Turkey" [19], "Does Ramadan Affect Happiness? Evidence from Turkey" [20]; "Aspects of Underlying Ramadan Consumption Patterns in Turkey" [21]; "Evaluation of the impact of the month of Ramadan on traffic accidents" [22]; "Can Religiosity be Sensed with Satellite Data? An Assessment of Luminosity during Ramadan in Turkey" [23]; etc. The topic is clearly notable - I don't think the fact that this article could be improved and expanded is a reason to delete it. I note that this article has been translated from the corresponding article in Arabic. Turkish Wikipedia seems not to have a specific article about Ramazan in Türkiye, but the article on Ramazan has some info specific to Turkey. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Dura Bin

[edit]
Gracia Dura Bin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Non notable individual who's only source of significance is that her husband named a city after her in Florida, which is already summarized in his article (Andrew Turnbull (colonist)). Alexthegod5 (talk)[reply]

I don't know why the misspelled name is used for the article title - 18th and early 19th century sources refer to her as (Mrs) Gracia Turnbull or Maria Gracia Turnbull.
I'll try to work out how to add this to other deletion sorting lists (Greece, Florida, South Carolina) in the hope that editors who work in those areas may have access to more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Thank you for your assistance - I tried looking up the South Carolina Medical Society and found the Medical Society of South Carolina, which was founded around the same time (1789), although neither that website nor the organization's history page mention either her nor her husband. Maybe that's a good place to start looking for some other sources that mention her? Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Here's something I just found that might be a good place too, if you or someone else is able to get a copy https://www.amazon.com/MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SOUTH-CAROLINA-Hundred/dp/B000GS75JK Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband. Any more new information can be added there, and if enough is found, she could have a stand-alone article again, but it seems unlikely. Blackballnz (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Others

[edit]

United Arab Emirates

[edit]

Ali Khamis Rashid Al-Neyadi

[edit]
Ali Khamis Rashid Al-Neyadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. His international medal is from a low tier competition and not a top level competition as outlined in WP:NATH. The only third party non database source is a 1 line mention. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abdullah (Emirati athlete)

[edit]
Mohamed Abdullah (Emirati athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The added source when translated is a mere 1 line mention of this athlete and not SIGCOV. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

[edit]
Crowdfense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.
While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.
Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MySyara

[edit]
MySyara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content appears promotional in tone. Additionally, the article does not provide substantial historical context or unique insights that justify its standalone existence. Mapsama (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep subject is notable and nominator's suggestion that significant coverage from reliable sources is missing is inaccurate. Please perform WP:BEFORE before nominating. Just because the article needs work does not mean that the subject is not notable. Nayyn (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FindSALT

[edit]
FindSALT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose the deletion of the FindSALT Wikipedia page due to its lack of notability, as it relies on limited sources that do not provide substantial independent coverage or establish its significance within the restaurant industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lean Keep I lean toward keeping this article. There is independent coverage in gulf news and Conde Nast traveler. The fact that someone had to clarify that the restaurant in london is not from UAE also suggests notability to me.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Yemen

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

The result was keep‎. There is no support for deletion beyond the nominator and a robust consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabaean colonization of Africa

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sabaean colonization of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History is a high quality tertiary source that summarises the literature, and in Documentary Sources and Methods for Precolonial African History (2018) it says

Thanks to archaeological and linguistic research, scholars now know Aksum was preceded by a state in inland northern Ethiopia and Eritrea that by the first millennium bce appears in epigraphic evidence as D’MT or Daamat. Damaat, centered at Yeha, was long understood in connection with political and economic contacts with ancient Egypt and Saba in South Arabia as well as the expansion of Roman trade into the Indian Ocean in the early first millennium ce. Saba is generally associated with the biblical Sheba, the famous queen said to reign in the early 10th century bce, at the same time as Solomon. Until the 1980s, scholars viewed the emergence of the state as the consequence of the colonization of the Horn of Africa by Sabaeans from South Arabia in the early first millennium bce.

According to this narrative, South Arabians colonized indigenous populations and, after the decline of the kingdom of Saba in Yemen (4th–3rd centuries bce), they created the kingdom of Aksum in Tigray. The assumption derived from the early modern myth that Africans were not capable of producing complex states themselves, and thus state formation must have been the result of external colonization or influence.

In fact, neither archaeological, epigraphic, nor linguistic evidence supports Sabaean influence or the sudden rise of a polity that would suggest colonization. Rather, evidence demonstrates Damaat was preceded by complex societies dating back to the beginning of the third millennium bce. This is significant because it demonstrates that the formation of the states of Damaat (and later Aksum) were the result of local historical developments, likely driven by the integration of the Horn of Africa into the economic networks of the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea, a process that began in late prehistoric times, rather than external colonization or influence.

