Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Middle East. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Middle East|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Middle East

Ziyarid conquest of Isfahan

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

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

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

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

2015 Egypt bus accident

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

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

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

Feather of Maat

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

This article is currently sourced to two youtube videos. The information seems accurate, but upon searching myself, I can find many reliable sources (i.e. reputable organizations) describing Maat and mentioning the feather as an aside, but nothing going into detail about the feather. I'm not sure if this needs its own article -- it seems as if it just describes what "Ma'at" and the ritual are again, even though those are already covered in other articles. Unless there are sources going into more detail on the feather, I'm not sure if it needs a whole article rather than just a mention that Maat's symbol was the feather. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Egypt. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Also, take a look at the creator's talk page - User_talk:علي_بدر_العتيبي#Clarification_of_Contributions_and_Assumption_of_Good_Faith. It looks like they are making random articles and mixing them with articles that might be paid for. Charlie (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I can't think of a lot of people who would be willing to pay for an article on a symbol from ancient Egyptian religion. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack

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

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

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

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

Egypt Proposed deletions

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

Iran

Operation True Promise III

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

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

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

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

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

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

American-Israeli airstrike on Iran

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

Speculative article (violating WP:CRYSTAL) based primarily on synthesis of political rhetoric. There is no ongoing or formally planned operation, nor is there even a hypothetical event widely covered with detailed analysis. Mooonswimmer 18:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, Israel, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated by the nomination, wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. There doesn't seem to be any formal plan. Sourcing largely seems to be a notably unreliable queens man making threats.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article with no substance about a hypothetical attack. We can't have an article on every possible military encounter that might happen where there's nothing else accompanying the mere possibility. — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 19:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Preparations are underway by the US[1][2] as well as Iran[3][4] for the possibility of war. There's hypothetical speculation as well[5]. Moreover, we have similar articles e.g. Operation True Promise III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampcomes (talk • contribs) 15:48, April 27, 2025 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've nominated that article for deletion as well, however. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia does not divine the future. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Fear-mongering isn't article-worthy. Jebiguess (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's always plans for war against someone ready to go, but they aren't currently in the offing. This is CRYSTAL fanfiction otherwise, mainly from fringe sources, defense contractors with skin in the game and blogs which want this to happen for content reasons (and for fun I guess, WP:DAILYMAIL). Nathannah • 📮 23:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. purely speculative and per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article for an attack that hasnt even happened, pure fear-mongering. Its too early to make an article about this.

See WP:CRYSTAL or per nomination Thegoofhere (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Iranian112 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure speculation. Azuredivay (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an article founded on speculation regarding things that have not yet occurred. Therefore, I think this is a classic example of WP:CRYSTAL and unworthy of its own article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyarid conquest of Isfahan

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

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

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

Siege of Kemah (1515)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [6][7][8] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat

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

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

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

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

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roozbeh Pournader

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

The subject has been subject of multiple notability tags. They have been cited as a winner of the IOI gold medal, technical director at Unicode, and other contributions to the field of I10n, but there is no significant coverage to pass GNG. [9], [10], [11], [12] Xpander (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Technology, Computing, and Iran. Xpander (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Macan Band

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Iran Proposed deletions

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

Iraq

Hussein Al-Ankoshei

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

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Northern Iraq (2023)

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

Reason Kajmer05 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The article does not mention a PKK victory, and the sources given for casualties exaggerate Turkish casualties (It is stated that 152 Turkish soldiers have been killed since 2015, not in 2023), meaning the sources do not match the article.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Which source Are you Talking about exactly?

The sources are Claims by the conflict parties them selfs which cant be „faked“. And I checked, i dont see 2015 ever beeing meantioned, could you please tell me in which source you saw that?

and yes it doesnt speak about victory, but turkey Left the Qandil Mountains After These Action which is a victory for PKK. But i think we could Talk about an inconclusive in that case. 2A02:8071:6142:A6A0:C4BE:994F:4F9D:A736 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The first source used is by a pro-PKK news agency, Firat News Agency, making it unreliable. Yes, it does state it as a PKK claim, although I'm not sure whether this is fair to include. The second source doesn't seem to be a Turkish claim, as it is literally the US database citing the International Crisis Group. It also fails failed verification, making up a number of injured. The third source is the same as the first, for some reason duplicated. The fourth source does state what is mentioned in the article, however the source quite frankly states "Since 2015", meaning it should not be used here. The fifth source is the same as the second, the sixth source is the same as the fourth, the seventh source is the same as the first and third, and the eighth source is the same as the second and fifth.

