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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

Cybelle Al Ghoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Middle East, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating Aramean people (recently accepted draft) for deletion, per WP:BADFORK (of Assyrian people).

Procedure & earlier consensus:

• First, I believe that the procedure here should have been a WP:SPLIT discussion at Assyrian people, being the controversial subject it is (GS proposed). However, Robert McClenon reasoned that a deletion discussion could serve as consensus; which I am now initiating shortly after move to mainspace, to avoid potential edit warring.
• Separate articles for a modern 'Aramean-Syriac/Aramean people' been discussed several times before. An old AfD from 2008 resulted in a delete, which was endorsed in 2014.

WP:BADFORK:

• Both this article and the Assyrian people (named so per WP:COMMONNAME) article describe speakers of Neo-Aramaic (mainly Surayt/Turoyo and Sureth) from Turkey, Syria and Iraq, calling themselves "Sur(y)oye"/"Suraye" in their native language, belonging to a variety of eastern Christian churches (mainly SOC, ACOE, CCC and SCC) - I kind of borrowed the definition from Future Perfect at Sunrise in the linked deletion review, who also correctly concluded that this is not a division between two ethnic groups, but between two ideological perspectives on a single one: a division between several ideological factions among the group's diaspora communities in the west, which all prefer different names and have different ideas about their cultural "identity", but which all still claim to be speaking for this one, single, native minority population in the Middle East..
• Modern scholarship views these groups (including Chaldeans and Syriacs) as the same modern ethnic group. I think that Mugsalot made a good summary on this here.
• Frequently used sources in the article do treat them as the same group, regardless of term(s) used. Example are [1] [2] [3]
• A very large number of sources in the article use the term "Syriac(s)". There is also a large number of Turkish sources, which most use the term "Süryani". All of these would fit in the Assyrian people article as well.
• It is also noteworthy that even political factions (including Aramean ones) usually consider it the same group (for example, see Atto (2011) p. 37). Thus, it being a separate ethnic group does not even align with the views of political factions, if relevant at all.

Other comments:

• The article does contain WP:OR, e.g. the section "Syriac-Aramean New Year" is based on a news article from the World Council of Arameans, with some additional synthesis.
• SyriacPress.com is heavily used. It's not a WP:RS (OT: Ironically, this website belongs to the Dawronoye movement/faction, frequently using all terms to describe the group).
• There are of course parts that can be merged with one or more articles; I have not cross-checked how much of the early history part is also included at Arameans, for example. But that is another discussion. Shmayo (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –

Addressing procedure & earlier consensus:

Aramean and Assyrian topic has for decades been subject for disputes, constantly with the Aramean articles being opposed, by Shmayo, as early as 2008 and every year up until now, for 17 years. Looking at the talk pages of both the Assyrian and Aramean articles, it is clear that this topic is a highly sensitive one, with attempts to adequately write of Arameans more thoroughly.

A WP:SPLIT was not seen as the most fitting way, partly because there is only three sentences covering the Aramean topic and because a discussion on the Assyrian talk page has been facilitated multiple times in the past, but with no conclusions. Draft approach was also recommended "because the inclusion of new material in the article to be split may itself result in more conflict when the community is largely divided. The edits to add another topic to an article in order to split it might be reverted, which would just make more edit wars." [4]

I think it is problematic to make comparisons between Aramean people and the previous ones, firstly because the 2008 article is way too old to act as a consensus and I'd argue that the 2014 is as well. What is also different is the fact that the 2014 was because there was no Syriac side in it, all consisted of sock-puppets etc.

Addressing WP:BADFORK:

Aramean people has been filed the correct way, through AfC. It is not a WP:FORK of Assyrian people, based on the people calling themselves Suryoye, would in my opinion not disregard Arameans from having a article. Modern scholarship, despite arguments if the same people, still argue that Arameans are indeed a ethnic identity, aside from that, Arameans have as of 2014 officially been recognized as a distinct ethnic minority in 2014, in which I would like to quote Sorabino: "Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community. Application of Assyrian designation as "umbrella" term for that article would therefore be quite problematic." [5]

Please, also note that we already have a Arameans in Israel article, but a article about the same people in a broader sense, outside of Israel is objected.

Regarding the Süryani term, the most used Turkish source in the article is [6], which writes: "Syriacism go back much further than Christianity and Jesus, to the Aramaeans." It would not be fitting in Assyrian people. Aside from this source, Wiktionary, translates it as Syriac, so does the Oxford Turkish dictionary, the official dictionary of the Turkish government states that Süryani means Syriac/Aramaic Christian.

WP:NPOV, being one of Wikipedias first pillars would be compromised if there is no Aramean article or adequately mentioning of Arameans. As of now, the Assyrian people which is argued for, contains merely three sentences about Arameans. Its title, its flag, and Arameans undermined as merely a "subgroup" of the Assyrian identity is both contradicting WP:NPOV and legal recognitions (2014 Israel recognition). Arameans does also meet the criteria Wikipedia:Notability.

Addressing other comments:

Aramean people is the first article to cover Arameans, while not being a direct copy of another previous fork, or a fork itself or overlapping information. It includes totally new information from antiquity, early Christianity, Middle Ages, traditions, culture etc.

Regarding the use of WP:OR and WP:RS: as stated here, the draft was not finished, I stated that it did not have enough sources. But I am guessing due to the urgency of the dispute, it had to be reviewed, and per Robert McClenon it was possible to do so. In no means does this mean that it won't be further developed.

Merging one or more parts of the article to other articles just fragments the encyclopedia, why not have a dedicated article for a legally recognized people, a WP:NOTABILITY people and to not compromise WP:NPOV than to split Aramean related content to various other articles? Making a comprehensive read of the subject would be near impossible, its both inconvenient and inaccessible for many.

We also have Aramean (Syriac) football clubs, Aramean-Syriac flag, World Council of Arameans, and on the Swedish WikiPedia we have another Aramean article [7], on both the Dutch and German WikiPedias, there are a Assyrian and Aramean article, which have been working much better than the English only Assyrian article in terms of edit-warring, disputes etc.

It was not until recently Chaldeans also had their page, but was deleted by a involved editor from the Assyrian side of things a few months ago. Arameans have been denied any recognition on Wikipedia for decades, with editors involved in this dispute leading the way.

We now have a near complete article that just needs a bit of touch up and development, we also have a WP:GS discussion regarding these topics, I am afraid that this WP:GS will constantly have to be used and not allowed a sunset date considering how sensitive this matter is, I think multiple edit-wars, disputes etc. will arise. We now possibly have a WP:GS, a article in accordance to their notability and recognition.

Aramean people has been rated as a B class article. As a fresh article, which was not completed when it was sent for review, I think it demonstrates the potential of this article.

To bring up WP:BADFORK again, Aramean people is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as it does not "covers the same subject as another page". Neither is it a WP:POVFORK as it is not "created to be developed according to a particular point of view." It serves as another subject, a subject that is not written of in Assyrian people (except for three sentences). Aramean people serves as a article about the Aramean people, not a point of view of Assyrians, as it only mentions Assyrians historically in antiquity. Apart from that, the history, organizations, recognitions, traditions etc. are written about the Arameans.

I want to bring forward notability of Arameans, apart from scholarly studies, if of interest to any of you (sorry for WP:BLUDGEON):

Syrianska Riksförbundet, SAUF, WCA, Aramean Federation NL, Syriac Orthodoxy in Turkey identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodoxy in Sweden identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodox Church in Germany identifying as Arameans, Aramean Music, Aramean Music 2nd.

Google trends:

Google trends showing more searches for Arameans than Assyrians, in Germany. More searches for the equivalent of Arameans in Sweden than Assyrians, see this. (In their native languages)

Football clubs representing Arameans: Tur Abdin Gutersloh, Syrianska FC, Aramäer Gutersloh, Arameiska-Syrianska , Örebro Syrianska, Aramäer Heilbronn, FC Turo d'Izlo Aramäer Gronau, FC Aramäer Pfullendorf, Aramäer Harsewinkel, ASG Aramäer Ahlen, and so many more.

Social media: 89,205 Instagram posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., with views in the millions. 23,934 TikTok posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., also with views in the millions.

I also want to note that, the opposing party of this dispute will mostly be from the Assyrian people side. Wlaak (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculative. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 23:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Aramean people article is not a WP:FORK of the Assyrian article. It covers important aspects of Aramean identity, history, and culture that the Assyrian article doesn’t include. Other than that, they are completely unrelated in terms of content.

• It follows WP:NPOV, presenting the Arameans fairly and focusing on their identity, history, and culture according to WP:RS. It doesn’t mix them with other groups, keeping the content clear and focused on the Aramean people. Having a separate article about the Arameans helps ensure WP:NPOV is maintained. It covers parts of Aramean identity that the Assyrian article doesn’t, backed by reliable sources. Anyone researching modern Arameans wouldn’t use the Assyrian article. As Wlaak pointed out, it would not be appropriate on official grounds. Arameans are legally recognized as an ethnic group in Israel, and there’s a Wikipedia page about them on Wikipedia.

• WP:NOTABILITY, the article meets the rules. More and more scholars are recognizing the Arameans as a distinct ethnic group, and reliable sources confirm this, e.g. here here here.

• Since the 2014 deletion review (which had sock puppets), newer research (e.g., Akopian, King) has started to recognize Arameans as a separate group in diaspora studies, meeting WP:NOTABILITY and making it appropriate to revisit the article. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC) — Historynerd361 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep

Both subjects and their respective articles, on modern Arameans and modern Assyrians, should be kept and treated as equally relevant in terms of WP:NOTABILITY, since they are describing two mutually related, but distinctive communities. As someone who was contributing to various articles on both of those communities, over the past several years, I was sometimes wandering, wouldn't it be more useful if editors from all sides would focus on improving relevant articles, rather than investing their time and efforts in various disputes that were specifically focused on mutual denial and suppression of modern identities. In terms of history and identity, those disputes should be resolved on equal bases, since modern Arameans are upholding the name and heritage of ancient Arameans in the same way the modern Assyrians are upholding the name and heritage of ancient Assyrians. To neither of those two modern communities should be granted the capacity here on EW to suppress or absorb the other, since Aramean identity and heritage does not fall under Assyrian "umbrella", nor the other way around. The only "umbrella" term for both of those modern communities is specifically related to their common Christian heritage, and that term is well known: Syriac Christianity (see also: Terms for Syriac Christians). Both in past centuries and in modern times, those communities suffered greatly from persecutions by third parties, and in light of those tragic circumstances, prolonged mutual disputes are additionally destructive. Realizing that, moderate leaders from both sides are advocating cooperation and recognition of both identities. For example, professor Amir Harrak, a prominent Assyrian scholar from the University of Toronto, strongly advocates Assyrian continuity that is based on historical traditions of Assyrian heartlands, but he also acknowledges Aramean continuity that is based on similar historical traditions of other (western) regions, thus demonstrating a balanced and moderate approach to those sensitive issues (see references in article Terms for Syriac Christians). Therefore, both communities, modern Assyrians and modern Arameans, should be treated equally and acknowledged by distinctive articles here on EW. Sorabino (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Meets WP:NOTABILITY, scholarship recognizes modern Arameans as a ethnic identity, the 2014 Israel recognition and the fact that there already is a page about Arameans in Israel should allow the article.
• Best for WP:NPOV, neutrality can't be achieved in one article on this topic, shown in the past decades, and just for reference, till this day there is no modern Aramean people on WikiPedia apart from a few spread out articles mentioning them briefly.
• Not a WP:BADFORK, two entirely different subjects and contents.
• Already a WP:GS in works apparently, should help maintain these topics with this article coming in place.
• Current Arameans article does not share similarities with the new Aramean people article, only similarities are in antiquity which are unavoidable. However, Arameans should be moved to a title explaining that it is for ancient Arameans.
• Follows WP:V, easy to verify info.