In summary, it's a colonial narrative based on the Hamitic hypothesis. The source Japp et al 2011 used to cite The Sabean colonisation of Africa was a process of colonization by Sabaeans that occurred in the Horn of Africa during the first millennium BC in the lead does not support it, the closest thing it says is

One research opinion, based on archaeological and epigraphic finds, assumes a Sabaean colonization of northern Ethiopia and Eritrea in the first millennium ВС and the South Arabian origin of the political system during that period (Bent 1893: 134-151; Anfray 1967: 49-50; 1968: 353; de Contenson 1981: 354; Fattovich 1997: 341).

, citing old sources. It’s conclusion is frankly a bit unserious and doesn’t mention colonisation. It’s almost pure grandiose speculation based on one assumption that other scholars have dismantled. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing Jstor:
Edit: these were from a survey of Jstor searching "Daamat Sabaean"
  • Fattovich 2010

    Until the 1980s, most Ethiopianists assumed that a state emerged on the highlands in Eritrea and Tigray as a consequence of a South Arabian (mainly Sabean) colonization of the northern Horn of Africa in the early 1st millennium BC. According to this reconstruction, the South Arabian colonists dominated the local populations, and after the decline of the Kingdom of Saba in Yemen in the 4th-3rd century BC they gave rise to a local kingdom with the capital at Aksum in Tigray. The Aksumite kingdom progressively incorporated the whole region into its territory and laid the foundation of the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia, which survived until the 1970s. This hypothesis was mainly based on the indisputable evidence of a South Arabian influence in Eritrea and Tigray in the mid-1st millennium BC (Conti Rossini 1928; Ullendorff 1973; Ricci 1984). Beginning in the 1960s, this narrative has been challenged by archaeological research, which suggests that the development of complex societies and states in Tigray and Eritrea was not a linear process of state formation, consolidation and decline, but consisted of at least two distinct trajectories to social complexity, indirectly related to each other, in the Eritrean-Sudanese lowlands and the Eritrean and Tigrean highlands respectively. This process was characterized by a shift in the location of complex societies from the lowlands to the highlands in the early 1st millennium BC (Fattovich 1997b).

Concludes:

At present, the development of early complex societies and states in the northern Horn of Africa can be tentatively outlined as follows: 1. In the 4th millennium BC, an incipient hierarchical society emerged along the middle Atbara valley. 2. In the early 3rd millennium BC these people moved northwards, following the progressive shift of the Gash river to the present delta, and occupied a strategic position as a gateway to the sources of frankincense, gold, and ivory in the lowlands and along the western slopes of the highlands. 3. In mid-3rd to mid-2nd millennia BC a complex society consolidated itself in the Gash Delta, and was part of an exchange circuit with Egypt, Nubia and southern Arabia. 4. Beginning in the mid-2nd millennium BC, the Gash Delta was cut off from the exchange network with Nubia and Egypt, although a hierarchical society survived in the region. At the same time people culturally related to the occupants of the Gash Delta occupied the Barka valley and acted as intermediaries between the Nile Valley and/or the coast and the highlands. 5. In the early 1st millennium BC, the progressive inclusion of the highlands into the South Arabian area of commercial expansion most likely stimulated the rise of hierarchical societies in Eritrea. 6. In the mid-1st millennium BC, an early state arose in northern Tigray and central Eritrea, maybe as a commercial partner of the Yemeni kingdom of Saba. 7. In the late 1st millennium BC, the pre-Aksumite state disappeared in Tigray. A new polity emerged at Aksum and was included into the Roman trade circuit of the Red Sea. 8. In the early to mid-1st millennium AD, the kingdom of Aksum was consolidated as a large territorial state, becoming an important commercial partner of the Roman and Byzantine empires. 9. In the late 1st millennium AD, the kingdom progressively declined, most likely because of environmental crises, migrations from the Eastern Desert, and the Arab commercial and political expansion along the Red Sea.

  • D'Andrea et al 2008 says

    Inscriptions make reference to a kingdom named Daamat, which has been described as an Ethio-Sabaean state, but the nature and extent of this polity remains uncertain (Fattovich 1988, 1990; Fattovich et al. 2000; Munro-Hay 1993). This PreAksumite kingdom had roots in local cultures but also experienced strong South Arabian cultural and economic influences (Anfray 1973; Fattovich 1988,2004; Munro-Hay 1991; D. Phillipson 1998; Curtis 2004). Recent research has proposed that the origins of social complexity in the highlands were the result of multiple factors, including increasing aridity and the elaboration of cultural exchange networks extending across eastern Africa and the Red Sea (Curtis 2007).