Overall, the entire page seems to just be made up on lies and misinterpretation. It does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, as I'd argue that having to rewrite the entire page and change quite literally everything is not something that correlates with fixing. Furthermore, the user is well, now blocked, and has tons of their articles moved to draftspace or deleted. Not a good editor in the slightest. Setergh (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I See what the Problem is. First of all ANF is not unteliable just because its a pro-PKK claim. Because of that it says „PKK Claim“.the fourth source should be deleted because it speaks about 2015 thats correct. The fifth source has no issue just as following sources.I think this Page should’nt be deleted but it should be rewritten. The casaultie claims should stay. The Result should be Change to either „Inconclusive” or failed Operation (turkeys FOV). You cant say that these Are lies because Both sides claim different things yet both claims are meantioned.

This should be no Problem because many other pages share this Kind of theme aswell. 2A02:8071:6142:A6A0:1489:80DF:2F99:D4B1 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Azekh

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

Contains WP:OR, the book "The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development" contradicts this page, stating on page 59:

[Muhammad Pasha] laid siege to Azikh but failed to take it, owing in part to the inhabitants' fierce resistance and in part to disturbing developments at 'Amadiya. He was forced to relinquish his conquests in this region and to hurry back to the rebellious town, where the former ruler Sa'id Pasha, supported by a popular uprising, had deposed Musa Pasha and compelled him to flee. ^[1]

Annwfwn (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FCbspX-dGPYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=muhammad+pasha+of+rawanduz&ots=RpL4kQVs3I&sig=fLrFGCQRzkuMV-NwCoRQ2JDlJj8#v=onepage&q=ama&f=false

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is yet another instance from a series of problematic creations by the same editor. While the presence of OR is concerning, it wouldn't be the rationale for deletion. The main problem here is that there is no significant coverage to merit a separate article. This should have been covered by Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz instead. Aintabli (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any in-depth secondary reliable sources but no prejudice to keeping or merging if any editor is able to find those sources. Aintabli (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Canopy (app)

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

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

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

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

Miscalculation (Israel)

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

Non-notable phrase, see WP:NEO. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 11:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 11:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough characteristic usage to justify an article. Zero^talk 11:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer DGW below, I agree it is not neologism. It is a common word that some people have applied to some situations. That doesn't establish independent notability. Lots of people throughout history called lots of things "miscalculations"; why is it special this time? Zero^talk 13:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is special, because this single word determined if the Gaza war occurred or not. See Helen of Troy. _Dgw|Talk 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Miscalculation is the key word of the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. It happened twice, in 1973 and in 2023. It took a year and a half until the truth was revealed. I do not claim that Netanyahu was "right" or Bar was "right", but something very wrong happened in Israel due to this miscalculation. Furthermore, it is not a "neologism" but a word which exactly reflected the situation between Israel and Hamas. Israel wanted Hamas would be satisfied, and Netanyahu wrote it in his affidavit, but Hamas wanted to conquer Israel. Heads of Hamas said clearly that they would not make the attack if they knew the reaction of Israel and of the world (mainly of Trump). The history will judge. _Dgw|Talk 12:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article isn't really about a term, it's more about the application of a common word to a specific situation. But it's clear there's no way to write this article without original research. hinnk (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not original research. It is clearly cited: 1. New York Times, 2. Times of Israel, 3. JPost, 4. Middle east eye, 5. Politico, 6. Los Angeles Times, 7. Times of Israel. _Dgw|Talk 14:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A an article that uses the word "miscalculation" once or twice isn't a suitable secondary source for "a concept…used for avoiding deploying Israeli forces around the Gaza Strip before the Hamas's [sic] October 7 attack". The only way to get from one to the other is through analysis or synthesis that isn't in those sources. hinnk (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTHed article on a neologism that does not meet WP:GNG. No treatment of the phrase independently in WP:RS. The citations are simple mentions of a "miscalculation". The comparison to Helen of Troy is yawning, and the application of the work here is WP:OR, which we should steer clear of as much as possible in this topic area. Longhornsg (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American-Israeli airstrike on Iran