Nathaniel Hawschab (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

When speaking from the perspective of the modern people, the article does not sufficiently prove substantial distinctions from Assyrian such that it is warranted. I will cite some sections of the article as a start to show what I mean.

• The lead section of the article describes one of the native terms of modern Arameans as “Suryoye”, which is also used by those who call themselves Assyrians and is present at Assyrian people

• The lead section of the article also describes Arameans as speaking one of two modern dialects of Neo-Aramaic: Suret (which is also known as Assyrian) and Turoyo (which has had its ethnicity listed as Assyrians, and the creator of the article has contested parts of the article that mentioned Assyrians as well)
• The end of the lead says that the Arameans were forced to migrate following the Hamidian massacres (where the victims are listed as Assyrians), Sayfo (also known as the Assyrian genocide, and in the article section, it states “The people now called Assyrian, Chaldean, or Aramean are native to Upper Mesopotamia and historically spoke Aramaic varieties, and their ancestors converted to Christianity in the first centuries CE.”), and ISIS (Persecution of Christians by the Islamic State discusses them as Assyrians in both Syria and Iraq)

• The music section under ‘’Culture’’ has some points worth mentioning

• The image listed as “Syriac-Aramean New Year feast in Syria” was taken on April 1st, [8], which aligns with the festival of Kha b-Nisan, or the Assyrian New Year
• The musician Gabriel Asaad was an Assyrian nationalist
• The Australian group Azadoota uses Assyrian symbols, sings in Sureth, and released a song with the lyrics “Imagine the world speaking Assyrian” [9]
• The composer Hanna Petros was the first person to create music records in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (Suret), and is described as an Assyrian [10]

• The section Telkari art uses one source in Turkish, including a phrase which Google translates (from both a browser extension and their website) as “In this context, the art of filigree is a decorative art that has been meticulously crafted by the master-apprentice relationship of the Assyrian masters of Midyat for centuries.” One source says it’s Aramean [11], another from SyriacPress says it’s “Syriac” [12], but at least 4 others [13] [14] [15] [16] say Assyrian or note the different names
• The section Syriac-Aramean New Year is WP:OR, as sources before 2021 are non-existent and the source used comes from the World Council of Arameans, of which a Google search will show it is the only organization mentioning such a celebration

I am currently working on Draft:Assyrian identity crisis which aims to cover the facets of the dispute in more detail. It’s not complete and is in need of review once it is, but so far, there are enough reliable sources to show that at the very least, the people who call themselves Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, and/or Aramean are not different groups of people. Therefore, they do not need separate articles, but greater inclusion of the dispute’s facets to provide more detail and insight on them. Indeed, as Shmayo mentioned above, a similar article was subject to deletion in 2008 as a WP:POVFORK and endorsed in 2014. Without making my statement draw on, the above are only some examples of how this article is not substantial in discussion to warrant a separate article from Assyrian people. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A language is not exclusive to an ethnicity. Neither is the use of "Suryoyo"; there is no reason to oppose the Aramean article on the basis that they call themselves Suryoye or share a language with Assyrians, they share their language with mutliple others, although not spoken to the same extent, it is spoken by Mandaeans and a few Maronites. For many Arab Christians, the term Suroyo/Suraya/Suroye/Suraye means Christian, this is the case many of the times in Central Neo-Aramaic as well. Naturally, the Hamdian massacres article should be updated to include the broader population that was affected, with "Syriac Christians" being the umbrella term for the group, as Sorabino pointed out. See this WP:RS (page 42) for a reference to Arameans under the Hamidian massacres. Again, Sayfo is a genocide not exclusive to Assyrian victims. Many academics point to an Aramean ethnic identity being involved, such as [17] (page 244) or news. Language and genocide are not limited to a people called Assyrian; a broader people share these experiences.

• It is an image, an image of a feast. The point is that it is still a Syriac-Aramean feast/celebration, as seen with the Syriac-Aramean flag. Gabriel Assad and other mentioned people are listed in the source. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS here.
• Telkari art mentions Süryani, a term that, as I pointed out earlier, means Syriac or Aramaic Christian according to Oxford and the Turkish government. When using Google Translate, there are inconsistencies. If you translate Süryani alone, it gives "Syriac" on both the pop-up and their website. When used in a broader sentence, the translation may change, though not as often on the website. Most WP:RS do translate it as Syriac as well, for example, see this.
• The Aramean New Year section now includes two more WP:RS, confirming the Syriac/Aramaic New Year. About WCA, as I mentioned, there has been no time to finish the draft; it was sent for review before it was complete.

• Your draft alone shows the POV issue in question, in my opinion. You are asserting that these people are Assyrians with an identity crisis, and your draft seems to be very WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. However, with enough changes and a title change, I believe it is a good reason as to why the Aramean article is justified, with those seeking further knowledge able to refer to your draft and potential article.

• A 2008 comparison is unfounded in my opinion. Not only are the articles very different, but this article has been submitted correctly through AfC and is not a WP:BADFORK.

• You are compromising WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:NPOV for your interpretation of an umbrella term for Arameans. For the first time, we have a well-established article, and we should take advantage of this opportunity.

• I want to note that if it bothers any that the WP:RS mentions these specific musicians as Arameans and are all of sudden grounds for a whole article deletion, I have no issue with removing the sentences, it is only a tiny bit in comparison to the article as a whole. Sorry for WP:BLUDGEON.

Wlaak (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There should be a dedicated article on the modern Aramean people, particularly those who speak Western Neo-Aramaic. At present, it is difficult to contribute meaningful information about their contemporary culture and customs such as traditional practices like annual mass weddings once held in their villages, because no such article exists. Additionally, some content currently found in the Western Neo-Aramaic language article is more appropriate for an article about the people themselves, which would allow the language article to remain focused solely on linguistic aspects.

Currently this community is inaccurately grouped within the "Terms for Syriac Christians" article, which does not reflect the distinct ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity of Western Neo-Aramaic-speaking Arameans. Even more problematic is the attempt to include them under the Assyrian people article. This is both terminologically inaccurate and misleading. The term "Assyrian" does not historically or culturally apply to this group and the article in question is often ideologically driven, relying heavily on non-academic sources, including controversial genetic studies linked to unreliable websites some with affiliations to Iranian platforms: A frequently cited claim in the Assyrian people article states that "Late-20th-century DNA analysis conducted by Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza shows that Assyrians have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population." However, this statement is problematic for several reasons:

1. Dead or unverifiable links: Both referanced links are no longer accessible even through archival tools like the Wayback Machine.This violates Wikipedia's verifiability polic as the sources cannot be reviewed by editors or readers

2. Non-Academic source: The claim appears to originate from "assyrianfoundation.org", which is not a peer-reviewed or academically recognized source. Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources discourage citing advocacy or community-run websites for scientific claims, especially those related to genetics or population identity.

Another problematic statement appears near the beginning of the Assyrian people article:"Modern Assyrians share descent directly from the ancient Assyrians, one of the key civilizations of Mesopotamia. While they are distinct from other Mesopotamian groups, such as the Babylonians, they share in the broader cultural heritage of the Mesopotamian region."

This is a bold historical and genetic claim that lacks proper scholarly attribution. There are several issues with this:

1. No citation provided: The statement is not immediately followed by a reliable reference. In an article dealing with ancient ancestry and continuity claims a statement of this magnitude requires either direct quotations from peer-reviewed historical, linguistic or genetic studies or a clear attribution to a published scholarly viewpoint.

2. Potential source misrepresentation: If this claim is drawn from one of the listed references, it may be taken out of context or paraphrased inaccurately, which further compromises its reliability.

3 POV- language: The phrasing borders on ethno-nationalist narrative framing rather than neutral, evidence-based writing, which goes against Wikipedias neutrality policy.

The examples provided are only a few among many that highlight the need for a separate, well-sourced article on the Aramean people.PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I don't know how I could forget about Maaloula and other Western Arameans/Aramaic-speaking people in the draft. Reading the article about their village/town, it is well-referenced that these people are identifying as ethnic Arameans. Wlaak (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

As others have stated, this is an ideological issue regarding one ethnic group. It should not have a distinct article as if there exists two separate ones.

Moreover many of the individuals and associations cited as Aramean or simply "Syriac", both ancient and modern, officially acknowledge the Assyrian identity, for example the Syriac Union Party as well as the Dawronoye movement as a whole officially uses "Syriac-Assyrian" just like the Assyrian Democratic Organization does, here is one of many examples. Likewise there are many classical citations that are taken without context, while Michael the Great delineates Arameans as being in the west of Euphrates in one citation, elsewhere in his work he clearly states that the "Assyrians are the Syrians". Thus despite the abundance of sources cited, aside from strict ideological proponents who already have their own page, namely World Council of Arameans, nothing cited can be claimed to uniquely be "Aramean".

Re: “the opposing party of this dispute will mostly be from the Assyrian people side” - I am not from the Assyrian people side, prior to getting involved with this dispute, I edited church-related articles which can be verified from my history of contributions. I joined the dispute following attempts to incorporate the Aramean position into the Syriac Orthodox Church article. Many of the individuals that have sided against the other party were also uninvolved. Meanwhile, *all* “keep” votes so far are from the Aramean side as can be pertained by their history of contributions, some are even newly created accounts with no other activity.

Re: Israel’s recognition, it exclusively comprises Maronites and a minority of Greek Orthodox. It has nothing to do with the Aramean nationalist ideology espoused by a group of ethnic Assyrians. Moreover, they have their own relevant article Arameans in Israel. Likewise for Maaloula which is a mix of Greek Orthodox and Melkite Catholic, their alleged Aramean identity is questionable based on the citations given but that's another topic.

Mentioning social media trends is rather silly and proves absolutely nothing. One motivated individual from either side can do the work of dozens of people. 

WP:TEXTWALL, WP:OR, WP:COI, and yes WP:BLUDGEON. Miaphysis (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nothing wrong with your argument, although i don't agree with you. i just want to add, Israel's recognition was of a Aramean identity, not a Maronite identity. It is a Aramean identity recognition upheld by the Aramean flag. Not only Maronites have filed for Aramean citizenship but also the ones who fled from Tur Abdin. and that's precisely the point, if there is already a Arameans in Israel, do these Arameans only exist in Israel? do they have no global presence? is there no other aramean on the globe? is there no history of those arameans? is there no continuity of those arameans? are there no diaspora efforts of those arameans? are they only limited to israel? Wlaak (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East p. 120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is, Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference between his and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans."

"Likewise there are many classical citations that are taken without context, while Michael the Great delineates Arameans as being in the west of Euphrates in one citation" There is no citation by Michael the Great about the Arameans being west of the Euphrates..--PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was referenced here in regards to the *act* of recognition by Israel, since you brought it up earlier. The state of Israel is not an authority when it comes to ethnology, any more than Syria recognizing them as Arab Christians is. It is NOT proof of genuine Aramean nationhood, and the point remains that those from Tur Abdin are of the same ethnicity as other Syriac Christians of upper Mesopotamia, regardless of Aramean- or Assyrian-identification (ergo, WP:BADFORK)

Moreover, it still does not align with any of your citations by including Maronites & Rum, WCA notwithstanding as it is a biased self-serving source.

In fact, to get a little political, sources indicate it was only recognized by Israel to diminish the rivaling Arab nationalism and put a dent in their demographics, but that's not particularly relevant.

There needs to be citations given for the Aramean identity being adopted by anyone with origin from Tur Abdin. Even then, the few that may claim that identity (not citizenship) would still do so based on the local political context.

