Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Middle East[edit]

Property Finder[edit]

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

Quite frankly, the sources are: company SPIP (not even about the company, just quotes about the market); more SPIP; SPIP about one of their events; more investor relations/market data; announcement of publicity initiative; funding announcement; interview; interview; more interview; funding; more funding; even more funding; product announcement; M&A; another M&A. In other news, more market predictions, more routine announcements.

What's missing: Any semblance of any coverage anywhere close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. It seems impossible that this article would become anything other than an investor relations brochure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, Middle East, and United Arab Emirates. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Stats-only article for a season with no sources other than themselves about a series which doesn't have an article. GNG sourcing of the season per se is unfindable and unlikely to exist. The series itself would probably be a good topic for an article. But there is nothing here to move to it. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The series are new. I'm guessing an offshoot of the Porsche Carrera Cup Germany? The lack of sources is dire, but are you sure none of this was written about? Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First to reinforce, this article is not about the series, it's stats for 1 season of the series. There is no article for the series. On your question, I'm never sure that something doesn't exist but I looked and couldn't find any real coverage of the season, much less GNG coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East could be notable, but I don't see enough coverage for this collection of stats. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources mentioning PCCME - Australians talking about Walls and Jones (here), or Middle Eastern sources referring to PCCME as a F1 or WEC support event (here). The series is notable as a support event on two Formula One events, as well as WEC support during 1st Bahrain round. Apart from that, a lot of notable drivers took part in the races including Theo Oeverhaus, Harry King, Harri Jones, Robert de Haan or F3 Charlie Wurz. The series doesn't have an article, as it's very new, but it may be created by me in coming days. So, I think that the season is notable enough to not delete the article. Maceekim (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a parent topic isn't passed down to articles of the same topic. Cortador (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, seasons are not presumed notable under the SNG. So the the relevant definition of wp:notability is having suitable GNG coverage, not the elements which you are listing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify in anticipation of the series article being created. It is new and looks pretty notable, and having this in draft space is completely fine. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country deletion sorting[edit]

Bahrain[edit]

Bahrain Proposed deletions[edit]

Egypt[edit]

Osirica[edit]

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

Purported masonic order that is briefly mentioned in some afrocentric books from George G. M. James, Asa Hilliard and Yosef Ben-Jochannan. The concept is spelt as either 'Osirica' and 'Osiriaca'. Although tagged as a possible hoax, it doesn't seem to be one. The idea exists, though it's not notable enough and the works it appears in are rejected by most historians. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In addition to the (probably not RS) books mentioned above this order is also discussed in C.H. Vail's "Ancient Mysteries and Modern Masonry" and "African-American Artists and Art Students: A Morphological Study in the Urban Black Aesthetic." which is a Penn State dissertation by M.N. DePillars. This is enough to meet the GNG even though these sources aren't currently used in the article. Central and Adams (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Proposed deletions[edit]

Iran[edit]

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an internet entrepreneur, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their third-party coverage in reliable sources (media, books) independent of themselves -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and press releases and Amazon sales pages for his books and "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations or companies he's been directly affiliated with -- and the only acceptably reliable sources, Deadline Hollywood and the Montreal Gazette, both just feature him as a provider of soundbite, but not as the subject of the coverage, which means they aren't enough to get him over GNG all by themselves if all the rest of the sourcing is junk.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well - this is article about a guy living in Montreal who is the head of a company based in Montreal written by a user with an IP from Montreal, and who, curiously, has made no other contributions to Wikipedia whatsoever. What a coincidence. That aside, sourcing is poor and none of the handful reliable sources provide in-depth of Karbasfrooshan - they all focus on WatchMojo. Delete and redirect to WatchMojo, as was originally the case. Cortador (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect As somebody who worked on the WatchMojo article, I can say I think that most, if not all, information about Karbasfrooshan which can be sourced to secondary RS is already on that page. I initially created this page as a redirect to WatchMojo before it was converted into an article. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal B F.C.[edit]

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

Empty article without any sources or material Shahin (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shahin (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Esteghlal F.C., I wouldn't really call the article empty! However redirect as a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 15:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun[edit]

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

One of many poorly created articles translated from the Azeri Wikipedia (for more details, see [1]).