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

Speculative article (violating WP:CRYSTAL) based primarily on synthesis of political rhetoric. There is no ongoing or formally planned operation, nor is there even a hypothetical event widely covered with detailed analysis. Mooonswimmer 18:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, Israel, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated by the nomination, wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. There doesn't seem to be any formal plan. Sourcing largely seems to be a notably unreliable queens man making threats.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article with no substance about a hypothetical attack. We can't have an article on every possible military encounter that might happen where there's nothing else accompanying the mere possibility. — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 19:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Preparations are underway by the US[13][14] as well as Iran[15][16] for the possibility of war. There's hypothetical speculation as well[17]. Moreover, we have similar articles e.g. Operation True Promise III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampcomes (talk • contribs) 15:48, April 27, 2025 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've nominated that article for deletion as well, however. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia does not divine the future. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Fear-mongering isn't article-worthy. Jebiguess (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's always plans for war against someone ready to go, but they aren't currently in the offing. This is CRYSTAL fanfiction otherwise, mainly from fringe sources, defense contractors with skin in the game and blogs which want this to happen for content reasons (and for fun I guess, WP:DAILYMAIL). Nathannah • 📮 23:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. purely speculative and per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article for an attack that hasnt even happened, pure fear-mongering. Its too early to make an article about this.

See WP:CRYSTAL or per nomination Thegoofhere (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Iranian112 (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure speculation. Azuredivay (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be an article founded on speculation regarding things that have not yet occurred. Therefore, I think this is a classic example of WP:CRYSTAL and unworthy of its own article. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Avni

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

Fails WP:ACTOR - non-notable actor - has only played small roles in a few films, best sources I could find was this TMDB, Amazon, IMDb, Apple TV, etc. GoldRomean (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Israel, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing could be better, but Avni meets WP:CREATIVE and is one of Israel's best-known actors [18]. In-depth profile in Haaretz here, full-length review of his directorial debut in Ynet here, profile in the Jerusalem Post here, multiple-time winner of the Ophir Prize (the "Israeli Oscars"), etc. Longhornsg (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To improve the quality of my contributions to AfD, may I know how those sources were found? Thank you! GoldRomean (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping, I guess: @Longhornsg (sorry if this does not belong on the nom page). GoldRomean (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Famous, award winning actor, with many important roles. Easy pass of WP:ACTOR #1. The deletion rationale is seriously mistaken. An extensive Hewiki article, reflecting the actor's fame (!), with many references is only one click away. This nomination is an obvious BEFORE failure. Who will be nominated next? Topol? gidonb (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just recalled: someone recently nominated Hakol Over Habibi as well! gidonb (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [19]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dov Shafrir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan

Aeroflot Flight 512

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Jordan, and Russia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found these sources on the matter: [20], [21], [22], [23]. The sources summarize the crash and circumstances (don't talk about investigation/public response since the crash was relatively minor), and seem to be enough to source a plane crash article, but I'll wait before making a decision. LastJabberwocky (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's a bad article at the moment, but I definitely think that it's expandable based on sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until such time that there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond real-time news. Wikipedia is not a collection of WP:News articles. Even if it were notable, there's no need for an event to have an article if it can be adequately covered in a list of similar events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Ayasreh

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

My WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject so as to meet WP:BIO, and he does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF either. It's possible that there may be decent sources in, e.g., Arabic, and if these were identified I'd happily withdraw my nomination. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Jordan. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign whatsoever of NPROF, and GNG notability is also not apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. H-factor of 3, no awards, no additional coverage and an assistant professor. Page reads like an upload of his CV. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait

Lebanon

Djsky

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lebanon. ... discospinster _talk 21:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah drone smuggling investigation (2024–2025)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG, does not seem to have enduring significance WP:EVENTCRIT – we don't have articles for every international policing operation and the "European network" is alleged and unnamed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hezbollah foreign relations (or another article). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah military activities is the more appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Hezbollah#European Union. Came to the same conclusion as User:TurboSuperA+. Yes, it is mentioned elsewhere yet that structure may not be right and is better not expanded. The target should be expanded with this information. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is to merge, but three different targets have been proposed. Any preference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dclemens1971, Turbo's redirect is to a redirect that leads to the same place as mine. I also quote them and specified to the subchapter. No space between us. Longhornsg has a different merge preference yet AfDd to delete. After a redirect was suggested they suggested a different target, possibly in a what-if structure. I eluded to the other options in my answer. gidonb (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Oman

Palestine

2025 al-Funduq shooting

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [24]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Dov Shafrir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Redirects

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

</noinclude>

Qatar

Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Manyyassin (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of independent reliable sources throughout this article, I argue that the majority of this article falls under Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY. Wikipedia should not amplify reports (such as the ISGAP reports and the NCRI report) whose only evidence is an established correlation and not causation. Citing subsequent reporting by the media that further dramatizes the conclusions made by these reports certainly does not help the factual accuracy of this page. Furthermore, there are many statements in this article about critics "speculating", showing that this article is not seeking to provide facts behind this matter, but is simply repeating the speculations of a thinktank. An encyclopedia is not the place to do this.

Overall, the article relies on the speculation of critics and thinktanks and lends undue weight to their reports whose only evidence is flimsy correlative studies. Manyyassin (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious COATRACK ESSAY that overwhelmingly deals with one issue and nothing else; it's one thing if this article talks about many effects, positive or negative, but this is just too much about one topic that does not feature many neutral sources. Nathannah • 📮 16:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I agree that this article meets WP:GNG. My contention is that I do not believe this is encyclopedic content. The central claim of the article is that Qatar is somehow causing antisemitism at American universities. There is no mechanism for this proposed, and the burden of proof is not met by the article's content or sources. This is unencyclopedic content matching the description in WP:NOTADV and its deletion would fall under WP:DEL-REASON #7. Manyyassin (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere in the article where the claim "Qatar is funding antisemitism" is being made in wikivoice. Where present in the article, this claim is always properly attributed to critics (although the sentence This biased approach highlights positive aspects of Islam while sidelining balanced discussions about other religions, particularly Judaism. should be rewritten to make it clear that this is the Lawfare Project's opinion).

If there are others who argue against these critics in reliable sources, then they should be included as per WP:DUE. Otherwise, since you agree that this topic meets GNG, this discussion is better suited for a place like WP:NPOVN. The article may need some reworking to put more emphasis on the facts and less emphasis on speculation, but it should not be deleted. Astaire (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references no. 12 - 16 mentioned at Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States#References easily confirm that notability exists. Shankargb (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing it's not notable, but the balance on this article is so overtly against the issue that there is no opposing side and we require neutrality and balance. Nathannah • 📮 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that it's a notable topic then what are we doing here at AFD? As I said above, this is a content dispute, not an argument for deletion. WP:NPOV says that articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If you don't like the current balance of opinions in the article then add some opposing opinions that have been published in RS. Otherwise this is just WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Astaire (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just WP:NPOV. The burden of proof is not met and the speculations made by the thinktanks are not verifiable. There is no onus on the other side to refute these claims and balance out the article; the lack of evidence means these claims shouldn't be here in the first place. Manyyassin (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a coatrack. Most of the sources appear to be either opinion pieces or from biased sources. I think an article can be written on the subject but it is not encyclopedic in its current form. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are like that. Need proper source analysis. Shankargb (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nom's assertion that the majority of this article falls under WP:NOTADVOCACY. The article attempts to describe the topic from a NPOV, but I do think WP:UNDUE weight is given to the subject of antisemitism and Qatar's influence on it. However, the article meets WP:GNG, so it can be improved and balanced out. There's no reason to delete it.--DesiMoore (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