Shadi Khaloul (Maronite)'s NGO, the "Israeli Christian Aramaic Association" is behind the lobbying that led to the recognition of the Aramean identity in Israel. Thus the identity of Arameans in Israel is inseparable from his immediate movement as Israeli Christians, regardless of cooperation with or inspiration from other Aramean nationalist movements.

Aside from this, if we accept the Arameans from Israel as part of a wider Aramean ethnicity or movement, ICAA considers Assyrians, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholics, and even middle eastern Latins to be Aramean, beyond simply just the Maronites and Tur Abdin. The article does not even consider the Maronites to be Aramean, instead listing them as a "related people" alongside Assyrians. Maronites as an ethnoreligious group have their own article, which complicates the Aramean identity even more. The World Council of Arameans also holds this opinion.

Thus you're left with a dilemma, are the Aramean people relegated to the ethnic Assyrians who claim this name (as the article clearly suggests) or does it also include Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholics, Latins, and others who are far larger in number than the Assyrians of Tur Abdin, thus being disproportionately underrepresented by this Aramean identity? This provides even more of an argument for the deletion of the article.. Miaphysis (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this website? "It included Assyrian heartland (east of the Euphrates), plus Aramean heartland (west of the Euphrates)" https://assyrians.n.nu/1

Delete

As mentioned by everyone else on the delete side, this is not a debate between different peoples it is simply a naming dispute within one ethnic group. This can be demonstrated in many different ways, one is through the WCA (World Council of Arameans) which classifies both East and West Syriacs as Arameans seen here. It can also be demonstrated from an Assyrianist perspective with the example of ADO (Assyrian Democratic Organization) which has already been brought up. And also with the historical use of "Assyrian" by the Syriac Orthodox in America and other English speaking locations, one parish still retains the Assyrian name (St. Mary's Assyrian Orthodox Church in New Jersey). Though since these topics have been discussed before, I will refrain from discussing them here further.

I would instead like to argue that the underlying assumption of the new Aramean people article is that both, so called East and West Syriacs are the same people, despite some of the editors claiming that the article is meant to show differences. This can be seen primarily in use of statistics.

• First in the population info-box. The Turkish source cited for the total population of 3.5 million states that there are 20,000 "Süryanilerin" in Iran and 200,000 in Iraq. The majority of Syriac Christians in Iraq are Chaldean Catholic or Church of the East see Shlama. While in Iran, practically no members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic traditions exist. Though the authors of the article, chose to lump the primarily Assyrian Church of the East population into their "Aramean" statistic. Why? Because once again, most sources classify this group as one people.

• Continuing with population, the author cites Shlama foundation for its Iraq statistic, though an inspection of its PerChurch section shows that Syriac Orthodox and Catholic communities make up a combined total of roughly 48,000 in Iraq, while the remainder are comprised of primarily Chaldean Catholic and Church of the East members. If the author seeks to use these statistics to demonstrate a unique population distinct from Chaldean Catholics and COE members, then they should take this into account, because they are currently lumping modern Assyrians, Syriacs and Chaldeans into one group.

• Also, the use of the United States Census Bureau which classifies Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs into one tri-name group is also telling. The authors use the combined number as their total statistic, though in the 2020 census, only 2,413 individuals in The United States identified as "Syriac" the vast majority using Assyrian or Chaldean. Why would the author use this statistic unless their intent is to show modern Assyrians and modern Arameans are the same people? (to search in link: rankings>white alone or any combo>Geo level=nation)

• We see this trend continued in the "Aramean communities" section, where 18,000 Syriacs in Van are cited from this article which clearly states they were from the Church of the East.

As stated with the cases above and multiple past conversations, this group of people has always been viewed as the same. And even within the new Aramean people article, which is meant to separate this group, the authors still found difficulty in restraining from use combination statistics. Be-Soro (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

There is no such thing as an Aramean people! It’s a fabrication, a modern invention aimed at dividing the Assyrian nation. The Arameans were a language group, absorbed into the greater Assyrian identity. Trying to carve out a so-called Aramean people today is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite history and fracture the unity of our nation. There is no room for false narratives and identity politics where historical facts are clear: the only surviving nation are Ashuraye!--AssyrianPatriot (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Sexuality and gender, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; also, the article is an essay. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 01:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - while the terminology section is a disaster, it can be fixed and it's not yet the end of the semester. The student editor should be able to fix the mistakes in the article. I think college is all about learning from mistakes. FWIW, I'm a gay man who identifies as "queer". Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petroaesthetics and Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a student article that has become a bit of a coatrack article with a POV split. The article itself requires a § Terminology section just to define its own criteria and then some background on the types before listing works that match the criteria. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but otherwise I'm seeing too much original research here. The article defines petroaesthetics – which has only 76 Google Scholar hits and is a concept without a Wikipedia article – as This term refers to the body of work created by artists considering the petroleum industry and effects of the prevalence of oil throughout daily life.. Welling 2020 uses the term, saying image-makers opposed to the petrocultural status quo may have helped perpetuate it by favouring apocalyptic and Gothic “petroaesthetics”: an aesthetic of “doom” on the one hand, and one of “gloom” on the other. (I borrow the term “petroaesthetics” from Catherine Zuromskis (2014), who applies it to photographs of gas stations, oil fields, and other petrocultural sites, but does not talk about representations of petroleum as a substance.) .... The study of petroaesthetics so far has mostly focused on limitations in contemporary ways of representing oil depletion, global warming, and related problems. Linthicum 2020 defines the term quite differently: Fossil fuels disappear; there is no seeming connection between a fluorescent light and the ancient forest. This gap between the fuel and user is a feature of the aesthetics of fossil fuels, petroaesthetics, which helps define the values a culture associates with its sources of energy. Petroaesthetics is the lubrication of fossil cultures as they license, through social definitions, the easy consumption of otherwise fraught fuels; petroaesthetics allows those fuels to disappear. This variation in terminology and lack of standardization suggests writing an appropriate Wikipedia article about the broad concept would be challenging, and even more so for a specific regional focus. I glanced at a few of the other sources; Vandana '91 is available on the Internet Archive, and appears to have no explicit mention of petroaesthetics, for example.

I do think much of the article's content could be valuable and appears not to be represented in Wikipedia. I wonder if this could be moved to Cultural depictions of petroleum or Petroleum in art, with links to related concepts like petrofiction or climate change art. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Petroaesthetics and Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa#Revision Process, I instead prefer Draftify to provide time for these student editors to demonstrate the existence of appropriate sourcing to meet WP:GNG and remove WP:OR. Suriname0 (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - while this is pretty much a textbook example of synthesis, it can be fixed and it's not yet the end of the semester. The student editor should be able to fix the mistakes in the article. I think college is all about learning from mistakes. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

InstaPay is a nationally significant app in Egypt, launched under the Egyptian Central Bank's strategy for digital payments. It is widely adopted and integrated into government and private banking systems. many sources talked about it such as her bankygate.com and enterprise.news and ahram.org.eg Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment The article subject could be mentioned in the article about the Central Bank of Egypt and this article redirected there as an alternative to deletion. Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Veytia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The claim to notability for this actor/writer/lawyer is not exactly clear. It seems like the most coverage he has received was in regards to his epilepsy (see this interview). I'm having trouble finding much coverage at all (movie review written by the subject?), and it seems like the article itself was created way back in 2009 by a WP:SPA. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Law, Egypt, and Mexico. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is complete enough and completely valid. There are numerous references to the author in internet, despite the author is well-recognized as lawyer and writer. The traffic the article receives also speaks why we should keep it. 188.33.26.22 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I must express my dissent. Additional facts have been introduced. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THIS ARTICLE. Pedroartafij (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep the article. It’s solid-backed up with good references, and the author’s been doing the multidisciplinary thing for over a decade now. Honestly, it just makes sense to leave it as is, given the way everything’s laid out. No need to mess with what works, especially when it’s already dialed in. Roadelallart789 (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. The dude seems like a straight-up genius, and the sources are solid and up-to-date, no matter what some "info cops" wanna say. Fcarbajal1 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Roadelallart789 (talk · contribs · account creation) and Pedroartafij (talk · contribs · account creation) were both registered during this AfD and have made no prior edits to any other topics. Fcarbajal1 (talk · contribs · account creation) was registered in 2010, and their only edit was to Jorge Veytia. The account went inactive for 15 years and showed up again to !vote in this AfD. Obvious WP:VOTESTACKING attempt is obvious.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sincerely I hope this article stays since I know him personally. I already notified him about the subject. Sorry for opening the Wiki account just to defend it. I vote to keep it. 🌿 Pedroartafij (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the nominator, there is no indication of notability. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable individual, I don't find any references. Not sure having narcolepsy is helpful either. Does not appear to have much critical notice either as a lawyer or actor. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the nom mentioned, the closest thing to a claim-to-fame the subject has is media attention they received for their condition. I'm surprised the page existed in mainspace for as long as it did. If Jorge Veytia were a notable topic, there would be no need for him to register and de-mothball as many accounts as possible to try to prevent its deletion as the article's sources would speak for themselves.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Couldn't find any RS in Spanish either. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Mansy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. The two Instagram sources cannot be used to establish notability (and one of the sources doesn't even mention her name at all). The PDF is just a table of scores from a competition. Although she has won an award, it was with a team, and WP:NGYMNASTICS requires individual awards. I searched for sources and even did a regional search for Egypt, but found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I searched and couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. No individual awards to meet WP:NGYMNASTICS either. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, may become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17) per PARAKANYAA. I can't find any sustained coverage to indicate that this passes WP:NEVENT either. The suggested redirect seems appropriate. MCE89 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)

Ali Javadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Majid Azami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

None of the RS independent sources mention the subject. Googling does not indicate notability Czarking0 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• strongly oppose. He is a highly influential figure in Iran, serving as the CEO of Jey Oil Refining Company and as Deputy Chairman, Managing Director, and Board Member of Sepehr Energy Jahan Nama Pars Company (Sepehr Energy). These companies are significant players in Iran's oil industry, with a combined value of several hundred million dollars (if not more). His role and impact in the business sector are substantial, making him a notable figure deserving of an article.

Additionally, it is worth noting that Majid Azami was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury on November 29, 2023, under Executive Order 13224, for facilitating oil sales on behalf of Iran's Armed Forces General Staff. This action underscores his influence and the international attention his activities have received.

I have already added numerous reliable and independent sources in English, Persian, and French that clearly establish his notability. These include news articles and business reports that detail his professional achievements and leadership position. Razgura (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Razgura: has added a number of sources to the article. I do not see them at WP:RSP and would like some clarity on their reliability / ability to establish notability. It will take some non-English investigation to determine significant coverage. These are in order of the ref on the article. He is mentioned a lot of these sources seem to mostly report things he said about oil industry not himself.

1. kountrass.com - There does not appear to be article content just a photo of the subject ?
2. https://irannewsdaily.com - no sig cov
3. Iran News Daily - no sig cov
4. eghtesadonline - no sig cov
5. azernews - no sig cov
6. mehrnews - no sig cov

Czarking0 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Majid Azami is a well-known and influential figure in Iran, serving in top executive roles at major oil companies such as Jey Oil and Sepehr Energy. The focus on U.S. sanctions may be disproportionate—while notable, they only highlight his international relevance. The article should be improved, not deleted, and efforts should be made to find a freely licensed photo. there are many images of him in Persian language sources, and it’s worth trying to secure one under a free license. AghaJhonson (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a link to a reliable Persian language source that gives him significant coverage? Czarking0 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarking0 I encourage you to read the most recent investigative report on Majid Azami, published by Iran International on May 8, 2025: https://www.iranintl.com/202505082419. The article presents substantial independent coverage, documenting his central role in Iran’s oil export system through front companies linked to the Armed Forces General Staff. Additionally, as supported by English-language sources cited in the article, Azami has received sustained media coverage since at least 2017, notably during his tenure as CEO of Jey Oil Company—the largest bitumen producer in the Middle East and a major state-owned enterprise.