Nothing comes up when searching "Battles of Inje and Qalaburun", which makes me fail to see how it meets the notable criteria. And the most cited sources here (5 out of 6 citations) is by a genocide denier [2] Jamil Hasanli, who is also closely connected to the Aliyev-ruled Azerbaijani government, notorious for its historical negationism/revisionism [3] [4] [5] and anti-Iranian sentiments [6], which is not really ideal for an article about the history of Iran. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Etemadi[edit]

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

Ebrahim Etemadi likely doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the mentioned sources might not be reliable enough. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Music. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Three of the citations presented (2 Farsi and 1 Enlglish) seem to be OK. The Persian version of this has 17 citations and I saw some Ok ones there, such as 1, 2. We can't just assume because something is in a foreign language, it is unreliable. He seems to be well known in his country.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran[edit]

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

Clear content fork, likely POV fork (trying to use Islamic Republic in the title as scare words). Article is a less-detailed overview of the article Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and confusingly shares a functionally identical title.

Not worth considering merging as the article exclusively cites encyclopedia entries and a couple American conservative media sources, nowhere near as rigorous as the existing article that already covers this topic. Dan • ✉ 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Here's a revised and more formal version of the sentence:

Keep. Islamic fundamentalism in Iran boasts a history spanning centuries. This article primarily focuses on the period following the 1979 revolution, which led to the establishment of Iran's first Islamic state. Integrating this with the main article would result in disproportionate emphasis. The term 'scare word' is unclear; could you elucidate your argument? The term in the title of article refers to the current government's practice of an Islamic state, its official name is also Islamic Republic. Should you have any critiques regarding the title, we can explore alternative designations such as 'Fundamentalism in Post-Revolution Iran.' It is noteworthy that the majority of this article's content is not found in the main article, as it concentrates on the emergence of state-sponsored fundamentalism and its systematic implementation. Regarding the conservative source to which you allude, could you please specify? The sources utilized are balanced, including esteemed historical references such as Britannica." I'm also expanding the article. The work hasn't finished yet. 3000MAX (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were trying to make an article only covering post-Revolutionary Iran and I apologize for thinking the title was a use of non-neutral language. However, it should be noted that the already-existing article is already almost entirely about post-Revolution Iran. The lead of the main article immediately discusses how "Islamic fundamentalism" in the country is primarily connected with Khomeini, and only discusses pre-Revolution Iran in the "History" section.

I'll refrain from using the term "main article" to refer to Islamic fundamentalism in Iran as I do see now that the two articles discuss completely different topics despite the similar names. The older article is about the religious intellectual movement, and discusses theology and the political relationship between the clergy and the state. This new article is primarily listing certain actions of the state that it justifies via Islam. This shows a deeper issue: this article doesn't really discuss Islamic fundamentalism at all. Islamic fundamentalism is a theological doctrine and should be discussed in an article on theological movements (as it is in Islamic fundamentalism in Iran) and isn't really an applicable term for discussing state media censorship. Notably, none of the sources cited in this article use the term "fundamentalism" anywhere (besides of course the referenced Britannica definition of the term). Since none of the sources cited discuss the actions of the state as "Islamic fundamentalism" it seems this article is almost entirely synthesis trying to connect conservative policies to Islam, rather than just a content fork. Some of the connections to Islam fail to even appear to materialize in the prose: for instance, These ministries regulate university curricula, faculty appointments, and student admissions, ensuring alignment with Islamic values is vague and doesn't explain what part of the education might be Islamic. Enforcement of Persian-language studies has no connection to Islam, which is a famously Arabic-focused religion, and is more in line with discussion of Iranian nationalism.