HighPoint

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

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Half of the references are to the Al Jazeera News homepage or don't mention the article subject. Of the remainder, store opening announcements don't satisfy WP:ORGTRIV. There's one possibly acceptable magazine article, but it's nowhere near enough. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Medina bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routine coverage, fails WP:NEVENT jolielover♥talk 16:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOTNEWS and also lack of article coverage on this accident. Galaxybeing (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T2 (Saudi company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine investment agreements, partnerships, M&As are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Was waiting to nominate this one myself as part of a batch from a possible COI but didn't want to seem "bludgeoning" while another AfD of theirs was going on. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lists of Saudi Arabians

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

There is a category that fulfils the purpose of this article; an article seems unnecessary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which category? Oreocooke (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lists of Saudi Arabian people", presumably. Nub098765 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article doesn't do anything more than the category, although some of the entries are missing from the category. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. A List of Lists creates unnecessary complexity - also see Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia#Explore the alternatives Asteramellus (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The goal would be to have a page like Lists of Americans or Lists of British people, where it contains lists of saudi-related people. I'm not attached to the title, but the article, in essence, should remain in some capacity. Masohpotato (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with proposed deletion tags

Syria

2024 Syrian coup d'état attempt

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

To copy and paste what I wrote on the article's talk page:

"I believe that this article should be deleted because, per WP:V, this article's topic lacks enough coverage from reliable sources:

The events described in the article itself only come from one source, and only one other source is used in the article which supports the claim that a coup happened on 30 November
- FactNews-UA is referring to HTS taking Maarat al-Numan
- North Press Agency specificlly says "unconfirmed reports of a military coup in Damascus".
- Even Turkiyetoday (the other source I mentioned) addresses the subject in a more speculative than objective tone
I didn't originally know when first typing this, but there already were discussions on Wikipedia on the article from The Jewish Press: [36] and [37]
- The users in the first link concluded that the validity of The Jewish Press's article (which is almost solely the source of information in this article) is dubious because no other source reported on it (such as SOHR, Anadolu Agency, Al Jazeera English, or Al-Monitor)
- The users in the second link concluded that the specific article likely was an example of WP:WSAW, though they said that The Jewish Press shouldn't be classified as WP:GUNREL

Thus, the subject of this Wikipedia article (a coup attempt by Hossam Louka in Syria on 30 November) doesn't appear to be reported by sufficient reliable and verifiable sources, making this article violate WP:V." Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition Honestly, it should stay because I can understand that the creators of the sources have lied, but it doesn't mean that there is no evidence (videos, images) that prove otherwise. They are the sources. I'm going to try to find more sources, but they exist and they are real. Farcazo (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to clarify what I think the sources and the article are trying to say. Basically one part of Assad's military may or may not have tried to take control of the government in order to more strongly fight against the rebels but another part of Assad's military stopped them? Separately I am not convinced this is a notable enough part of the general fighting going on at the time for it to get its own article. Moritoriko (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syrian regions

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

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [38] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Daraa clashes

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

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Northern Syrian regions

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

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [39] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kadir Çakır

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Ağduman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uğurcan Karagöz

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only fails WP:NCURLING because we could never come up a criteria for the World Championships. But not only has Karagöz played at the World Championships, he was the skip (captain) of the Turkish team. I would imagine there must be some Turkish language sources that cover him.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türkan Atay

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

Weak sourcing, not enough significant coverage demonstrating she is notable as an entertainer or activist. Most of the coverage revolves around disputes over payment and defamation. Mooonswimmer 18:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very limited coverage. Most sources about her appear to be on a recent dispute: WP:NOTNEWS Aintabli (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [40][41][42] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Northern Iraq (2023)

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

Reason Kajmer05 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The article does not mention a PKK victory, and the sources given for casualties exaggerate Turkish casualties (It is stated that 152 Turkish soldiers have been killed since 2015, not in 2023), meaning the sources do not match the article.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Which source Are you Talking about exactly?