His inclusion in the U.S. Treasury Department’s SDN sanctions list, alongside Sepehr Energy Jahan-Nama Pars, further reflects his international prominence and the geopolitical relevance of his activities. This combination of long-term leadership, institutional significance, and international scrutiny clearly meets the threshold of notability.

Note: I used GPT to assist with translation and phrasing of this comment. Razgura (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article. I would consider this significant coverage. If there is a second sigcov source then I would also oppose deletion. FYI since you have repeated this multiple times, being a target of sanctions is not in the guidelines for establishing notability. WP:N Czarking0 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions of him in an official capacity indicating notability:

• Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) :https://www.irna.ir/news/84190746/%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%B1%DA%A9-%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AA-%D9%BE%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B1%DA%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%88-%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AA-%D8%AC%DB%8C
• Naft & Energy Milestones Agency (نفت ما - naftema) : https://www.naftema.com/news/118199
• Mehr News Agency (MNA) : https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4317873/%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%82%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D9%81%D9%82%D8%B7-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%B2-%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AA-%D9%86%D9%81%D8%AA-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA-%D9%88-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%A7%DA%AF%D8%B1%DB%8C

Razgura (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Iran International is not listed at WP:RSP nor is it on the news list at Portal:Iran. Can you give evidence of the reliability of this source? Czarking0 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn’t see many Iranian news websites on this list (aside from Tasnim News Agency and Press TV).

As for Iran International, you can read about it on Wikipedia... I recommend reading the article on Persian Wikipedia, where it is marked as a "Good article" (it might be another article I’ll consider improving here in English in the future).

The channel claims to maintain independent editorial practices and operates according to high journalistic standards: accuracy, credibility, transparency, and fairness. Its official website outlines editorial guidelines that emphasize a commitment to objectivity and journalistic independence (see here: https://www.iranintl.com/en/guidelinesen).

Its reporting is frequently cited by international media outlets, including the BBC, The Guardian, and The Independent, which suggests a certain degree of international recognition and functional credibility. (All of this is also detailed in the Wikipedia article) Razgura (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion are there any red flags regarding Iran International as a reliable source? Czarking0 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough question, there is no truly objective media outlet in Iran. As you can see in my previous comment, he is mentioned across different types of media sources.Razgura (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

google translating the Persian WP page you sent:

1. "Iran International does not broadcast advertising and is not transparent about its funding, which has raised doubts about the network's editorial independence "
2. "According to Eskandar Sadeghi Boroujerdi, a postdoctoral researcher on modern Iranian history at Oxford University , “Iran International appears to be an essential part of Prince bin Salman’s agenda to adopt a hostile approach towards Iran"
3. "According to Haaretz , Mossad uses Iran International as a base to leak information"

Not exactly a stellar review. Overall I think the source can be used but it is not really green light reliable source Czarking0 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moein Jalali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Can't find any sources giving him significant coverage. The main claim I see is winning the 2A Continental Architectural Awards, though as far as I can tell, it was second place. Unfortunately I was unable search in Persian, so if sources are found, please ping me. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the awards [18] may indicate notability since he / his team seems to have come in first but these awards only exist since 2016 so I doubt that they are relevant for WP:ARCHITECT. Also he is listed as one of multiple people on a design team for the award, so overall I dont think winning a non-notable award as part of a team can count towards notability. Also, the page reads like a CV and needs some WP:TNT. --hroest 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Awards and recognition

  Moein Jalali has received individual recognition in international architecture awards:

  2A Continental Architectural Awards

  • 2016 - Won for Parsin Dental Clinic ^[1]
  • 2018 - Won for Palemos Villa 2^[2]

  Organizer listings confirm these were individual awards, not team achievements. Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 2A Asia Architectural Awards' significance:

The 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:

^[1]

Françoise Fromonot, Nasrin Seraji, Wolfgang Tschapeller, Murat Tabanlıoğlu, Hiromi Hosoya

Also the 2016 edition where Moein Jalali won for Parsin Dental Clinic featured a distinguished jury panel including:^[2]

Carme Pinós, Yoko Okuyama, Willy Müller, Ali Basbous.

Moein Jalali has been selected as a jury member for several prestigious international architecture awards, reflecting his standing in the architectural community:

Jury appointments

• Inspireli Awards (2024) - Considered the world's largest student architecture competition^[3]
• FRAME Awards (June 2024) - International interior design awards^[4]

Selection for such judging panels typically requires:^[5]

• Recognized professional achievements
• Specialized expertise
• International perspective

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandar Ivanov88 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. 2A Magazine looks minor. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal Javan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Defunct newspaper that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Iran. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WhoIsCentreLeft, did you assess the existing Farsi sources? MarioGom (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Siege of Kemah (1515) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [19][20][21] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge into Kemah, Erzincan#History: Changing my vote to merge as the siege is surprisingly not mentioned by the town's Wikipedia article. I suggest discarding the municipality and governor's websites and keeping TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi when merging. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Stubification can be used to improve an article, but I don't see that here. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jaafar Jotheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This looks like a case of TOO SOON to me. Contrary to the article, he is now a full professor, but doesn't hold a distinguished chair and h-factor looks too low right now. Also an absence of any major awards.

He was awarded a 'Mesopotamian Fellowship' by the American Society of Overseas Research, which may be an encouraging sign of future notability potential, but at this moment I'm not convinced he meets the threshold. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree, this is WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF and doesnt pass #1 or any of the other criteria. 500 citations in total, h-index of 11 is a long way from notability. --hroest 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kocho killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cited entirely to breaking news. I searched, could find no sources that help notability. Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Probably could be merged somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; did you look for any arabic or kurdish language sources? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked for some variation of Kocho in Arabic plus the date and found nothing that seemed to be about this past the first month. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad University shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While clearly serious, this shooting involved no fatalities (fortunately), appears rooted in a personal dispute, and lacks any indication of broader significance, national/regional impact, or lasting consequences/discussion. Coverage is minimal and localized Mooonswimmer 05:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was considering deletion when I came across this in NPP earlier. I agree that this event doesn't seem to have had lasting impact and was only reported in passing in local news sources – one of which appears to have been closely paraphrased here. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iraq. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only has local news coverage, there is not much impact. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can only find limited news coverage from the day of the event, nothing since. Does not appear to have any lasting effect, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete: The dispute issue is clearly alleged & there is probably more into it. This was an attempted mass murder & should be treated like one. There are many victims aswell who were impacted by this shooting & although it only lasted 50 seconds, it could've been much worse if it wasn't stopped on time. Currings (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Shankargb (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the shooting was (allegedly) inspired by Western-styled school shootings, thus giving a sense of notability and broader meaning a part of a more global phenomenon.
• Delete I am also feeling this—there is not really enough source to hold this article by itself, no? It is not yet covered in a way that gives it the weight to stand alone. Maybe in some time, if more is written, we can think again to bring it back, with more roots under it. Ismeiri (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this wasn't copyvio I would suggest a redirect to University of Baghdad. The title should redirect there afterwards and we should probably add a section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For being a university shooting, this has very little coverage as an occurrence. If more info can be found to bolster it, I will change my vote. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Iraqis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

The article makes significant claims, such as the forced displacement of over one million Iraqi Arabs by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) between 2003 and 2005, yet the cited sources do not directly support these assertions with verifiable evidence or numeric data.

For example:

• The Forced Migration Review article addresses displacement but does not specifically accuse the KRG or offer detailed statistics.
• The New Humanitarian report discusses internal displacement broadly and doesn't attribute mass expulsions to the KRG. (WP:SYNTH)
• The Guardian article provides anecdotal reports of tensions in post-Saddam Iraq but does not claim widespread deportation by the KRG, nor cite figures.
• The VOA News report focuses on Arab return movements and property disputes, but does not support the article's claims of organized deportations.
• The CRS report broadly surveys displacement in Iraq without identifying the KRG as responsible for any mass forced removals.
• The Brookings article examines Iraq's IDP crisis but contains no specific accusations or quantitative data about KRG-led deportations.

Especially who says 1,000,000 million? Additionally, the topic overlaps with more comprehensive and better-sourced articles such as Ba'athist Arabization campaigns in northern Iraq and Arabization of Kirkuk, making this entry largely redundant. What reasoning supports calling it "deportation" when Arab settlers, originally relocated to Kurdish areas by the Ba'ath regime, were simply returned to their places of origin? Finally, the topic fails to meet WP:N and WP:NPOV.  Zemen  (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents the displacement of Iraqi Arabs in the post-2003 period, which is supported by sources like Human Rights Watch, the Guardian, and VOA. HRW explicitly uses the term “reversing ethnic cleansing” and discusses Arab expulsions in detail and another 2003 article from The Guardian titled “Arabs flee revenge of the Kurds” describes how, in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion, Kurdish groups moved to reverse Saddam Hussein’s Arabization process. And the VOA says “Forced deportations of Arabs from Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq has the United Nations' top human rights official concerned”. this article reflects well-documented patterns during this time. The topic is distinct from Ba’athist Arabization—it focuses on the post-invasion period and its own displacement crisis. I’m open to refining the wording or structure, but the subject itself is notable and sourced, there is absolutely no reason for it to be deleted. DataNomad (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat wording that already exists in the article. My concern isn't that some sources aren't reliable, I never claimed that. The issue is how they're being used. You didn't even explain where the "1,000,000" figure comes from! there's no citation or numeric data supporting that huge claim!. Also, the sources don't accuse the KRG alone, most of them talk about general displacement, with multiple actors involved. Only one of them even says "Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq" and none directly blame the KRG by name for organized, systematic deportations. So why are other participants and contexts missing from the article? That's a clear WP:NPOV.  Zemen  (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Sikorki (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't even need to check sources, I can judge based on the person who made this and their response which doesn't even address the biggest problem, the 1,000,000 claim. It's clear asserting this to only the KRG as this is a Kurd nationalist who wants to flex the deportations rather than help out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setergh, please focus on the article and its sourcing, not on your personal opinion of the editor. You should check the sources before offering your opinion at an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, however it was just a random thing I mentioned. Either way the rest which I have stated is something I find to be valid, as once again, the user has not addressed the main issue. Setergh (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent, the user could simple change the “perpetrator” section of the infobox. Other than that, what else seems to be the issue? I’m aware that the KRG wasn’t directly responsible, but does that justify the entire deletion of the page? Etcnoel1 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:MOS. This user has a history of creating unencyclopedic content. Just because something appears on Google doesn't mean it deserves a place in any encyclopedia. just look at this (and its nomination for deletion). Some of the numbers in the sources pertain to neighboring countries of Iraq and even Fallujah! Since when have the Kurds established their own country and become Iraq's neighbors? This clearly shows the article was written in a biased manner.  Zemen  (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally targetting me this is the 4th page of mines you are on DataNomad (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Laura240406 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It looks like to be eligible for keeping; but this is fine if it attaches further references . 110 and 135 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Name is not official, leaves this article open to POV problems. Information seems to be a fork of Gaza war#Post-war plans. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Obvious POV problems — Czello ^(music) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV issues, and for the 4 lines of text, this can be incorporated into an article on the war. Not sure this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Mooonswimmer 14:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV problems, far too specific a topic. Any content of merit can be (neutrally) included in Gaza war#Israeli leaders' plans. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:SPECULATION. Israel may or may not have a plan. But until it comes to fruition, it's just one more speculation about an ever changing situation in the middle east. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: POV issues. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL and POV issues. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While we can probably make an article covering the government's intentions of expulsion, dispossession and conquest, with appearances of the opinions of (self-described) fascists like Smotrich, having the article title as it currently is would not pass. If we are to create such an article, draft spacing it first so we have something substantially written to put out would be the best course of action, in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete, This is a bad fork with some pretty obvious issues with point of view and a near-WP:PEACOCK title. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This is an obvious WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violation. MidnightMayhem 03:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per almost everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POVFORK of Gaza war. We do have articles discussing every aspect of this war. Maybe the article was made as POINT? Do not redirect as even the name is POV and OR. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The topic is highly notable but WP:SPLIT is unjustified; the content should be integrated into existing relevant articles. Probably a sentence or two can go into the section Gaza genocide#Genocidal intent and/or Palestinian genocide accusation. If Crampcomes has kept the wikisource, then there won't be much practical difference between a delete and a merger - a plain copy/paste won't make sense in any case. If there is no opposition at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation, then creating a new 5th level ===== sub^4-section there would likely be justified. Boud (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to whatever the main article covering the topic is. MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronen Bar dismissal attempt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reasons:

1. Ronen Bar has resigned, and the question became theoretic.
2. At least two articles cover the topic: Ronen Bar, Qatari connection affair.
3. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NTEMP. _Dgw|Talk 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Here you may see if you are an XC for voting this topic. Regards, _Dgw|Talk 14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Ronen Bar. The dismissal itself is notable, but there is no need for a separate page, as opposed to a subsection of his biographical article. Per WP:NOPAGE, the information about the dismissal attempt, the resignation, and the other life information about Ronen Bar are "best collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely disagree. The sequence of events described in the article is highly unusual in Israel. Such a dismissal is a one-time occurrence. Even if he ultimately chose to resign, the chain of events remains exceptional and warrants a separate entry.Hila Livne (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Something being unusual or a one-time occurrence is not a policy-based grounds for making something its own page. Lots of unusual things happen to people on a one-time basis. Even if those unusual events are notable, the question is whether having all of the information in one place would create readability, WP:UNDUE, or other similar types of concerns. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Ronen Bar: This happened just over a month ago, notability hasn't been shown outside of the individual. This can be discussed in Bar's article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ronen Bar. Unnecessary fragmentation. If the Ronen Bar article would have been very long, there could have been justification for this article. It isn't long at all. gidonb (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  keep - Hila Livne (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Ronen Bar seems a sensible move to preserve the information in this article as well as add more context about the subject.Villkomoses (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ronen Bar I agree with the others that this is a notable event but likely not notable enough to warrant its own page yet. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Ronen Bar. It can be split again in the future if further coverage requires significantly more content. MarioGom (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Motion Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company. WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) into Bosch Rexroth. The company is a subsidiary of Bosh Rexroth, presently an underdeveloped article. While it could be claimed that Rexroth should be merged into its parent, Bosch, currently it has its own article. That article is desperately in need of some of the content and references of Elmo Motion. gidonb (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't seem to be notable enough to be kept unless by adding more related sources, or it could be merged ... 110 and 135 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

    Yeah I had the article open and was planning to draftify, but now that it's here it has to be assessed against WP:NORG / WP:PRODUCT. On the other hand, even if the article is "deleted" it can be refunded to draftspace or email to use elsewhere, so the work won't be lost even if that comes to pass. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with Drmies. Maybe there is an hypothetical version of this article that would warrant keeping it, but currently it reads more like a promo for the app. Turquoise (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when the deletion request was submitted, but right now it seems to me to be well-supported by sources that explain the importance of this application and its contribution to society.IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources are suitable. Authors and dates should be included in the formatting of the references. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are all kinds of minor products on wikipedia. Documenting tech history is part of what we use wikipedia for. ShipRush2 (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete strong delete. No significant coverage; only blogs, one review, and CEO citations or brief one-line mentions that such an app exists. The IBTimes source should be removed from the page per WP:IBTIMES (perennial source). Cinder painter (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As stated: "It was rated among the leading parental control apps of 2025 and cited as “best for blocking explicit content." Ovedc (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why delete an article that is well-rounded and provides sourced information about a product that many parents are looking for? Citadelian (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

2024 Ra'anana attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [22]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Starting to look a little like Trainwreckage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per EvansHallBear's comment, which you have not responded to. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like it is suitable for keeping and relatively has enough sources.110 and 135 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge all, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre - lack of significant ongoing coverage in secondary sources. Can and should be merged as recommended by nominator if not deleted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshdi Khalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Potentially notable mathematician but there has been some discussion on whether he is notable on talk and that has not been resolved. Looking for a wider discussion. A note tag has been placed on the article. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - According to Google Scholar, and his work has been cited 6291 by others; he has an h-index of 23, and an i10-index of 46. He is a tenured Full Professor. I don't know enough about these scores in relation to his specific field of mathematics to be able to interpret them, but it seems he may be notable. Apparently he is also a poet. Netherzone (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I wrote on the article talk some time ago, "Heavy citations in mathematics, centered on dubious journals, can be less a sign of notability and more a sign that something suspicious is going on." See Science: Citation cartels help some mathematicians—and their universities—climb the rankings: Widespread citation manipulation has led entire field of math to be excluded from influential list of top researchers. The subject is exactly the sort of person this was targeted at: someone high on the lists of heavily cited mathematicians but whose name would be unfamiliar to most mainstream mathematicians. For this reason I think we need to base notability on something else other than WP:PROF#C1. I don't see any evidence of that something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - based on the information that David Eppstein has shared. It's good to be aware of the fact that this sort of gaming of the system occurs in the mathematics field. A BEFORE search had revealed nothing else, and the awards are not notable, they are run-of-the-mill teaching awards. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - based on the analysis above. However it does raise the question of how NPROF#1 should be assessed in mathematics going forward, probably going by awards and recognitions? --hroest 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, probably. Major mathematics societies have issued statements telling mathematicians not to rely solely on citation counts in evaluation: IMU (IMU summary), AMS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The person mentioned in the article is actually its own author! This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the person presented as a representative is virtually unknown in the Palestinian territories. The article violates all standards. The author is attempting to create an article about himself in various versions of Wikipedia, but he does not meet the notability criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may be an autobiographyt but that is actually allowed, as long as it has been submitted to WP:AFC. Easliy passes WP:GNG though could do with some clean up. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page can be tagged with a maintenance template regarding COI, but the person is definitely notable, whether or not they wrote it themselves. It's written in a neutral tone, and from the oldest revision, appears to have been translated by the page creator from another wiki, so the content may have actually been written by various other people. Anyway, the subject is notable because of his arrest leading to mass protests (see this report, which is sourced in the article), media pressure leading to a conditional release, and being the director of several noteworthy TV shows. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because it is spam. He also made his article in Indonesian, Nederland, German, Korean and other language Wikipedia so it can be considered as cross-wiki LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same opinion with Badak Jawa Fazoffic. Singasarská (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobiographical article, emergency level conflict of interest. Seeing how the author of the article created an article with the same structure and content on many wikis at once, it is strongly suspected that this is an attempt at character promotion (or more accurately, self-promotion). See WP:YOU.
  Absolute Strong Keep Per @Theroadislong, an autobiography article, no matter the potential WP:ACTUALCOI or whatever, is okay to make as long as it has many sources (WP:RS), is neatly written, and NPOV. This is also a very useful new knowledge for me. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the person unquestionably notable? If not for the arrests, surely as an actor/director for several TV shows. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AUTO has replied to your comment. This is not encouraged at all on Wikipedia, even if they try to be neutral. Paid contributors are still better than creating articles by hand. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover I suggest you read Wikipedia:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies and Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself Badak Jawa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Jolielover But making an autobiography on Wikipedia itself is prohibited, even if the subject is worthy. A figure on Wikipedia must be created by someone else, and must not be created by the person himself so that the contents of the article are more reliable and accurate, without any suspicion of adding spices, self promotion, also paid contributor. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From my inclusionist point of view, I think there ought to be a community revision so as to check and assure the netrality of the article and to add additional information regarding the opposing view of Thaher, to make it more neutral. Because structure-wise, it is pretty decent. Your thoughts, @Jolielover? ANNAFscience (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Serigala Sumatera That is absolutely incorrect, creating autobiographies is discouraged but NOT prohibited. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theroadislong And do you know if the autobiography article has many problems? Have you read Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about Yourself? Badak Jawa (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [23] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theroadislong: So, making an autobiography article on enwiki is okay as long as it is written neutrally, neatly, has many references, and through AfC? Wow, this is very good news. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yes, basically. WP:AUTO says If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time. The thing is: this article did go through the AfC process (see here), making any argument for deletion irrelevant since policy explicitly states that autobiographies can be submitted and be approved through this process. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover and @Theroadislong Abduddaher globally blocked by EPIC Badak Jawa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Remind

The author of the article has created or edited all versions of other projects, which is generally considered cross-wiki spam.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user translated this page from an original article in the Arabic Wikipedia, and the original Arabic page that contains most of the information was written and created by someone else about 11 years ago. It is not the same user, so he didn't write that article about himself. It is also noted that the person who is featured in the article is famous and has extensive work and presence on international websites and databases, and his biography is full of notable events, which are supported by many references. He is a candidate to still be on Wikipedia, from my point of view. 85.113.115.249 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter.

The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him.

Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories?

He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online.

So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories? — Osama Eid ^(talk) 04:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...because there is established SIGCOV of him? A report and several news articles concerning his arrest, or his TV shows/films? The number of followers he has is irrelevant. jolielover♥talk 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Osama if the person is NOT notable in English Wikipedia, he isn't so in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't find you nominate the Arabic article for deletion and I think he meets WP:GNG enough, so I lean to Keep it. The issue now is that there is a conflict of interest and I don't think it's a good reason for deletion, since there is a maintaining tags, e. g. {{COI}} and you can rewrite this article according to Wikimedia guides. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [24]. Conflict of Interest - Mass Deletions Across Projects Maxpro2025 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care what happens at other wikis - this article on this wiki is appropriately sourced and demonstrates this subject meets the WP:GNG standard for notable BLPs. Will also remind all participants that this AfD falls within a CTOP and they should make sure they're aware of its rules. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might justify a COI tag and a cleanup to improve NPOV a bit, but it's not so outrageously promotional that TNT is warranted, and the subject clearly meets GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk)