Also on sources: I took issue with citing to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which as a political think tank is non-neutral in discussion of Iran.[7][8][9] The Guardian article cited fails verification – there's nothing about ethnolinguistic minorities in that article. Dan • ✉ 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge it into Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, seems like a completely unnecessary fork, not sure how it would falter with WP:BALANCE as the creator of the page mentioned. Noorullah (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding comment: The content shouldn't differ as Dan was mentioning earlier between both pages, they should go over the same topic, meaning the Islamic fundamentalism in Iran does generally need a cleanup as well.. Noorullah (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redundancy of title. "Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran". What other kind of fundamentalism could there be in Iran, except Islamic? — Maile (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Proposed deletions[edit]

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

Iraq[edit]

Laith Saad Abdullah[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no good independent sources about him, plus COI concerns. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Fahad[edit]

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

A Iraqi TikTok personality who was recently shot. Seems to lack any notability or sources while alive, a violation of WP:VICTIM and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Crime, Internet, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I'd support a move to Death of Umm Fahad.Jeanette Tu Novia Martin (?) 22:05, 27 April, 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't the title Murder of Umm Fahad be more accurate? Like Murder of John Lennon? Brudelman (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yeah, thats what i meant...Jeanette Ms. Red Lipstick Martin (?) 02:35, 29 April, 2024 (UTC)
Comment @BlakeIsHereStudios: Has someone consulted possible sources in Arabic? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually think Internet "personalities" are worth the time of day. However, she seems noteworthy as it further highlights the ludicrous things that people will fall foul of the morality police in the middle east.Salty1984 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a result of "Morality Police" - as Iraq doesn't have an official designated police force. Iran on the other hand, yes. The Ghashd Ershad (Morality Police) exist there, but don't shoot people (albeit they do harass people). This woman was killed by some lunatic fanatic by the looks of things, nothing related to morality police. Just thought I would clarify that. Ali313korosh (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•My understanding is that in Iraq, an influencer may speak about social and political issues as well as promoting cosmetics and clothing. Perhaps an explanation of the role of influencers would make the death more significant. - - - - 65.18.206.23 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Death of Umm Fahad per JeanetteMartin's !vote, most if not all the coverage of this individual seems to be in regards of their death. However, more indebth sources need to be provided in order to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG, which I am unsure if the article passes at the moment. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move and wait, as her death seems to be gathering international attention. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like others have previously said, move to Death of Umm Fahad for now. B3251 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An individual whose persona has not garnered much attention, and I am doubtful that their passing will have a lasting impact after a short period of time, possibly weeks or months. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Umm Fahad, her real name Ghufran Mahdi Sawadi, was another social media influencer murdered because their individual lifestyle is hated by the irakian system. Her Voice was important as an resistance against the morality of the Irak government. It was a internationally perceived femizid. "Traditional societies have very restrictive ideas about gender roles. Women have to be modest and reserved, they should serve men and not show off their bodies," explains Dorothee Dienstbühl, Professor of Criminology at Brandenburg Police University. -> https://www-zdf-de.translate.goog/nachrichten/politik/ausland/irak-influencerin-tiktok-ermordet-femizide-100.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true --Jensbest (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what? Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 06:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tash Garrison[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources besides the one 2003 report. Given it seems to lack official government recognition, WP:GNG applies over WP:NPLACE and I can find basically nothing about this place. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to Al-Tash refugee camp. Several thousand people lived here, the refs are good and satisfy gng. Desertarun (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel[edit]

Yonatan Steinberg[edit]

