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

Arab speculative fiction

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

None of the sources used here discuss "Arab speculative fiction" as a grouping, only similar but not the same topic. If sources do exist on the topic nothing here is built around them so it is entirely OR at present. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Middle East. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has an entry for "Arabic SF". TompaDompa (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there's e.g. Ian Campbell's Arabic Science Fiction (2019). The topic, in itself, is certainly notable. /Julle (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa @Julle But as is, every single word in the article is cited to sources not about the article topic - entirely OR. At that point it is WP:TNT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the purposes of notability, are science and speculative fiction equivalent? I know they're intertwined but I am uncertain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point. Speculative fiction is, as commonly understood, broader. Science fiction is a part of speculative fiction. That is, I'd argue an article about Arabic science fiction is relevant for an an article on Arabic speculative fiction, but it's not entirely the same. In a situation where all reliable sources would talk about Arabic science fiction, it'd be far better to move it to Arabic science fiction. /Julle (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources, but will be adding the appropriate CTOP notice to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens As is, nothing in the article is salvageable. So unless someone wants to rewrite it and change the scope this is a TNT case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT doesn't apply, and I wish people would actually read the essay before quoting it. Jclemens (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is nothing salvageable for a topic that is notable under the current article. To comply with policy from what is here it would have to be reduced to a sentence: Arabic science fiction is science fiction written in Arabic (or related to Arabic culture, or something). There is nothing encyclopedic about a one sentence definition. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of oilfield service companies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.

Edit:Removed unsourced content - Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of oilfield service companies – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of oilfield service companies: As an alternative to deletion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Siege of Bahrain (1811)

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

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bahrain, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is all very dubious, I must say. Yes, poorly sourced and yes, unverifiable and what's more blithering rot. Lorimer^[1] tells us that the Omanis attacked Bahrain, under-defended by the Wahhabis, in 1811 together with the Utub. That's it. Of Qajars, there were none. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CitrusHemlock 18:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid (cricketer)

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

Fails to meet notability and significant coverage criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Pakistan, and Bahrain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSBASIC no WP:SIGCOV as Abdul Majid, Abdul Majid Abbasi or Abdul Abbasi, all of which he has been known as by various platforms. However, still all listings/routine fixtures/short bios listing teams/fixtures. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

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

Fails WP:NBIO - political appointment with no notable history. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bahrain. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without a convincing source analysis from the nominator, I am not seeing a valid reason to assume WP:SIGCOV isn’t met.4meter4 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both references are essentially the subject's CV. Not WP:IS, not WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For better or worse, the consensus is that diplomats are not notable absent evidence. Appointed officials need significant coverage and aren’t automatically notable. There are two sources, both of which appear to be primary sources. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

Ibrahim Fayad

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

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Egypt. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. If he actually founded all the things the article states he did, then I think he'd be notable, but I agree sourcing is a problem. He seems to have published as "Ibrahim M. Fayad" or "I. M. Fayad", and there are publications that match his areas of expertise on GS. ETA: It seems to have received a variety of edits from new editors over the past few years (tagged Newcomer edits), which have been of variable quality; I think that's where the spurious The Crown reference originates. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have been a notable physician in Egypt. He has an entry in this Arabic-language encyclopedia: [1]. Generally we include anyone with an entry in a published encyclopedia under WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a user-generated source, ostensibly "verified" by "specialists", but anyone can submit articles. It's not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient coverage for a good doctor. It’s literally his c.v. written four ways. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of oilfield service companies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.

Edit:Removed unsourced content - Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of oilfield service companies – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of oilfield service companies: As an alternative to deletion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Siege of Bahrain (1811)

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

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bahrain, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is all very dubious, I must say. Yes, poorly sourced and yes, unverifiable and what's more blithering rot. Lorimer^[2] tells us that the Omanis attacked Bahrain, under-defended by the Wahhabis, in 1811 together with the Utub. That's it. Of Qajars, there were none. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. CitrusHemlock 18:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tabriz (1757)

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

"There Mohammad Hassan Khan occupied Tabriz". That is literally all this article says about this "battle". The cited source doesn't say anything more than that ("First Tabrīz fell then,). Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Muscat (1811)

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

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Oman. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many of these are there? Because this user needs to stop and these articles bulk removed. Unverifiable and a deeply dubious presentation - there was indeed a Wahhabi siege of Muscat in 1811 but it was lifted with no involvement of Qajars. A plea of help went to Iran at the end of 1811 and a force of 1,500 Persians and four guns returned to battle the Wahhabi forces in 1812 but not at Muscat, but Nakhal, Samail and Izki. This article is a whole confused mess that inflates a period of scrappy fighting throughout Oman to the status of a 'battle' and with an incorrect date. Lorimer, page 444 refers. BTW, there IS an article for the Battle of Izki and that's a hot mess as well! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Airlines Flight 6936

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Tag me in the below discussion so i can get my quickest reponse possible out to you.

Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:NOTNEWS incident seems to have had a fairly short news cycle. Additionally no passenger or exterior fatalities and only a total loss of the plane. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Iran. Lolzer3k 15:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - per my comments at the 1st AfD discussion, a mere 2 months ago. A second AfD is not justified at this point in time. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria 4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Oppose a speedy close. This was a minor accident with zero fatalities and only two people with minor injuries. There is nothing encyclopedic about this event. We need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple kinds of sources to prove long-term significance. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. FYI We've had bus and plane crashes with multiple deaths get deleted in the past for this reason. Many vehicular accidents of all kinds happen every day around the world. We don't include them unless they have lasting significance that is not WP:ROUTINE news coverage immediately after the event.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

um… That fallacy doesn’t apply here. I’m not pointing at other existing articles. How does this article meet WP:EVENTCRIT?4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No fatalities, yes, but this does appear to have been a case of a scheduled airline flight that resulted in the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um… that is not a policy based argument under any notability guideline.4meter4 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...the hull loss of an aircraft, which is by general consensus the other bar (besides fatalities) for an aircraft accident to be notable. This consensus is an informal WP:AV tradition that's not firmly backed by any actual notability guideline, and there's a distinct tendency towards WP:RECENTISM in its use. I think we need to move away from it. Carguychris (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carguychris Nonsense. WP:AV is a WikiProject. It doesn't have the power to establish policy nor record community consensus opinions at AFD. We have a page for recognized WP:COMMONOUTCOMES and WP:SNGs to record policy backed WP:CONSENSUS notability opinions that are allowed to be used at AFD. Vaguely waving to a small WikiProject doesn't set the precedent you think it does. There is no established consensus for loss of hull accidents at AFD. And frankly if WP:AV wants to push that they need to go through an WP:RFC like all the other COMMONOUTCOMES entries/SNGs have done before it carries any weight. That means going through the formal community vetting process and getting that formally written into a notability or deletion guideline page. Only then can a credible claim of a community consensus guideline be made. My guess is any RFC of this nature would fail easily and rapidly, as the community as a whole has widely supported WP:EVENTCRIT and its application to accidents of any kind. 4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my post. I'm agreeing with you! I think we need to move away from it—"it" being this informal, groundless notion within WP:AV that any hull loss of a large, modern airliner is somehow automatically notable enough for a standalone article. Yes, such events inevitably attract news coverage, but as Aviationwikiflight correctly points out below, arguing notability using only day-after news coverage and the inevitable, statutorily-required government incident report flies in the face of WP:EVENTCRIT #4, not to mention WP:NOTNEWS. Carguychris (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got you. Sorry I reversed what you said somehow. lol The whole green text thing threw me off. 4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT: Per criterion #4, "routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There isn't much that would give this event enduring significance since none of the sources I've found had in-depth coverage of the event since the said coverage either happened in the aftermath of the accident or after the release of the final report, with most news coverage in persian rehashing what was contained in the final report without any analysis. Alternatively, a merge to Caspian Airlines#Accidents and incidents is also a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mahshahr Airport and Caspian Airlines as appropriate. Per nom and Aviationwikiflight, this accident lacks sufficient notability for a standalone article. Carguychris (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Event had in depth coverage worldwide by independent sources and has a WP:lasting effect with improved safety regulations so an accident like this can be prevented in the future, including 9 safety recommendations (three to the Iran Civil Aviation Organization, four to Caspian Airlines one to Mahshahr Airport and IRI aerodrome). So article meeting all aspects of WP:Event. 38.87.93.147 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)— 38.87.93.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Issuing recommendations after an aviation accident is common practice so whether or not an event had lasting effects needs to be demonstrated. Whilst there was coverage of the aftermath of the event, there doesn't seem to be any significant or in-depth coverage of what happened to the flight and how. Additionally, the lack of continued coverage in secondary sources that also provide significant and in-depth coverage of the event seems to be completely lacking, so this event doesn't meet all aspects of WP:N(E). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please examine whether the coverage in RS justifies a standalone article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Proposed deletions