The sources are Claims by the conflict parties them selfs which cant be „faked“. And I checked, i dont see 2015 ever beeing meantioned, could you please tell me in which source you saw that?

and yes it doesnt speak about victory, but turkey Left the Qandil Mountains After These Action which is a victory for PKK. But i think we could Talk about an inconclusive in that case. 2A02:8071:6142:A6A0:C4BE:994F:4F9D:A736 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The first source used is by a pro-PKK news agency, Firat News Agency, making it unreliable. Yes, it does state it as a PKK claim, although I'm not sure whether this is fair to include. The second source doesn't seem to be a Turkish claim, as it is literally the US database citing the International Crisis Group. It also fails failed verification, making up a number of injured. The third source is the same as the first, for some reason duplicated. The fourth source does state what is mentioned in the article, however the source quite frankly states "Since 2015", meaning it should not be used here. The fifth source is the same as the second, the sixth source is the same as the fourth, the seventh source is the same as the first and third, and the eighth source is the same as the second and fifth.

Overall, the entire page seems to just be made up on lies and misinterpretation. It does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, as I'd argue that having to rewrite the entire page and change quite literally everything is not something that correlates with fixing. Furthermore, the user is well, now blocked, and has tons of their articles moved to draftspace or deleted. Not a good editor in the slightest. Setergh (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I See what the Problem is. First of all ANF is not unteliable just because its a pro-PKK claim. Because of that it says „PKK Claim“.the fourth source should be deleted because it speaks about 2015 thats correct. The fifth source has no issue just as following sources.I think this Page should’nt be deleted but it should be rewritten. The casaultie claims should stay. The Result should be Change to either „Inconclusive” or failed Operation (turkeys FOV). You cant say that these Are lies because Both sides claim different things yet both claims are meantioned.

This should be no Problem because many other pages share this Kind of theme aswell. 2A02:8071:6142:A6A0:1489:80DF:2F99:D4B1 (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meditopia

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ILIKEIT, but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Sources are routine announcements, funding, etc. Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve trimmed the article significantly to take out anything that sounded promotional or was just routine info. What’s left is backed by solid, independent sources like TechCrunch, Forbes, and Deloitte, which offer real coverage that meets notability guidelines WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. I think the article should stay, and I’m totally open to improving it further with help from other editors. Hariseldon42 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorfoz

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

Article about an album that fails WP:GNG. It has 36 sources, but all of them are ether unreliable, dead or not related to it at all. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhoIsCentreLeft yeah? so sabah, hürriyet, radikal, which are major newspapers, are unreliable, and which of the references are unrelated? Just because something is in a language you don't understand, doesn't mean it's unrelated. Use google translate. Link rot is a natural occurrnce on the internet over time (ever checked when this article waswritten?) How about first trying to inform the writer about link rot, before nominating something for delition? This album sold 300,000 copies in Turkey. Tarkan is to date the most sold artist in that country. Which part of the notability requirements does this not meet? Xia ^{talk to me} 06:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This album is simply not notable. I checked all the sources cited in this article and none proved its notability. I searched about this album on Google and got zero results. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here, the Mü-yap certification of 300,000 copies sold, which means Diamond certification. [43] These sources are all in the article and are all about the album: Hürriyet (Hürriyet); Hürriyet; full breakdown of the album song by song in SABAH (Sabah); Vatan (Vatan) -- these are all reputable publications in Turkey. Even if we only consider these 4 links, that's already covering the notability requirements... Just because you don't know how to search in TURKISH, doesn't mean the album isn't notable. Not everything has to be on the English language internet, you know. Xia ^{talk to me} 15:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

United Arab Emirates

BioSapien

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not add up to WP:ORGCRIT. Declined through AfC then moved to mainspace by submitter so would be opposed to dratifying. CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, United Arab Emirates, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found a brief mention in Bloomberg obviously it is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a biotech start-up, previously draftified and rejected at AFC, then moved into mainspace by the article creator, which leaves AFD as the remaining option. The article text largely covers financial fundraising, which falls under WP:CORPTRIV, product features, and the company founder's inclusion on award lists - again insufficient for the firm's notability. That leaves the content about the company's products, and here we need to be cautious about claims for the potential of new medical devices. Overall, I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I moved this article to drafts on 17 March 2025. It was put back into the main space without any real improvements. It clearly fails the WP:NCORP standards. Charlie (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mohamed Al-Balooshi