• Keep I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion. Writing an article on yourself, while strongly discouraged, is not a deletion argument. And the nominator has not given any arguments to back up their claim of non-notability, especially when a strong one would have to be made considering the large number of proper sources currently in the article. The subject appears to be widely and properly covered in media. Obviously spanning years in relation to his detainment (see here, here, here, and here as some examples), but also previously to that for his work, such as this, this, this, this, and this. And there's plenty more out there. The coverage of him seems significant. Silverseren^C 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage appears independent, significant, and spreading over time, not just focused on a single event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, echoing the sentiments shared by Jolielover, Silver_seren, and SarekOfVulcan. There's enough coverage here to satisfy WP:GNG. Though the current state of the article and its COI origin isn't ideal, it's fixable, and an article's quality does not diminish the notability of its subject. In addition to the Arabic sources provided by Silver_seren, I found a writeup on his lese-majeste case by Columbia University's Global Freedom of Expression initiative[25], an English-language article in the Middle East Eye[26], and two statements from the Committee to Protect Journalists[27][28] which themselves link several reports discussing his arrest, including one by the SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom[29]. Further sources beyond those already mentioned no doubt exist in Arabic-language sources I couldn't easily access. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jordan and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Although the director is notable, I don't think his filmography is long enough for a separate page as of yet. I think this should be merged to Abdulrahman Thaher as there are some pieces of media he's been in not mentioned on that page. jolielover♥talk 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per jolielover♥.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per jolielover♥ BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Thaher's article, as above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above - there's also an active AfD for the director's main page, and I think including this information there could bolster the case to keep it. (Which already seems substantial.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is better suited to be a section on his page rather than a whole page on its own. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main page of the subject. Orientls (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cybelle Al Ghoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Middle East, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Keyrouz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and all I could find elsewhere was some mentions like [[30]]. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I couldn't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lebanon at the 1972 Winter Olympics as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Israeli plan to occupy and flatten all of Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Name is not official, leaves this article open to POV problems. Information seems to be a fork of Gaza war#Post-war plans. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Obvious POV problems — Czello ^(music) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV issues, and for the 4 lines of text, this can be incorporated into an article on the war. Not sure this is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Mooonswimmer 14:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: POV problems, far too specific a topic. Any content of merit can be (neutrally) included in Gaza war#Israeli leaders' plans. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:SPECULATION. Israel may or may not have a plan. But until it comes to fruition, it's just one more speculation about an ever changing situation in the middle east. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: POV issues. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:CRYSTAL and POV issues. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: While we can probably make an article covering the government's intentions of expulsion, dispossession and conquest, with appearances of the opinions of (self-described) fascists like Smotrich, having the article title as it currently is would not pass. If we are to create such an article, draft spacing it first so we have something substantially written to put out would be the best course of action, in my opinion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete, This is a bad fork with some pretty obvious issues with point of view and a near-WP:PEACOCK title. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. This is an obvious WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV violation. MidnightMayhem 03:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per almost everyone above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POVFORK of Gaza war. We do have articles discussing every aspect of this war. Maybe the article was made as POINT? Do not redirect as even the name is POV and OR. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The topic is highly notable but WP:SPLIT is unjustified; the content should be integrated into existing relevant articles. Probably a sentence or two can go into the section Gaza genocide#Genocidal intent and/or Palestinian genocide accusation. If Crampcomes has kept the wikisource, then there won't be much practical difference between a delete and a merger - a plain copy/paste won't make sense in any case. If there is no opposition at Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation, then creating a new 5th level ===== sub^4-section there would likely be justified. Boud (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to whatever the main article covering the topic is. MarioGom (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The person mentioned in the article is actually its own author! This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the person presented as a representative is virtually unknown in the Palestinian territories. The article violates all standards. The author is attempting to create an article about himself in various versions of Wikipedia, but he does not meet the notability criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may be an autobiographyt but that is actually allowed, as long as it has been submitted to WP:AFC. Easliy passes WP:GNG though could do with some clean up. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page can be tagged with a maintenance template regarding COI, but the person is definitely notable, whether or not they wrote it themselves. It's written in a neutral tone, and from the oldest revision, appears to have been translated by the page creator from another wiki, so the content may have actually been written by various other people. Anyway, the subject is notable because of his arrest leading to mass protests (see this report, which is sourced in the article), media pressure leading to a conditional release, and being the director of several noteworthy TV shows. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because it is spam. He also made his article in Indonesian, Nederland, German, Korean and other language Wikipedia so it can be considered as cross-wiki LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same opinion with Badak Jawa Fazoffic. Singasarská (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobiographical article, emergency level conflict of interest. Seeing how the author of the article created an article with the same structure and content on many wikis at once, it is strongly suspected that this is an attempt at character promotion (or more accurately, self-promotion). See WP:YOU.
  Absolute Strong Keep Per @Theroadislong, an autobiography article, no matter the potential WP:ACTUALCOI or whatever, is okay to make as long as it has many sources (WP:RS), is neatly written, and NPOV. This is also a very useful new knowledge for me. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the person unquestionably notable? If not for the arrests, surely as an actor/director for several TV shows. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AUTO has replied to your comment. This is not encouraged at all on Wikipedia, even if they try to be neutral. Paid contributors are still better than creating articles by hand. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover I suggest you read Wikipedia:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies and Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself Badak Jawa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Jolielover But making an autobiography on Wikipedia itself is prohibited, even if the subject is worthy. A figure on Wikipedia must be created by someone else, and must not be created by the person himself so that the contents of the article are more reliable and accurate, without any suspicion of adding spices, self promotion, also paid contributor. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From my inclusionist point of view, I think there ought to be a community revision so as to check and assure the netrality of the article and to add additional information regarding the opposing view of Thaher, to make it more neutral. Because structure-wise, it is pretty decent. Your thoughts, @Jolielover? ANNAFscience (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Serigala Sumatera That is absolutely incorrect, creating autobiographies is discouraged but NOT prohibited. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theroadislong And do you know if the autobiography article has many problems? Have you read Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about Yourself? Badak Jawa (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [31] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theroadislong: So, making an autobiography article on enwiki is okay as long as it is written neutrally, neatly, has many references, and through AfC? Wow, this is very good news. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yes, basically. WP:AUTO says If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time. The thing is: this article did go through the AfC process (see here), making any argument for deletion irrelevant since policy explicitly states that autobiographies can be submitted and be approved through this process. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover and @Theroadislong Abduddaher globally blocked by EPIC Badak Jawa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Remind

The author of the article has created or edited all versions of other projects, which is generally considered cross-wiki spam.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user translated this page from an original article in the Arabic Wikipedia, and the original Arabic page that contains most of the information was written and created by someone else about 11 years ago. It is not the same user, so he didn't write that article about himself. It is also noted that the person who is featured in the article is famous and has extensive work and presence on international websites and databases, and his biography is full of notable events, which are supported by many references. He is a candidate to still be on Wikipedia, from my point of view. 85.113.115.249 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter.

The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him.

Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories?

He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online.

So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories? — Osama Eid ^(talk) 04:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...because there is established SIGCOV of him? A report and several news articles concerning his arrest, or his TV shows/films? The number of followers he has is irrelevant. jolielover♥talk 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Osama if the person is NOT notable in English Wikipedia, he isn't so in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't find you nominate the Arabic article for deletion and I think he meets WP:GNG enough, so I lean to Keep it. The issue now is that there is a conflict of interest and I don't think it's a good reason for deletion, since there is a maintaining tags, e. g. {{COI}} and you can rewrite this article according to Wikimedia guides. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [32]. Conflict of Interest - Mass Deletions Across Projects Maxpro2025 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care what happens at other wikis - this article on this wiki is appropriately sourced and demonstrates this subject meets the WP:GNG standard for notable BLPs. Will also remind all participants that this AfD falls within a CTOP and they should make sure they're aware of its rules. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might justify a COI tag and a cleanup to improve NPOV a bit, but it's not so outrageously promotional that TNT is warranted, and the subject clearly meets GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk)

• Keep I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion. Writing an article on yourself, while strongly discouraged, is not a deletion argument. And the nominator has not given any arguments to back up their claim of non-notability, especially when a strong one would have to be made considering the large number of proper sources currently in the article. The subject appears to be widely and properly covered in media. Obviously spanning years in relation to his detainment (see here, here, here, and here as some examples), but also previously to that for his work, such as this, this, this, this, and this. And there's plenty more out there. The coverage of him seems significant. Silverseren^C 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage appears independent, significant, and spreading over time, not just focused on a single event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, echoing the sentiments shared by Jolielover, Silver_seren, and SarekOfVulcan. There's enough coverage here to satisfy WP:GNG. Though the current state of the article and its COI origin isn't ideal, it's fixable, and an article's quality does not diminish the notability of its subject. In addition to the Arabic sources provided by Silver_seren, I found a writeup on his lese-majeste case by Columbia University's Global Freedom of Expression initiative[33], an English-language article in the Middle East Eye[34], and two statements from the Committee to Protect Journalists[35][36] which themselves link several reports discussing his arrest, including one by the SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom[37]. Further sources beyond those already mentioned no doubt exist in Arabic-language sources I couldn't easily access. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Thaher filmography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article was authored by the same individual, which creates a conflict of interest. Additionally, this person is not widely recognized or well-known in the Palestinian territories. The article does not fulfill all the necessary criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 09:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jordan and Palestine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Although the director is notable, I don't think his filmography is long enough for a separate page as of yet. I think this should be merged to Abdulrahman Thaher as there are some pieces of media he's been in not mentioned on that page. jolielover♥talk 10:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 14:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per jolielover♥.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per jolielover♥ BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Thaher's article, as above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above - there's also an active AfD for the director's main page, and I think including this information there could bolster the case to keep it. (Which already seems substantial.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This is better suited to be a section on his page rather than a whole page on its own. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the main page of the subject. Orientls (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

2024 Ra'anana attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [38]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Starting to look a little like Trainwreckage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per EvansHallBear's comment, which you have not responded to. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It looks like it is suitable for keeping and relatively has enough sources.110 and 135 (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge all, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre - lack of significant ongoing coverage in secondary sources. Can and should be merged as recommended by nominator if not deleted. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP This is an extremely important topic, particularly considering the ever-increasing violence on campuses and the increasing amount of data exposing legitimate donations and (especially) formerly undisclosed "dark money" donations.

  It has recently been disclosed that some universities are doing research specifically for Quatar that may compromise American security, and of course, the unusual tolerance for destructive protests and antisemitic racism on campus tends to show a corollary that will become a major issue in the near future. For Wikipedia to delete such a topic would reflect very badly on Wiki's neutrality and trustworthyness. 68.233.186.4 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify - I agree that this article meets WP:GNG. My contention is that I do not believe this is encyclopedic content. The central claim of the article is that Qatar is somehow causing antisemitism at American universities. There is no mechanism for this proposed, and the burden of proof is not met by the article's content or sources. This is unencyclopedic content matching the description in WP:NOTADV and its deletion would fall under WP:DEL-REASON #7. Manyyassin (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anywhere in the article where the claim "Qatar is funding antisemitism" is being made in wikivoice. Where present in the article, this claim is always properly attributed to critics (although the sentence This biased approach highlights positive aspects of Islam while sidelining balanced discussions about other religions, particularly Judaism. should be rewritten to make it clear that this is the Lawfare Project's opinion).

  If there are others who argue against these critics in reliable sources, then they should be included as per WP:DUE. Otherwise, since you agree that this topic meets GNG, this discussion is better suited for a place like WP:NPOVN. The article may need some reworking to put more emphasis on the facts and less emphasis on speculation, but it should not be deleted. Astaire (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The references no. 12 - 16 mentioned at Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States#References easily confirm that notability exists. Shankargb (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not arguing it's not notable, but the balance on this article is so overtly against the issue that there is no opposing side and we require neutrality and balance. Nathannah • 📮 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you agree that it's a notable topic then what are we doing here at AFD? As I said above, this is a content dispute, not an argument for deletion. WP:NPOV says that articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If you don't like the current balance of opinions in the article then add some opposing opinions that have been published in RS. Otherwise this is just WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Astaire (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't just WP:NPOV. The burden of proof is not met and the speculations made by the thinktanks are not verifiable. There is no onus on the other side to refute these claims and balance out the article; the lack of evidence means these claims shouldn't be here in the first place. Manyyassin (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a coatrack. Most of the sources appear to be either opinion pieces or from biased sources. I think an article can be written on the subject but it is not encyclopedic in its current form. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all sources are like that. Need proper source analysis. Shankargb (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep: I disagree with the nom's assertion that the majority of this article falls under WP:NOTADVOCACY. The article attempts to describe the topic from a NPOV, but I do think WP:UNDUE weight is given to the subject of antisemitism and Qatar's influence on it. However, the article meets WP:GNG, so it can be improved and balanced out. There's no reason to delete it.--DesiMoore (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this article needs a fresh start as its currently written like an essay with tons of dubious citations from think tanks few reliable sources. Even the title is problematic. Nobody disputes that there is foreign interference from multiple actors on US universities but this article does not do the topic any justice. Optimally a new article describing foreign influence in the American tertiary education system should be written but I see very little that can be salvaged. --hroest 21:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and apply WP:TNT per above. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deleting it is not the solution (per WP:ATD); there are many reliable and neutral sources on this topic. Mast303 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Waleed A. Alrodhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Saudi Arabia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations not enough for this very highly cited field (quite apart from the general issue raised here[50]). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Some academic works are there but not enough to meet criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF, probably wikipedia should not have a article on it, fails WP:NBASIC. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ali Al-Malky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. No significant third party coverage. Olympians.sa appears to be a primary source of the Saudi OIympic federation, in any case it seems just to a database listing of athletes. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Finding sources for these types of athletes takes significant time and effort. I meant to only add the Arabic name I found as a note (which differs from Olympedia's Arabic name محمد علي المالكى), but I accidentally removed the PROD tag and then reverted my own edit. Then User:Liz re-removed the PROD tag in Special:Diff/1289174473, which I totally understand, but again I want to note that I de-prodded it in error.