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

Iraq

Iraq at the 1996 Summer Paralympics

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

Iraq isn't mentioned in [2] which shows the number of participants per country in the 1996 paralympics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Iraq. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this is a WP:HOAX as it never happened.4meter4 (talk) 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to 1996 Summer Paralympics as ATD.~~ It's not a hoax, Iraq competed. Quite at what level/to what degree seems unsure, but there are definitely listings of Iraqi athletes on the offical website. The article itself is unreferenced and our coverage is so little/obscure that there's no point keeping an article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb, every Iraq match shown there is a DNS (which I assume stands for 'Did not Show'). No team member is shown for any of them. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, MPGuy2824, I meant to mention that. I, too, assume DNS is Did not Show and wondered if there was some other story here (hard to find because the world was invented in 1996, as we all know). But they were certainly supposed to be there - hence my hedge of 'quite at what level/to what degree seems unsure'!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they were certainly supposed to be there Agreed, since matches seem to have been set with their athletes/teams.

Not sure about converting it to a redirect though, since it would be surprising to readers to be taken to a page with no mention. Hopefully, someone else comes up with a better idea. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a paragraph to explain reason of no participation of Iraqi delegation with sources added. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and fills that tiny lacuna I suspected all along. Not sure whether we're in keep or merge territory here, though. MPGuy2824 ??? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the sources, Faycal. "Delete" is definitely out of the question now. I'm leaning towards a weak Keep. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote accordingly, as I completely agree. 1996 for the win! Withdrawn by nom? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Iraq at the Paralympics. Utterly non-notable on its own, created solely to fill a gap in a series, but reasonable to include as a part of a larger topic. Geschichte (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do so disagree here. There's even a guideline which gives us signally clear guidance: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics" WP:NOLYMPICS. It's just as notable if they DON'T compete, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline that pertains to "nations participating at" is in no way "clear" guidance towards "nations not participating". Geschichte (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not terribly well reasoned. They were meant to participate, they pulled out. That's highly unusual. Their participation was therefore more newsworthy/noteworthy than if they had participated. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NOLYMPICS which suggests we should have articles on all teams to participate at the Olympics and Paralympics. We have never in the history of Wikipedia ruled against having one of these articles – i.e. we have a complete set of these and it should stay complete, and having an entire detailed paragraph about one event in the main article is very undue. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The set would be equally complete even if it's all contained under one article title, i.e. several years are merged. Geschichte (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Helvenston

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

Delete and redirect to 2004 Fallujah ambush, the redirect target for the other 3 victims of the ambush. Coverage of Helvenston is in relation to the ambush or subsequent events. Otherwise he was one of thousands of individuals killed during the Iraq War. His notability is due only to the ambush, therefore delete per WP:BIO1E. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Iraq, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is known for more than just one event – he was on a reality TV show and was a credited Hollywood consultant, and was the subject of a dedicated LA Times obituary [3]. - Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above. I don't see notability outside of the event. 20 years later and there is no sourcing to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing?" The LA Times source has been added to the article, and there is notability outside of this one event. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how he's more notable than any one else killed in the attack. There were too many deaths in the war, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E, a few sentences/short para there is all that's warranted. Mztourist (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fuzheado. The journalist/editorial staff written obituary in the Los Angeles Times makes it clear the subject was known for his appearances on television, and as a personal trainer to celebrities in addition to the 2004 Fallujah ambush. WP:BIO1E therefore does not apply as the subject was known for more than one thing. This is further supported by coverage of him in a scholarly book on the History of Reality TV] published by Random House. There is coverage in google books of his work on television and his career as a soldier. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not enough SIGCOV, agree totally on WP:BIO1E and redirect. Last time I looked, personal trainer to the stars didn't shoe you in past WP:GNG. As an interesting footnote, Helvenston v. Blackwater Security. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewa S. Khalid

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

As far as I can see, there isn't a single secondary reliable source independent from the subject to count towards the subject's wikinotability (actually, most if not all of the sources were created by the subject). Can't find a passing criteria from WP:NACADEMIC nor any significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an apparent WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and it was previously tagged as such before its prompt removal by the article creator. Aintabli (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not believe that the subject meets WP:PROF at this time per GS profile,[4] though perhaps someone more familiar with Kurdish studies could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither his Google Scholar profile linked above nor his employer academic profile [5] give me any reason to believe he passes WP:PROF, and as a recent PhD (2019) this is in any case unlikely. It's not a subject I have much familiarity with so I could easily have missed something, but we can't keep an article based on nothing but speculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology

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

I should have uploaded the article through AfD, because I was paid by the subject in the past (which I have disclosed it). Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Archaeology, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7 and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Bolter21 is the primary author of the article which has not been substantively edited by others (other than minor things like categories). Bolter has self-disclosed as a paid editor and is going to work on this through WP:DRAFT/WP:AFC review as required by our policies.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 and redirect to Tel Aviv University#The Jacob M. Alkow Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures This organization is definitely notable, but in this form written by a student with an obvious COI, they should go through the proper processes to re-add this article per 4m4. During the process, an ATD to the school section about the school itself is proper. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IWI Galil Sniper

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

I previously redirected the page to IMI Galil based on NPP guidelines, but the creator has expressed some concerns. I still think it’s just a variant of the Galil and doesn’t need its own page. WP:REDUNDANTFORK Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IMI Galil#Variants#Galil Sniper. Seems like this weapon is already covered in that article under its own subheading.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to or merge with IMI Galil. I know nothing about these weapons, and maybe don't need to. The older (2002) IMI Galil has 20069 characters (3284 words) "readable prose size" and 77 sources. The newer (2024) IWI Galil Sniper has 1736 characters (292 words) "readable prose size" and only two sources, both of which are in the lead. Assuming the 2024 IWI Galil Sniper is accurate in content and sourcing, redirect to, or merge into, the 2002 IMI Galil. — Maile (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Firearms. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the topic creator, and before I explain why this topic should be kept, I want to thank Charlie for initiating this AfD proposal to determine whether there is a consensus to delete this topic. Regarding this thread, the IWI Galil Sniper is based on the IMI Galil#Galil ARM variation which itself is a variation of the IMI Galil. The IMI Galil is a 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO assault rifle, whereas the IWI Galil Sniper serves a completely different combat role as a 7.62×51mm NATO sniper rifle. Since the IWI Galil Sniper fulfills a distinct role and is derived, not variant, as it has different weight, parts and combat role, there is encyclopedic value in having a dedicated topic for it, similar to the treatment in Galil Sniper[he], and that's why I translated it into the English Wikipedia, adhering to the guidelines outlined in WP:Translation (I'm also registered in WP:TRLA). IdanST (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there's an article on certain topic on he.wiki doesn’t mean we have to create one on en.wiki, as en.wiki might have different standards for article creation than he.wiki. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge with the main Galil article. There simply aren't enough differences between this weapon and the base platform in my view to require a separate article. Intothat darkness 14:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IMI Galil#Galil Sniper. The main content of this article is already covered in IMI Galil#Galil Sniper, making it a clear case of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Also, this article only cites two sources: one is the official website (a primary source that cannot be used to establish notability), and the other is snipercentral.com, which is likely non-RS. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

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

I don't find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.

The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --DgwTalk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Rosen

AfDs for this article:

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

Fluff piece about non-notable businessperson. Cannot find any significant coverage of the article's subject, completely failing GNG. All sources in the article are about his company's acquisitions or incidental inclusion in lists of businesspeople. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Dan Leonard,

I have three big profile articles about Barak in Hebrew. Since he is Israeli, can I add them to the article? And will it suffice?

כבר לא שני מתווכים מרעננה: "הם רוצים להיות השחקנים הכי גדולים, רוזן מוכן להתאבד על עסקות" (דה מרקר)

https://www.themarker.com/realestate/2021-11-05/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/0000017f-e3c4-d9aa-afff-fbdcdc580000

הילדים הרעים של שוק הנדל"ן הכפילו את שוויים ב־2016 (כלכליסט)

https://www.calcalist.co.il/markets/articles/0,7340,L-3706754,00.html

הכל בכל מקום בבת אחת (כלכליסט)