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

Declined prod. 5 of the 7 sources are databases/results listing. This source and this are just a 1 line mentions of Al-Balooshi and do not meet SIGCOV. His medalling in junior competitions doesn't really add to WP:ATH. Those wanting to keep should supply actual indepth sourcing. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Arab Emirates at the 2004 Summer Olympics as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Total failure of WP:NSPORTS. Mere participation is not an indicator of notability. FOARP (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just edited the article with some additional sourcing that is better than the two above linked sources. I also improved this article just before it was nominated. I think this teeters on the line of SIGCOV as prose-based analysis of the subject is provided by an independent reliable source. Subject went far beyond merely participating in any sports event, he was an international gold medalist and national record-holder. This person is very difficult to search for, even in Arabic, because his name is the same as Ali Anwar Al-Balushi, but I think we have a good case here based on the available and extant coverage we have. --Habst (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a poor case for notability. Sourcing is weak and not SIGCOV to meet notability. There is clear consensus here not to keep. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, what do you think of the newly added source? Unlike the first two it goes into more detail about the subject. Also I wouldn't call it a "clear" consensus because there's only been one !vote since the new source was found, not including any extant ones I'm not equipped to search for as a non-Arabic speaker. --Habst (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, as one of the very, very few UAE-based editors around here, I would usually fight tooth and claw to save an Emirati article. Three pieces of coverage in national newspaper Al Etihad is great - but they're all passing mentions. There's no in-depth SIGCOV here. I'm still Camp Redirect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"International gold medalist"... At the

Gulf Cooperation Council U20 Championships, that's an extremely low bar and not recognised as a major athletics competition. But of course Habst thinks this is a keep... LibStar (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Additional sources offer absolutely nothing approaching the SIGCOV required by global consensus to be cited in this article. Passing mentions and quotes do not count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per McNabb. For posterity, I'll add that "Al-Balooshi continued to compete internationally for the next several years" is another example of Habst's WP:OR WP:WEASEL way of writing prose. Geschichte (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thanks, I updated the last sentence to emphasize his result without comment on which years he competed internationally during. --Habst (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Arab Emirates at the 2004 Summer Olympics per Alexandermcnabb, including per the follow up comment of 15:25, 29 April. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Sustainable City

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

There is no reliably sourced coverage of the subject. None of the sourcing in this article is independent of the UAE government, resulting in a ludicrously credulous and promotional article of this UAE government project. Thenightaway (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I understand the concerns raised. I am currently improving the article by adding more independent, reliable sources that provide neutral coverage of the subject. Additionally, I am revising the content to ensure a strictly factual and non-promotional tone, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Given that the project has received coverage in independent media outlets (such as [Shurooq]), I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I respectfully request additional time to complete these improvements. Below are the links for your reference.

https://shurooq.gov.ae/portfolio/sharjah-sustainable-city

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/property/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-dh2-5-billion-in-sales

https://gulfnews.com/uae/watch-a-sustainable-city-rises-in-sharjah-with-smart-solar-homes-driverless-shuttle-1.86314388

https://www.wam.ae/en/article/dvef0-sharjah-sustainable-city-community-integrating

https://property.constructionweekonline.com/sharjah-sustainable-city-pioneering-eco-friendly-living-and-boosting-uae-real-estate/ 94.203.35.126 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are independent of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FCbspX-dGPYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=muhammad+pasha+of+rawanduz&ots=RpL4kQVs3I&sig=fLrFGCQRzkuMV-NwCoRQ2JDlJj8#v=onepage&q=ama&f=false

[1]

Middle East

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

Egypt Proposed deletions

Iran

Iran Proposed deletions

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Proposed deletions

Oman

Palestine

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Redirects

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Articles with proposed deletion tags

Syria

Turkey

Others

United Arab Emirates

Yemen