Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Syria

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Syria. 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|Syria|~~~~}} 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 Syria. 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.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Syria/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Purge page cache

Syria

Richard Medhurst

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Law, Israel, Palestine, and Austria. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: then. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: many good references and many eventsMwinog2777 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Youth and Sports (Syria)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Sports, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This wasn't just a government that was announced. It was formed on the same day, and especially so because of the fact that the new government had a meeting after the press conference (the link for that info is here, from SANA itself (in Arabic)), because there already was news of it being formed (info for that here, also from SANA (in Arabic)) and also because of the fact that a few days later(on 3rd April 2025), the decree that dealt with forming it (dated 29th March 2025) was published. The information about the decree can be seen here in English as well as here in Arabic. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, it may be worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Affairs Office (Syria). Similar case with an outcome of draftifying. The main difference between these two nominations is that the former was nominated about a month after creation, by which point it was clear that its coverage was not sustained. WP:Notability is not inherited, so it's wrong to assume that a government ministry is notable by virtue of being of government ministry. Rather, those in other countries have actually done something notable other than merely be announced by a shaky transitional government. — Anonymous 14:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with the editors which argue, correctly, that WP:TOOSOON is incorrectly being argued here by the nom. The article is notable upon review and will continue to be so.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, how exactly can we prove lasting coverage if there has been no time for lasting coverage to arise? If the entire Syrian transitional government were taken out tomorrow in an ISIS decapitation strike, would there still be users arguing against the deletion of this article? It seems a little WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume that everything this fragile transitional government does will be successful. — Anonymous 11:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If the entire Syrian transitional government were taken out tomorrow in an ISIS decapitation strike", that itself might warrant a new article as worthy of being notable if reliable sources supported it as so. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your take on the matter. No one would disagree that the transitional period in Syria is fragile and uncertain, especially with Israel destroying whatever's left of Syria's military infrastructure. However, the factual basis of the two new ministries(the Ministry of Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management) being established is based on the decree that was published last week and the announcement that was made the week before. That in and of itself is notable and warrants an article and therefore, meets WP:GNG guidelines (in my view, at least) and isn't speculation. To say otherwise doesn't make sense.

Also, isn't it a bit weird to invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL to judge the success (or lack thereof) of the new government as well as thinking that a possible or potential "ISIS decapitation strike" might happen? Isn't that pure speculation by itself? Forgive me for saying this, but that, by itself, sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me.

And even if such an event were to take place, it doesn't take away from the notability of the two new ministries being established by itself.

And about lasting coverage and speculation, bear with me because I want to show an example:

If a group of celebrities went skiing in somewhere like Alaska or Norway for charity and it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article being created, would it make sense to propose that the article gets deleted purely based on the notion that any or all of the celebrities might get injured during the event? No, because said event hasn't happened. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.

If that same group of celebrities went skiing in either of those same places, but any (or all) of them do get injured in the process, should said Wikipedia article be deleted? No, because the event itself would then become notable for itself and the injuries that took place at said event. Assuming most (or all) of the the event hadn't already taken place, what could've been wouldn't apply anymore, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be documented. In other words, the two events become interlinked and can't (and really shouldn't) be separated from one another. (By the way, I don't know any Wikipedia guidelines that would refer to such a scenario because I'm new to Wikipedia.)

Therefore, I don't think lasting coverage, or any perception of it, is relevant here.

I agree with @Iljhgtn, by the way. If such an event were to happen, it would warrant its own article in its own right, but also, like I said before, the two events would become interlinked and therefore, can't be separated, so it still wouldn't make any sense to delete those articles.

Note: I used the words judge, thinking, possible and potential because you're giving me an impression that you're judging the articles' notability purely based on your opinion and speculation. As far as I know, creating or deleting Wikipedia articles isn't based off of whether anyone thinks the subject matter will survive, remain stable or remain the same based off of their own viewpoints, it's based off of past and current events and how covered said events are in the media.

In other words, deleting an article based off of uncertainty and speculation alone doesn't make sense when Wikipedia is supposed to document past and current events (and, in particular, ones that are notable).