https://newmedia.calcalist.co.il/magazine-12-05-22/m01.html

עידו כ.ש. (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources pass WP:SIGCOV then they might be acceptable; however, it's worth noting that an article on Rosen has been repeatedly deleted on the Hebrew Wikipedia and is now salted. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they do comply. And I’m aware that the Hebrew article was deleted before, but it was done years before most of the coverage about him was published, he also gained more reputation since. Moreover the articles were written very poorly, I believe that if they’ve written them properly that article would stay up. Many businessmen with much smaller significance have articles about them in addition to their company, so the only reason I can imagine Rosen’s article caught attention was the writing’s quality. I might invest in a more appropriate Hebrew article for him soon. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we really need to have a neutral review of sources brought to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's hard to judge on these foreign language sources because some of them are behind paywalls. The ones I can see look like they do. I'm inclined to just WP:AGF the foreign language sources behind pay walls and trust that they are accurately reported as containing WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF doesn't apply to " I'm inclined to just WP:AGF the foreign language sources behind pay walls". LibStar (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a topic of Barak Rosen in Hebrew Wikipedia and this topic was deleted because there was no encyclopedic value. IdanST (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Oy veh, what a wall of messy spam and weasel words. Almost none of the sources are reliable - even if there’s coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

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

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hebrew Wikipedia article has 27 references. Left guide (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not "mostly unreferenced," , furthermore, it should be noted that notability is not related to the current state of the article. As Left Guide noted, the Hebrew article has plenty of sources. The topic meets the threshold of notability. Whizkin (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

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

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 10 independent sources in the Hebrew article, which, together, seem sufficient to establish notability. Whizkin (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:

1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him

2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988

3. Doesn’t mention him

4. Passing mention in a brief listing

5. Passing mention

6. Doesn’t mention him

7. Doesn’t mention him

8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)

9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source

10. No longer accessible but looks decent.

That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Organizations and companies) as I can't find any good sources for the subject. I also believe that the user who created the page (User:Engineerconsultant) might have a conflict of interest due to their name. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Engineering, and Jordan. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait

Lebanon

Charles Corm II

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

An article was draftified to Draft:Charles Corm II in May 2024 because of lack of notability, but was recreated as a mainspace article by the author in August. It still lacks any evidence of notability of the subject, Charles Corm II. The cited information is almost entirely about his company, CormCo. Time for permanent deletion, in my view. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Lebanon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest the deletion of this article on Charles Corm II. I have been covering Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent for decades. Dozens of totally non-notable personalities, including a slew of politicians and their children, have been included in Wikipedia with absolutely no respect for high-quality evidence, policies. and guidelines. Corm II is a notable person in Lebanon, beyond Lebanon, and in the global investment community. He built a $1 billion+ investment company and has financially backed several notable tech startups, which are now listed in Wikipedia too. He invests through CORMCO, the company he founded to that effect, and hence a large part of the article's focus is on CORMCO as it is the investment vehicle used to carry out these successful investments. Corm II is an investor and therefore does not get, or seek to get, the kind of media coverage Wikipedia usually craves to get. Failing to understand the above is failing to correctly assess the notability of this article. He is more than worthy of being in Wikipedia and I will defend this article as much as needed in what seems to be systemic bias against more discreet personalities and in favor of sensationalist articles about heavily covered nobodies. Kind regards. Caliban31 (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
~~:Agreed. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Article is sourced to puff pieces that lack clear independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Puff pieces? These are investing books. Caliban31 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Strongly disagree with your statement. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)~~WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable and the article provides high-quality evidence. Additional references should be added. I also do not support the WP:SALT whatever the final decision. Khalifa2024 (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)— Khalifa2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. sockstrike Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A lot of this article is cited to Investopedia and CORMCO neither of which even discuss Corm II, so this article potentially fails WP:V as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Spiderone, please hear me out:

I am not Corm II nor do I know him personally. I promise. I'm a fan of his late grandfather like many Lebanese people and people of Lebanese descent. I heard a lot about Corm II and decided to devote an article to him. Nobody paid me or asked me anything. It was supposed to be the first of a number of articles I plan to author and submit for submission. Yes, I spent a lot of time on it as a way of improving my Wikipedia skills. As simple as that. Also, I have made many small edits in many articles on people, places, and events and I'm surprised you don't see them (I don't even know where this stuff appears).
I agree that the article needs further verifications. I thank you for having taken the time to add your notes and I take good notice of them. If you give me some time, I promise to provide the references you rightfully ask for. Until then, please do not allow the deletion of an article that, once improved, deserves its place in Wikipedia. Corm II should not be penalized for my hastiness in drafting the article.
I, of course, retract my statements. It was my way of stating the famous ''never assume...". I do however believe that people like me, proud Arab Americans, have ''no voice'' on Wikipedia and that pains me.
I commend you for the amazing contributions you have made right here on Wikipedia. I skimmed your page and a few of the articles you authored, and it's truly outstanding work. I admit being an amateur in light of your impressive track record here and only wish to lean more about editing and authoring articles.
Be kind Spiderman, it's a small world. I wish you all the best.