The reason why I didn't want to de-PROD this right away was because I wanted to do a source search using both Arabic names which might take several days. I doubt we'll have time now that three other Olympian articles were nominated within minutes of this one (see 1 2 3), along with over 100 other recent PRODs that need to be dealt with. These mass-AfDs and PRODs have been controversial, because if you nominate articles with high enough frequency there are bound to be notable ones that fall through.

On the substance, the athlete was an Olympic Saudi Arabian sprinter that was likely covered in extant Saudi sources in the 1970s, but both those sources and coverage of the competitions he might have succeeded in, like the GCC Games, are not available to us easily. --Habst (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're trying the line that this "has been controversial" to dissuade others, the village pump has been running for 2 months without an outcome. Plus still recycling the tired NEXIST argument that has been discounted in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, I have a lot of respect for your contributions and I hope you can show me the same respect. I would never "try lines" because I never say something in AfDs that I don't believe. Yes, the village pump discussion has been running for months without an outcome, which is why it is controversial. WP:N (which includes NEXIST) isn't tired in the same way that WP:V doesn't get tired – they are core P&G used in creating an encyclopedia. When has it ever been discounted? --Habst (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an outcome doesn't mean it's controversial. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this case the reason there is no outcome yet is because there have been hundreds of comments both for and against, which is why the topic is controversial. I'm not even trying to say that there is community consensus against it right now – just that it is controversial, and it presents a problem. --Habst (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all controversial compared to other users starting 50 AFDs on the same topic in one day, 50-100 concurrent prods, etc. And certainly it is still much less controversial than the creation of all the lousy articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, I agree and appreciate your contributions. But neither of those other scenarios are currently happening, while this is a current issue. --Habst (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mostly a violation of WP:NOPROMO and questionable whether WP:SUSTAINED notability is backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is a situation where it looks like COI or possible UPE has created a highly promotional article on a notable artist. They meet criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST based on the museum collections they are in. However, he is not actually in all of the collections that are in the article, but enough, at least I think, to establish notability. Other collection references simply point to a bio or a press release about a show, and not to the actual collection source with the acquisition information and data. So it seems there is promo-puffery going on. I'm thinking that this may very well be a case where either a strong pruning back to a stub is necessary or a WP:TNT d*eletion would be in order. I'd like to hear from others in the visual arts to discuss before logging an !vote. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netherzone I have sorted through the collection claims. Please see Talk:Ahmed Mater#draft for collections section. No doubt the artist is notable. The article needs pruning. Hope to get back to it later this week. I did mark the some of the primary sources as "better source needed". More to do there too. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising your concerns. I’d like to offer some clarity and context, especially as the person who worked on earlier versions of the article. I understand that some parts of the previous version may have lacked perfect encyclopedic tone, and I fully accept responsibility for that. My intention, however, was not promotional. It was to document the life and practice of an artist I have studied closely for many years, and whose contributions to contemporary Arab and global art deserve careful contextualization.

I recognize now that the article may have fallen short of Wikipedia’s standards in tone or formatting, but the accusation of “promotional puffery” feels overly harsh. The references used were drawn from reputable museum archives, institutional press materials, and critical journalism—all of which are standard sources for artist biographies. If certain citations were weak, I would have welcomed collaborative improvement rather than wholesale deletion of verified content.

At this point, I am fully open to the suggestion of starting again from a properly sourced stub, especially since the current version is now reduced to little more than a name, birth date, and a list of collections—stripped of any real insight into the artist’s intellectual evolution, cultural impact, or thematic concerns. Such a skeletal version does not serve researchers, students, or even general readers trying to understand Ahmed Mater’s work or place in contemporary art.

An artist is not just a list of acquisitions. They are shaped by personal, social, and geographic histories—and they in turn shape the cultural fabric around them. This is how artists like Damien Hirst oe others , for example, are presented on Wikipedia—with attention to life story, artistic process, influence, and institutional recognition, all backed by sources. I believe Ahmed Mater deserves the same.

There is no shortage of credible English- and Arabic-language sources on this artist. What I ask is not to protect flawed content, but to collaboratively rebuild it in line with Wikipedia standards, and with respect for regional knowledge, history, and context.

––– ~~~~ Arif11 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Arif11 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

• Comment oh, this is a mess...embedded links and conflation of exhibitions and collections. I think it can be pruned into an acceptable article, but need to return to it later in the week. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I started to do a little pruning. It may be useful to trim back to a short article or stub to get to the heart of the key biographic and career events. There is a lot of fluff, puffery and original research/synthesis that is not supported by RS. But I think it can be saved. Netherzone (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely understand the concern about embedded links, conflation between exhibitions and collections, and the need to distinguish clearly between permanent holdings and temporary shows. This is an important distinction, and I am happy to assist in clarifying and verifying these entries. Any original research or undue synthesis should be removed, and I agree that the use of reliable secondary sources is non-negotiable.

  While I accept that some previous content may have included unnecessary detail or tone inconsistencies, I would like to emphasize that the intent was not promotional but documentary—drawing from available references in both Arabic and English. My priority is to help build an accurate, well-sourced biography that meets Wikipedia’s standards and reflects the trajectory of a significant cultural figure.

  If trimming the article back to a stub is the best path forward, I fully support that—as long as the foundation remains strong and allows for thoughtful rebuilding. Thank you again for your efforts and fairness. Arif11 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. He meets WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Request to Restore the 2004 Image in the Infobox:

  https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:AHMED_MATER_SAUDIARABIA_2004.jpg

  I would like to request that the image titled File:AHMED_MATER_SAUDIARABIA_2004.jpg be reconsidered for inclusion in the infobox of Ahmed Mater’s article. This image, taken in 2004, is not merely an “early” or “dated” photograph—it holds strong cultural and historical relevance.

  As someone who has previously conducted academic research on Ahmed Mater’s early life and practice, I view this image as uniquely significant. It shows the artist in his home village in the Asir region, wearing a traditional floral headpiece—a longstanding custom among men in southern Saudi Arabia. This image reflects a deep sense of regional identity and heritage, which continues to echo across much of his conceptual work. In many ways, it embodies the intimate relationship between personal narrative and artistic expression in his career.

  The more recent image I added—which shows Mater preparing his Magnetism installation—is important for illustrating the technical and symbolic dimensions of his mature practice. I believe both images serve distinct documentary purposes: the older one as a visual record of his cultural and geographic roots; the newer one as evidence of his internationally recognized conceptual output.

  Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the 2004 image be restored to the infobox (as it encapsulates identity and memory), while the recent one could appear in a new section or gallery on his artistic works. Over time, I also plan to contribute more images related to specific works in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

  This request is not about aesthetics or preference—it is about preserving cultural memory and contextual continuity in the visual documentation of one of the Arab world’s most significant contemporary artists.

  ––– ~~~~ Arif11 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Does appear to meet WP:NARTIST. I'm willing to help out with the clean up as well. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is notable and the fluff has been removed. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Netherzone and Se7enNationArmy2024 please take a look at the career section to see if it should be renamed or edited. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping. When I find the time in the next few days, I'll go thru the career section to check the text against the sources themselves (because I found quite a lot of OR and puffery that wasn't in the association source at all). Let me know if you have already done so, @WomenArtistUpdates for that section, and if not I'll tackle that. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, Yes please review career section against sources if you can. It does have a tinge of malarkey to it. I ran out of gas after the exhibitions and collections review. Thanks! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! And I did find a lot of malarky that was not in the sources. Netherzone (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It look so much cleaner now after what you've done! I am leaning towards changing the section name slightly to reflect that it is his art career as opposed to being generalized as it is currently. He's described several times in sources as physician-turned-artist so creating that distinction in the section title would provide added clarity. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies. I forgot to include a ping. @WomenArtistUpdates. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can clearly see that this Wikipedia article on Mater provides comprehensive information about his life, career, and works and also given the depth of coverage and the presence of reliable and independent sources. So, Ahmed Mater's Wikipedia article is considered notable and also noticed that one ref is generated through AI. Fade258 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ref is generated through AI? Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reference 19 which is in orange colour, well I am not 100% sure whether the reference is AI generated or not but when I move the cruser on that reference that shows AI generated article. Fade258 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I see it as a green link with an embedded orange over NPR that says it's AI slop upon rolling over the link. I think this is a script error of some sort. Because when I read the source itself, it's an actual transcript from a recorded six minute segment from National Public Radio. So I think that source is OK to keep in the article. Netherzone (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think that may be the script error and also I have reviewed the information mentioned in that reference and found that have been written in well format and neutral point of view. Thank You for addressing this. Fade258 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Syrian coup d'état attempt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

To reword what I previously wrote in the article's talk page, I believe that this article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS: it doesn't elaborate much on the subject (i.e. what exactly the plot was, who was involved in planning it, where was it planned to occur in, etc.), and since there doesn't seem to have been follow-up information about it (no WP:LASTING coverage), it looks to just be an example of WP:RECENTISM.

Alternatively, it could be merged into articles like Anas Khattab (career section), Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), or Syrian transitional government (possible reforms section), but its vague enough that I don't know if it would be appropriate. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A literal coup attempt that was covered in the news. Scuba 03:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:NOTNEWS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    by that metric we shouldn't have any election articles, and we should delete the January 6 United States Capitol attack article since well that was just a news story and we're not news! Scuba 13:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That’s obviously not the argument here. The second bulletpoint at WP:NOTNEWS is the relevant one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syrian transitional government. Not really that notable. Could be like one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 11:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scuba Shaneapickle (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interest to this article, please give some time to improving the article. Great achievement (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NOTNEWS doesn't mean "never cover news", RECENTISM is about articles focussing too much on parts that are recent, which doesn't apply here because the event itself is recent, and a lack of details is not a reason for deletion because AfD isn't cleanup. Cortador (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't that it lacks details because there aren't enough sources or something, the problem is that sources do not elaborate on this topic at all. Unless Anas Khattab elaborates in the future, there's nothing that could be added (unless this is supposed to remain a WP:PERMASTUB)

  Additionally:

  • WP:PERSISTENCE, which says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." likely applies because all sources about this coup plot were published around April 16-17 (2 days total)
  • WP:INDEPTH, which says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing.", likely applies because sources (barring North Press Agency) mention that this statement came as part of a larger series of statement about the Ministry of Interior's future plans.^[1][2][3][4]
  • Maybe also WP:LASTING, but it might require more time to assess historical significance. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - possibly significant but needs more sources. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem isn't that it lacks sources, it's that the article's topic isn't significant; the only info sources collectively say is that Anas Khattab announced (on 16 April) that the Syrian Ministry of Interior stopped a coup plot devised by former regime officers. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article covers a real event: a coup attempt in Syria that was reported by multiple news outlets, including TASS and Middle East Monitor. Even if details are limited, the event is significant and part of the ongoing conflict in Syria. Unclasp4940 (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. It seems WP:TOOSOON to have this article as standalone and not as a couple of paragraphs at Syrian transitional government and similar pages, and so I would find a redirect to Syrian transitional government a preferable outcome for the time being. I think it does not matter much either way, since it's very likely there will be coverage of this event in the years to come, but a redirect seems the most appropriate right now. MarioGom (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 massacres of Syrian Druze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Currently, I believe that this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) since information about the killings has been added into that article. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name is not agreed upon and widely sourced as in the 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites, the reporting always puts it as a detail and not the main event (again as in the Alawites' case). While the events are devastating, I do not see them as more than a section in the Southern clashes article, and also we should refrain from solely using SOHR for these.