  • Sernicola 2021

    The nature and extent of the connections with South Arabia have also seen considerable controversies and revisions over the years. These range from the claim of a Sabaean colonisation of the northern Horn (Bent 1893; Conti Rossini 1928; Robin, de Maigret 1998)

    (citing old sources and talks about this no more)
  • Fattovich 2012

    The origin, development, and nature of the "D'MT" polity as well as itsrelation to the later kingdom of Aksum are virtually unknown, as the archaeological record is very scant and textual sources provide only fragmentary and ambiguous information (D. W. Phillipson, 2009, 2012, pp. 22-41)

At the core of the scholarly debate about "D'MT" is the role of South Arabs in the formation of this complex society. The occurrence of nine sites in central Eritrea, eastern and central Tigray with evidence of monumental buildings and artefacts in a South Arabian style, as well as Sabaic inscriptions in South Arabian script (de Contenson, 1981; Anfray1990, pp. 17-63; Fattovich, 1977, 1990a; Bernard, Drewes and Schneider, 1991tpp. 67-83; Finneran, 2007, pp. 117-141; D. W. Phillipson, 2012, pp.24-32), has suggested two different interpretations. Scholars emphasizing the South Arabian elements claim that a South Arabian tribe migrated to the Tigrean highlands and/or Sabeans colonized the region and imposed their dominion on the indigenous people in the early to mid-lst millennium BCE (Bent, 1893, pp. 134-151; Glaser, 1895; Conti Rossini, 1928, pp. 99-101; Sergew Hable Selassie, 1972, pp. 26-34; Ullendorff, 1973, p. 47; Ricci, 1984; Japp, Gerlach, Hitgen and Schnelle, 2011; Gerlach, 2012).

(citing old sources, other than Japp et al 2011 mentioned above, and Gerlach 2012)

Scholars stressing the local component (mainly pottery and lithics) of "D'MT" stress an indigenous origin of this polity, suggesting that local elite used South Arabian elements as symbols of power in the mid- 1st millennium BCE (Anfray, 1969; Schneider, 1976a; Fattovich, 1977 1990a, 2004; J. Phillips, 2004; Curtis, 2008; Manzo, 2009). According to several scholars, a few South Arabs settled in the African highlands and spread elements of their culture among the local population (Anfray, 1994; Scheneider, 2003; Fattovich, 2010).

(citing more recent sources)
  • Phillipson 2009:

    By at least the mid-eighth century bc, monumental stone architecture and inscriptions were being produced in the northern Horn, in both cases in styles very close to those used in southern Arabia, although the language of most- but not all- of the inscriptions showed significant local differences. It is probable that these elements were the prerogative of élite sectors, whose distinctiveness and prestige they served to emphasise. At this time or shortly afterwards (the date cannot be determined precisely), small numbers of immigrants from southern Arabia may have arrived in what is now Tigray. Their separate identity as a distinct population element may have been very short-lived, raising the possibility that individual specialists- e.g., masons- rather than family groups may have been involved. From this time onwards, cultural elements originating in southern Arabia seem to have been adopted by sections of the indigenous population- particularly the élite- to a very varying extent. Indeed, long-distance influences may be detected with other regions also, notably with the Nile valley. At Yeha, a scattered population seems to have been drawn together by the establishment of an élite centre. Local rulers are indicated, owing no demonstrable allegiance to contemporaries in southern Arabia. Elsewhere, as in the Asmara region, there is very little evidence for foreign cultural elements or for the presence of local élites. Stimulating suggestions by Curtis (2008) notwithstanding, the reasons for these developments remain poorly understood.