Truly, Caliban31

Caliban31 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the name of his spouse, names of his children, which schools he attended and his DOB? None of this is in the cited sources. It's important to follow the policy of WP:NOR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find sources relating to his grandfather (same name) but none for him. As has been noted in the article, many sources fail verification. The first source appears to have nothing to do with the content of this article. It's a republished technical report from 1991 (full text at Openlibrary), which predates this fellow's entry into business and thus cannot verify the statements here. Without more reliable sourcing this can't be kept. It does not instill confidence that sources that are obviously irrelevant to the subject have been included. I will cycle back to see if sourcing has been improved. Lamona (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, in fact, at present no citation even mentions subject, see source assessment table below, and I would be surprised if Kwatinetz (2004) and Huisman (2001), to which no pages have been given in the citations, mention him.
The currently first listed reference:
Ginsberg, Ari (n.d.). Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis (Classic Reprint). FB&C Limited. ISBN 978-0-243-07486-0.
with no date and with erroneous ISB-number is an audacious WP:FAKE reference. The original citation is
Ginsberg, Ari; Venkatraman, N. (1992). "Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis". Strategic Management Journal. 13. Wiley: 37–53. ISSN 0143-2095. JSTOR 2486351. Retrieved November 18, 2024.,
but notice that the paper was first presented at the Minnesota Strategy Process Conference, October 20-22, 1991 at a time when Corm was 17 and still in high school. And it does, of course, not mention Corm at all.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Ginsberg, Ari. Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis (Classic Reprint). FB&C Limited. ISBN 978-0-243-07486-0.	Assumed	Assumed	Citation is disingenuous. The original article is Ginsberg, Ari; Venkatraman, N. (1992). "Investing in New Information Technology: The Role of Competitive Posture and Issue Diagnosis". Strategic Management Journal. 13. Wiley: 37–53. ISSN 0143-2095. JSTOR 2486351. Retrieved November 18, 2024. Subject was still in high school by the time this article was published.	✘ No
Bushnell, Mitch. "CORMCO – About". New York City: CORMCO.	Subject's company web page.	? Subject's company web page.	Subject not mentioned	✘ No
"S&P 500 Average Return and Historical Performance". Investopedia.		Citation is to Investopedia, a tertiary source on finances, owned by Dotdash. A number of users have reported inaccurate and low-quality content on this website. It is advised not to use Investopedia, and to cite other, higher-quality sources instead.	Subject not mentioned	✘ No
Salameh, Franck (2015). Charles Corm: An Intellectual Biography of a Twentieth-Century Lebanese "Young Phoenician". The Levant and Near East: A Multidisciplinary Book Series. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-8401-1. Retrieved November 18, 2024.	?	Assumed, Salameh is Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Boston College.	? Book about subject's grandfather. Page missing, source not available.	? Unknown
Kwatinetz, Mike; Wood, Danielle Kwatinetz (March 15, 2004). The Big Tech Score: A Top Wall Street Analyst Reveals Ten Secrets to Investing Success. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-43665-2.	Assumed	Assumed	? Page missing, source not available.	? Unknown
Huisman, Kuno J. M. (November 30, 2001). Technology Investment. Boston, Mass.: Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-0-7923-7487-9.	Assumed	Assumed	? Page missing, source not available.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sam Sailor 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. For the last time and as I mentioned above, I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. I will consider further action if and when the vandalism and harassment against me continues. There is no justification for such behaviors against a newcomer to Wikipedia only wanting to contribute to the community but discriminated against because of that person's ethnicity and religion.

Vandalism: On multiple occasions, my contributions to various articles have been deliberately altered or removed without justification. This includes edits or articles which were reverted or modified in a manner that distorts the original intent and factual accuracy of the content. According to Wikipedia's policy, vandalism is defined as editing intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. The actions taken against my edits clearly fall under this definition.

Harassment: Additionally, I have been subjected to repeated personal attacks and targeted harassment by certain users. This behavior includes specific instances of harassment, such as derogatory comments on my user talk page or edit summaries, which appear to be aimed at intimidating me and discouraging my participation. Wikipedia defines harassment as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior targeting specific individuals. The actions I have faced align with this description.

Best regards.