- RamiPat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the reporting puts it as a detail? Many of the citations already in the article talk about it as the main event. It's also causing ripple effects in Israel and many Israeli articles are talking about it as the main event. E.g. 1 and [-- 2A05:BB80:32:B913:5D54:1EA:B2D5:200E (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't call it a massacre if 5 civilians died alongside 35 Hijri loyalists. I agree with asclepias. Most of the information is either reused or is redundant enough to be put in Druze in Syria and/or Southern Syria clashes (April 2025–present) TedKekmeister (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The scope is valid, but the name could be changed to something more reflective of reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article in its current form blatantly misrepresents what happened like the usual Assadist propaganda that has been in Wikipedia since 2013. Daseyn (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just change the name like it is in southern Syria clashes JaxsonR (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clashes denotes a clash between the military of one side and another. But here we also see targeted killings of civillians which are reported on by RS and in enough quantity to justify a separate page Genabab (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Skitash (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add another comment, the SOHR numbers state the total number of executed civilian Druze as 10. I have to mention that there are 42 Druze that were ambushed in Suwayda Governorate on the Damascus-Suwayda motorway, but the SOHR does not mention wether they were fighters, civilians, or a mix of both. But the news outlets that do specify mention only fighters (like France 24). I do believe the civilians killed were massacred, but they were not mass massacres for a separate article on them like the massacres of Alawites, which that article is also under discussion to be merged with "Western Syria clashes (March 2025–present)"

- RamiPat (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NEVENT is satisfied. Delete arguments so far are not policy-based. Title or potential NPOV violations do not justify deletion. Redundant forks require merge discussions, not AfD discussions.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I disagree; WP:REDUNDANTFORK has been used in previous deletion discussions, whether for deletion (this, this, or this), merging (this, this, or this), or redirecting (this, this, or this), thus I believe it is a valid argument to use. Considering that the two articles' scopes are very similar and this article's relevant content already was moved into there (and this article only has 3 paragraphs about the killings, so it can be fully merged without much trouble anyway), I think that this article is redundant. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025): In addition to being a POV content fork from the page Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025), the article is a complete hoax. No reliable source described the events as a "massacre" or claimed that Druze civilians were targeted. Majority of the Syrian Druze are opposed to the pro-Israeli Druze seperatist groups of Hikmat al-Hijri.

The page, which was a crystal ball created on 1 May 2025, contradicted media reports that Druze factions had reached de-escalation agreements with the Syrian government by then. For example, BBC reported on the ceasefire and end of the clashes on 1 May 2025. The BBC report's summary of the clashes during 28-30 April 2025 made no mention of any "massacre". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was fighting as late as yesterday despite the ceasefire, and there have been many extrajudicial killings of Druze. Either the Golani regime doesn't have control of the myriad Jihadi factions that see Druze and Alawites as justified for slaughter (regardless of the past regime), or he condones it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes have ended. Also, fighting=/=massacre. In this case, 5 civilians were killed in cross-fire, which isnt a "massacre", much less "massacres". Apart from this, in wikipedia, pages of massacres are titled based on their location. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. IdanST (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not redundant. Much of the material, especially in the background section, is not covered in the "clashes" article. Eigenbra (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The background section can be moved to the Druze in Syria article, and the only info from this article not in the Clashes article is the journalists being arrested, "At least eight government-affiliated fighters were also killed", and the Sahnaya Mayor's death. The poultry facility civilians, Damascus-Suwayda Road ambush, and Suwayda villages being shelled are in the Clashes article, and having a separate article for 4 sentences about the same topic does feel like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose moving the background section as you suggest. It serves as useful background in this article. There is no reason to move it. Eigenbra (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven’t adequately explained why this article isn’t a redundant fork (nor why relevant background info shouldn’t be moved to a more appropriate and more detailed article). You’ve just argued that the background info of this article is useful, but should an article be kept just because it has background info? Shouldn’t the article’s titular content be more important to determine if this should be kept or deleted? Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. Maybe a source analysis would be helpful determining an outcome as there are claims from some editors that this article is false. If you make further comments, please ground them in policy and guidelines, not political opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025) or keep. The broader article is relatively short, so the standalone article, which has a lot of redundant background content, is currently not justified. That being said, I think this matter could be addressed as a regular editorial dispute in the talk pages. The article could be standalone if there's enough distinct content justifying it. MarioGom (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syrian regions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [51] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fintilect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Intelligent Environments

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

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

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

Alinur Velidedeoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ilker Furat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Turkey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Management, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syrian regions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [52] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uğurcan Karagöz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

None of which have been identified, because it doesn't exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan#History: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [53][54][55] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge into Kemah, Erzincan#History: Changing my vote to merge as the siege is surprisingly not mentioned by the town's Wikipedia article. I suggest discarding the municipality and governor's websites and keeping TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi when merging. Aintabli (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, silviaASH (inquire within) 13:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, China, United Arab Emirates, India, Gujarat, Brazil, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - article reads like an advertisement for the company ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – The subject is a UAE-based collective management organization that has received significant coverage from industry sources like Billboard, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article can be further revised for tone and neutrality. Cleanup or advert tagging would be more appropriate than deletion. Subject has no relationship to past deleted articles titles "Music Nation". Mrmctorso (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tagged the article with templates pointing out the promotional content. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a company which means it must meet WP:NCORP. In order to do so, there must be sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I can only find routine coverage such as this and mentions such as this, all of which do not add up to the coverage necessary for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Petroleum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources and contains mostly basic corporate information without establishing notability. Additionally, the article is sparse, unsourced in key areas, and does not provide the depth expected of an encyclopedic entry. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. talk 08:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dubai Petroleum meets the notability requirements outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG through multiple independent and reliable sources that document its substantial historical, economic, and operational significance within the UAE’s energy sector.

Founded in the 1960s, the company played a pivotal role in transforming Dubai's economy with the discovery of the Fateh offshore oil field, and has since operated five major offshore fields: Fateh, South-West Fateh, Falah, Rashid, and Jalilah—a fact extensively covered by third-party sources such as Gulf News, Oxford Business Group, and The National.^[1]

From 2007, Dubai Petroleum Establishment assumed full operational control of Dubai’s oil assets, following the end of concession agreements with ConocoPhillips. It has since launched significant innovation initiatives, including Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques, HPHT drilling, and offshore structural inspection via drones and ROVs. These technical achievements have been recognized with industry awards, such as the Emirates Energy Award in 2013.^[2]

Its relevance is also institutional: Dubai Petroleum is a member of the Dubai Supreme Council of Energy, aligning it with broader governmental energy strategies. Moreover, its strategic partnerships—e.g., with Baker Hughes, TechnipFMC, and Petrasco—demonstrate global operational integration.

While the current article may lack depth, this is a case for expansion, not deletion. The nominator's claim that coverage is insufficient is refuted by a comprehensive analysis containing over 50 independent, verifiable citations, including from:

• Oxford Business Group
• The National
• Gulf News
• Rigzone
• Human Rights Watch (environmental critiques)
• Chambers and Partners (industry analysis)
• Stock Titan, Zawya, and World Oil Online (industry coverage)

Furthermore, Dubai Petroleum has been part of major international policy discussions (e.g., energy sustainability during COP28) and has faced scrutiny regarding fossil fuel emissions, positioning it within ongoing global environmental debates—a mark of notability per WP:SIGCOV.

Deleting this article would remove coverage of a key institutional actor in Dubai's energy sector. A cleanup tag or {{expand}} would be more appropriate than deletion. — EduExplorer47 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am 99% confident this response was written by a language model. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% it is AI. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so was the nomination too. MarioGom (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a hot mess and should have gone through AFC (where it should have been declined), but it didn't so here we are. Agree on the nomination and vote being Chatty - but the presumption of notability of DPC is enormous so now we're here, it's a keep for me. I don't particularly like what we're keeping, but it's been given life and now we have to sustain it... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Good grief, this is the sovereign oil production company of Dubai. The article is desperately in need of cleanup, arguably needs to be moved to Dubai Petroleum Establishment. But DELETION IS NOT CLEANUP. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs)
• Keep: Yet another LLM-generated nomination with no WP:BEFORE. MarioGom (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs work overall, but the subject itself is definitely notable. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Sustainable City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep unfortunately, the UAE does not have freedom of press, and there are hardly any newspapers, making coverage on topics that would appear to be notable by residents be limited. Gulf News and Khaleej Times are going to be your best bets for coverage on anything. This project is definitely notable regardless of the bias of the sources. Also, the place has won quite a few awards (see the article), which is a sure sign of notability. jolielover♥talk 19:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As pointed out by the nom, none of the sources are independent from the UAE government. Svartner (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are sources independent of the government, though.

  • https://wired.me/culture/sharjah-sustainable-city-urban-farms/
  • https://www.cbnme.com/news/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-aed-2-5-billion-in-sales/
  • https://gulfbusiness.com/how-shurooq-is-shaping-sharjahs-transformation/
  • https://www.mepmiddleeast.com/projects/sharjah-sustainable-city-unveils-final-phase-of-324-sustainable-villas
  • https://meconstructionnews.com/51678/work-on-544mn-sharjah-sustainable-city-and-23mn-al-hira-beach-project-on-track-shurooq-says
  • https://www.arabianbusiness.com/industries/construction/shurooq-officials-review-progress-on-544-5mn-sharjah-sustainable-city-23-68mn-al-hira-beach-projects
  • https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sharjah-map-with-the-location-of-Sharjah-Sustainable-City_fig2_370895721

  + many more. Like I said, there are no newspapers in the country 'independent' of the government due to a lack of freedom of press, but there are newspapers & magazines from outside the country covering the place, making the coverage significant & independent. jolielover♥talk 04:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jolielover. multiple external sources have reported on this, the fact that in-country coverage are not by truly independent sources doesnt constitute a problem in my view in this case. We cannot expect the same cultural context in every single country around the world. In the absence of a critical analysis on this however we need to ensure that we are not just parroting press releases. Even though in MDPI, this scientific article also should be considered independent since its peer reviewed by independent reviewers: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/10/8217 --hroest 17:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MDPI is a predatory publisher, the authors of the paper are employees of the UAE government, and the journal itself is not considered an academic journal per its Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_(journal). The sources that Jolielover listed are just random websites that pop up in a web search. The content in the sources all looks like press releases or paid content. If there is no RS coverage of the subject, then there is nothing that indicates the subject is notable and there is at a more fundamental level nothing to use to write the article. Thenightaway (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]