Kowal2701 (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: This WP:WALLOFTEXT afd nom with literally no arguments at all of a well sourced article that has 24 sources supporting the fact that a colonization had happened where the nominator just quotes random paragraphs from sources (some of which are almost a decade old). They completely ignored the message that I left in the talk page of this article where I brought up the fact that there was a conquest of the region by Karib'il Watar which triggered the colonization process but instead of replying, they nominated this article for deletion, placed a pov tag on the section of the sheba article where the invasion was mentioned (which was cited by new and high quality sources) and canvassed the discussion with User:Havenseye (who they know damn well that they want this article gone and had no reasons for that except that they dont like this article's existence, see Talk:Sheba#removal) and placed the exact same quote from the oxford source which has no mentions of the conquest. I also find it very weird that they had to mention that the sources they are bringing up in this discussion are "not cherrypicked" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 𐩱𐩨𐩥 𐩺𐩣𐩬 (𓃵) 19:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, per WP:APPNOTE, it is appropriate to notify users involved in previous discussions. I can only assume that if you are not WP:POVPUSHING, then you haven't read the sources on the page. They do not support a "colonisation", and the one that does is from 1895. The other one, Munro-Hay 1991, attributes what he says to Michel 1986, nearly 40 years old. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually made a mistake pinging only that user. I'd already notified Abo Yemen and assumed the other person in the discussion was a 3O based off a glance, but the 3O had been declined. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of quotations given say that no colonization happened , what they say is its disputable that this caused complexity in the area or created Dmt. The article already mentions this under Cultural features - "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do, the first quote disputes it totally. The others either say Daamat was indigenous in origin and were influenced by Sabaean culture, or that the Sabaean influence came from migrations to the region. None say there was a colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading it disputes that the rise of Dmt indicates a Sabaean colonization. And the absence of the affirmation of "colonization" is undecisive as you have selected the sources. Even if you succeed in challenging the colonization angle, the deletion is rejected as the sources like Nebes 2023 and Schulz 2024 call Dmt an Ethio-Sabaean kingdom and discuss Sabaean migrations into the area and describe a lot of cultural and political and architectural influence. This should be a rename discussion not a deletion discussion. Pogenplain (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not “selected the sources”, I did survey of Jstor searching “Daamat Sabaean”. Migration is not colonisation, not even close. And regardless, we would need recent sources calling this a colonisation which there aren’t. I’m going to try to stop now as I think I’ve made myself clear. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please open a rename discussion to Sabaean migrations into Africa, we dont need to delete a well sourced page on a notable subject. Pogenplain (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what others think, but given the above I have little faith in the rest of the sourcing. What’s salvageable could be merged to Dʿmt? Idk Kowal2701 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the best way for us to cover the origins of Daamat, Dʿmt is very underdeveloped, I plan to add to it from the above sources and cover the two POVs in recent sources, briefly mentioning the colonial narrative and Japp et al. Preemptively addressing a rename and rewrite, I don’t think we need an article on this.
Kowal2701 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A well-sourced article with 24 sources against a low-quality revisionist history expressing a minority view. The suggestion is ridiculous. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the article discusses Sabaean influence, which no one is disputing. This is about colonisation, only mentioned twice in the article, cited by Japp et al 2011 and two others which don’t support it, and by Munro-Hay 1991 and one from 1894 which are far too old. Calling the output of the ORE revisionist history as a pejorative is frankly laughable. Have you read the quotes or any of the sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of African history is revisionist, it was first written by colonisers. See African historiography#History Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What exactly is the deletion rationale here? If x sources say it didn't happen, while y sources said it did then balance the article out for a neutral point of view. You can't just toss out credible sources because you disagree with them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale is that if we’re going to retitle and rewrite an article, we might as well delete it and create a new one. I’m not throwing out any recent sources, as discussed at Talk:Sheba#African conquests I would still include Japp et al, but it is only one source among many and only supports a Sabaean conquest, not colonisation. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you are suggesting WP:TNT then? Remember that WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP, if there are problems that can be fixed then this isn't the place to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is only my 2nd AFD (in my first one I think someone said it was the worst one they’d ever seen). WP:TNT says Similarly, WP:ATD states: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of viewpolicies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion." Imo this severely fails NPOV and ought to be deleted. TNT would mean we’d have to also go through an RM, where again I’d have to list quotes that demonstrate its not NPOV, which just uses more community time. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It feel hard to think that it severely fails NPOV when there is a part of the page called "Criticism of the Sabean colonization hypothesis". And it says as well, "Scholarly consensus had previously been that Sabaeans had been the founders of Semitic civilization in Ethiopia, though this has now been contested, and their influence has been reassessed for its impact on architectural, sociopolitical, religious, and cultic spheres." Pogenplain (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how NPOV works. Weight has to be proportional to its a appearance in sources. When there is only one source in the last 25 years tentatively supporting the colonisation POV (Avanzini 2016 which isn’t even cited in the article, and just says Japp et al’s Sabaean conquest seems like colonisation), it is an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. I’ve quoted two sources above which say that this POV fell out of favour by the 1980s, and the ORE (imo the best source on African history out there) completely refutes it. But because people keep assuming bad faith and can’t be bothered to read quotes or do a survey themselves (and my nom didn’t include a deletion rationale), this looks like it’s going to be kept. Kowal2701 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @Kowal2701: you've made more than 10 comments on this discussion (WP:BLUDGEONING) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Middle_East&oldid=1283651604"