Caliban31 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Caliban31 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

CU Note I have just blocked Caliban31 and Khalifa2024, who are the same person. Striking Khalifa2024's comment above, and removing the second bolded 'keep' !vote added by Caliban31. I have not looked at the article and have no view on the merits of the deletion nomination, but when evaluating this discussion the closer should note that for all the commentary above, so far only the article's author has opined in favour of retention. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Oman

Siege of Muscat (1811)

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

One amongst many poorly sourced and unverifiable articles by this editor. Doesn't seem notable. HistoryofIran (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Oman. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many of these are there? Because this user needs to stop and these articles bulk removed. Unverifiable and a deeply dubious presentation - there was indeed a Wahhabi siege of Muscat in 1811 but it was lifted with no involvement of Qajars. A plea of help went to Iran at the end of 1811 and a force of 1,500 Persians and four guns returned to battle the Wahhabi forces in 1812 but not at Muscat, but Nakhal, Samail and Izki. This article is a whole confused mess that inflates a period of scrappy fighting throughout Oman to the status of a 'battle' and with an incorrect date. Lorimer, page 444 refers. BTW, there IS an article for the Battle of Izki and that's a hot mess as well! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Redirects

</noinclude>

Qatar

Ali Bazmandegan

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't follow sports in the country, but agree with nomination. Corresponding article on Arabic Wikipedia is also a stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al-Rashidi (Qatari footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't follow sports in the country, but agree with nomination. Corresponding article on Arabic Wikipedia is also a stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands at the 2024 World Aquatics Championships

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Basically the whole article is to say that they entered one person in that event and they lost. No GNG sources, just one database type source for that factoid. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Qatar, and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This type of article/list has very little potential for growrth, and is at best appropriate for an overview along the lines of Solomon Islands at the World Aquatics Championships. It doesn't exist, so a merge isn't possible at the time. Geschichte (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Articles with proposed deletion tags

Syria

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Syria. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I respectfully disagree. This individual has received significant independent coverage, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these is literally zero coverage in reliable sources about her. Comments from the peanut gallery and advocacy outside of a courtroom are not significant coverage of a BLP. Passing mentions aren’t either. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure what Bearian means by reliable source. I certainly think the PBS News Hour is a reliable source. As are others therein ... As far as the sources referring to statements from her ... well ... is there a news source out there that doesn't at some point quote the subject? — Maile (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Human Rights Watch Quote on ICC Palestine warrants ـ ـ Cipher Nox (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC) — Cipher Nox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Turkey

Vincent Czyz

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

I am nominating this article for deletion under wikipedia's notability guidelines.

This article appears to be a PR piece commissioned by the author themselves, or their literary agency. Just a few hours after the first edit, the author made an edit, followed by a long series of edits by the single originating account. The article included some awards which the author paid in order to receive. Anapophenic (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. – robertsky (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2024 (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/2024 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was a WP:BEFORE done? Easily passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV. Chapter 23 of Shorter Views: Queer Thoughts & the Politics of the Paraliterary by Samuel R. Delany (2011, Wesleyan University Press) is devoted to a lengthy analysis/discussion of Cyzc's Adrifit in A Vanishing City. Book reviews in independent secondary WP:RS: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Other WP:RS: [16], [17] Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyüp Can (journalist)

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

Fails on WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG and the references can't open. Royiswariii Talk! 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Turkey. Royiswariii Talk! 07:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally unsourced. The article in Turkish Wikipedia looks to be copied from this version. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some sources, so as per WP:HEYMANN. Baqi:) (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilkhanate campaign to Bithynia

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

One of many questionable articles by this editor. Couldn't find anything about this so called event - doesn't seem notable. This is the only part of the article that only talks about this event; "This Ilkhanid army succeeded in recapturing several Ottoman-held castles and towns in the region and dealt a blow to Osman I's forces" HistoryofIran (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Kırşan

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two blue-linked items that she was in, one article had just a list item and one didn't even mention her. Of the 5 references, one just had he age, for two there was nothing there (404) and two just listed a few IMDB type factoids. Previously tagged for WP:Notability by a different NPP reviewer. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the corresponding article in Turkish, you can see that she's in the main cast of various notable productions. I don't have time to improve this right now but maybe Draftify or Redirect to Payitaht:_Abdülhamid#Season_2_2 (mentioned there) and interested users can expand either the draft or the page by reverting the R when they're confident they have enough. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trabzon