In my view, there's already a lot that's wrong and/or poorly researched about Syria on Wikipedia, with regards to both past and present events. We don't need articles to be deleted based off of vague and speculative notions about the current government's stability and survivability. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~Berilo Linea~, that's an egregious and frankly rather offensive misrepresentation of what I wrote. My point is that lasting coverage is necessary for notability, and the keep votes seem to be being made under the assumption that this ministry will definitely continue to receive such coverage. I gave a rather dramatic (but not wholly impossible) example of how this coverage would fail to be achieved. I'm not saying I think this will happen. Maybe they will decide to consolidate or abolish some of these ministries. Maybe they won't. We. Don't Know. We can't predict the future. — Anonymous 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you actually addressed my point here. My point is that you want the articles about the two ministries to be deleted based off of speculation. Your point is that things may suddenly change in the future... which is speculation, regardless of how you (or I, for that matter) would put it otherwise. That's why I said that it's weird that you invoked WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is a rule against speculation... based on speculation itself, especially because you've made a not-so-different point here:

"I gave a rather dramatic (but not wholly impossible) example of how this coverage would fail to be achieved. I'm not saying I think this will happen. Maybe they will decide to consolidate or abolish some of these ministries. Maybe they won't. We. Don't Know. We can't predict the future."

This is speculation. You are speculating. This is what's against WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is the point I'm trying to make here and in my honest opinion, speculation isn't and shouldn't become relevant when it comes to a decision like this.

Speaking of lasting coverage, in my opinion, I think those two ministries will receive lasting coverage since they have been formed, but that's my own opinion and my own speculation and therefore, isn't relevant. As a given, if you were right and I was wrong, there wouldn't be an entire page with the image showing the decree that forms the new government(as I've already linked in a comment I made earlier here). No such document would exist and it would be pure speculation on my end. There also would only be an announcement and there wouldn't be any decrees or other types of legislation relating to the formation of the new government that would've been published or, at least, those that wouldn't have been published already.

Speaking more about lasting coverage, I want to make it clear that there's nothing wrong with being concerned about lasting coverage and if my comment came off as saying that there's something wrong with that, then I apologise, but I think my point still stands about lasting coverage in that it's not as relevant as you think it is and even if it was, that still doesn't justify deleting the articles in question. Wikipedia is not meant to document everything, but it is meant to keep track of changes made to subjects like government institutions, even if those changes don't last long or are very sudden. It's not a perfect point, but I'd like to refer (again) to my example about the skiing event:

"If a group of celebrities went skiing in somewhere like Alaska or Norway for charity and it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article being created, would it make sense to propose that the article gets deleted purely based on the notion that any or all of the celebrities might get injured during the event? No, because said event hasn't happened. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.

If that same group of celebrities went skiing in either of those same places, but any (or all) of them do get injured in the process, should said Wikipedia article be deleted? No, because the event itself would then become notable for itself and the injuries that took place at said event. Assuming most (or all) of the the event hadn't already taken place, what could've been wouldn't apply anymore, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be documented. In other words, the two events become interlinked and can't (and really shouldn't) be separated from one another."

Finally, I apologise if my previous comment came off as offensive or a personal attack, it wasn't meant to be that way, it's just that what you're saying so far doesn't make sense to me and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, at least in my eyes. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management (Syria)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON doesn't really apply if sources are given to support notability, it's meant for things that don't actually have coverage because it is too soon. Passes WP:GNG regardless. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See my comment here for why I object to this proposed deletion. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dost

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

This article documents a routine humanitarian mission that received only brief, routine news coverage and does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for events (WP:EVENT). It clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS, lacking the enduring coverage or in-depth secondary sources required by WP:GNG. There is no indication of lasting encyclopedic significance.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Syria, India, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the most closely related topic, Humanitarian response to the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquakes, as an alternative to deletion. This proposal has already been suggested (by another editor) on that page. Klbrain (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:EVENT, criteria 2 says: ....likely to be notable if they have widespread (national OR international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources.. Many similar articles of various countries exist here of such operations, it's an important topic of WP:INDIA. Clearly pass WP:GNG and does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS, this article is about events which happened 2 years back and well published in details in wide range by independent media.Drat8sub (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: And comment to the admin, this AFD follows the same deletion discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Brahma and the result was keep. So it'd be a wise decision for this to be kept, morever, this article was kept the whole time with no issues since it was created. Imwin567 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like it has decent sourcing and is somewhat notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]