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

Cannot find anything in Google Scholar and hard to tell if the linked source is enough to justify the article Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bryer seems to be reputable but I am not an academic so I don’t know whether that sourcing is enough. Bryer was writing in the 1960s but a lot of the stuff which was unpublished in his day should now be available by searching for "Trebizond" at https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/results/r?_q=Trebizond&_sd=&_ed=&_hb= so has anyone studied and published a more modern work based on the primary sources? Also the Ottoman archives are available as far as I know, so should not they be cited in some more modern secondary source? And why does the article not exist in Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha at the end of page 202 Bryer says “the attack on Trebizond never materialised” Chidgk1 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this was an LLM hallucination? If anyone can convincingly dispute that, please ping me and I'll have a second look. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have a 1461 siege and a 1916 Campaign but of an 1833 battle there is nothing to see. The campaign could be a redirect as an ATD... Also, I'm a poet but don't know it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one songs of 2010 (Turkey)

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

Unprodded a couple of months ago as “appropriate content fork of a seemingly notable chart” but has still not been cited. As the article does not exist in Turkish Wikipedia it seems unlikely to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) this is part of a series of articles (in various countries; deleting one page in particular (as has been done after unilateral draftifications of other years) is absurd and borders disruption). 2) OK, I'll source it. But.....the person who DePRoDed this was right imv. Why, just because it is unsourced, take this particular year to deletion? The fact that this does not exist on Turkish WP is not an issue. Also please remember WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.". Mushy Yank (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank OK I did not know that NLIST said that about lists. So does that mean the “unsourced” tag should be removed from this article and similar ones such as List of number-one hits of 2006 (Turkey), 2007, 2009? If so what about the other uncited lists on https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources ?Chidgk1 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that NLIST indicates in the following sentence that, still, presenting sources is more than recommended! In general, the unsourced tag should not be removed until sources are added but the notability of such lists that are part of a set is not an issue, I would say. That list you link is very long and in theory, again, sources should be added but one can only decide whether the page seems notable without sources present on a case by case approach. I'll add sources to the 3 pages you listed but one person cannot source all unsourced pages even if that is only Turkey-related articles. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in fact, yes, the Unsourced tag should have been removed because there was a source in the EL of all 4 articles, with a link indicating "previous number ones may be found via archive.org". And the template's doc indicates: "You should only add this template to articles that contain no citations or references of any kind." Which was not the case. ImproveRef or RefExist or any other tag would have been OK. The Unsourced tag, as well as the notability tag, indicate extremely serious issues and should not be used lightly if easy means of verification and available sources exist. Thanks. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as issues brought up by nom have been addressed. Tessaract2^Hi! 13:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is cited now and per WP:NLIST. Synonimany (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Blazer (album)

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

One of many uncited Turkish albums which I mentioned to the albums project last month this one was tagged uncited 15 years ago. I searched but there are others with the same name. Unfortunately the Turkey project is only semi-active but hopefully someone from the metal project will know better than me if it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was not able to find material in reliable music magazines, searching for both their band names. I think I could be able to write up one of their later albums, but not this one. I did get hits in Google Books. Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anadolu Efes S.K. past rosters

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

Article was tagged uncited 4 years ago and does not exist in Turkish. As the main article includes info such as notable players perhaps this uncited article does not have any notable info which is not already in the main article. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could see a list of players, if sourced, but rosters of each individual year is not a thing I think we do. Some have been up for AFD previously. Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C. past rosters was kept in 2008, whereas C.D. Primeiro de Agosto past squads was deleted in 2015. I think that's telling of how the demands in deletion discussions have evolved. Geschichte (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acıbadem Üniversitesi S.K.

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

Although there are 9 sources on the Turkish article some are trivial and others no longer exist. So I doubt this team is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bahçeşehir Koleji S.K.. Per this source: Team names: Acibadem Universitesi Istanbul (-2016), Bahcesehir (2017-). Geschichte (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayraktepe Dam

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

Seems to be doubt about whether this will actually be built https://www.silifkegazetesi.net/2024/10/03/devletin-bosa-giden-milyonlari-ve-yatirimlari-ne-olacak/

At the moment I don’t think it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails WP:GNG. It may become notable and it might not. It really all depends on whether it gets built. This could incubate in draft space.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

United Arab Emirates

Yemen

^ Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.
^ Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.

[1] Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.

[2] Lorimer, Gordon (1915). Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf. Vol I. Historical. Government of Bombay. p. 843.

[1]

[2]

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