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

This appears to be a WP:BLP1E instance. There appears to little to no meaningful coverage of this individual as a subject before or after the one event involved, and all of the coverage on the en-wiki page is essentially obituary material and coverage. Based on this material as it is, as an encyclopedic entry the page devolves more towards WP:RESUME or WP:NOTMEMORIAL than anything else, with the material also largely coming from government and military obituaries, not independent RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a significant figure, and we have managed to write a significant biography about him. PatGallacher (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: this is one of about a dozen articles that seem to be violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL and linked to https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=October_7. i've nominated those that i can, but many of them are additionally marked extended protected, which seems like an abuse of the designation in an effort to protect the pages from (rightful) editing and deletion. 814jjs (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC) not EC FortunateSons (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment may not have been encyclopedic, but I will reply anyway. These other articles may or may not be notable, but they should be considered on their own merits. If they are at the wrong protection level then I suggest raising this at WP:RPP. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mako Hit List[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability. Zero sources except for their own website. The only content is from their own website. I looked and could not find any independent coverage, much less GNG coverage. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Dror[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious and consist mostly interviews, passing mentions and tangenital links and profiles. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing meets WP:GNG. --Omer Toledano (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--היידן (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has at least 3 solid GNG references. I didn't review all 57 references, but if some or even many have the problems described in the nom, that is not a reason to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Would you care to list your three "solid" references? Regards. X (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sofiblum (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA and has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Account has made thousands of edits on the Hebrew Wikipedia though. Doesn't seem like a problem Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know the problem because you only started in Afd on the 2 May 2024 and you've never written any large articles of consequence to discover the problem. The reason its a problem is because the English Wikipedia has a much higher standard of notability requirements that most of other wikipedias and that includes the Hebrew Wikipedia. The reason for that is the paid-editing hassle that began in 2008 and ran for many years before it was fixed, that eventually led to much improvement in the BLP notability criteria, to a much higher standard than other Wikipedias. So that is reason for it. So for that editor to turn up, who hasn't edited any length on Wikipedia and doesn't know criteria is a real problem. While anybody can turn up and !vote, the statistical chance of somebody from the Hebrew wikipedia, coming to en Wikipedia, selecting this article and then coming to the Afd, minutes after I posted it, is almost zero. It does not happen. It indicates canvassing, orchestration, which is illegal on Wikipedia. It indicates that the group is working against Wikipedia, breaking the Terms of Use, and its is unfair and downright crass. scope_creep^Talk 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Politics, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll look at the references, all of them this weekend, including the 3 supposed good references on a 30k article with close to 60 references, suffering from WP:CITEKILL. scope_creep^Talk 15:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep a very well known docial activist who had asignificant impact on the protests in Israel Hila Livne (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A known activist and the article has enough references. Danny-w (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor hasn't edited for months and magically appears now for some reason. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has nearly 50k edits on Hebrew wikipedia, and stated that they translate a lot of articles, quite likely just on their watchlist Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason described above. Having 50k editor on another Wikipedia doesn't for squant in Afd. The editor took this stance in a previous Afd when the same spurious argument was made, a quantitive rather than qualitive argument. Numbers of reference do not count and haven't counted for more than decade, unless its WP:THREE. Its an argument to avoid in Afd, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. scope_creep^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be fine on WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Seems to a lot of canvassing going on here, from Hebrew speaking Jewish editors again, espousing the same arguments I've heard before about being fanstastically well known and article has enough references. We will find out. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as though tag teaming is going on. I might have to take you all to WP:ANI, including the Hebrew admin, except North8000. This behaviour is probably disruptive. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike your comment, which violates WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. The religion and nationality of other editors is irrelevant, as are evidence-free charges of canvassing. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: I would like to repeat Longhornsg's request. Strike your comment. It comes across as ad hominem and racist. It has no place in an AfD. You have made several additional comments to this AfD without addressing it. Do not continue to comment here while failing to address this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meant to be racist. I've struck the comment, but it still looks like canvassing and this is the 20th Afd where I've seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are all the sources perfect? Absolutely not, the article needs work. Does coverage of the article topic in RS satisfy WP:GNG? Yes. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed at Afc by 4 seperate editors who found it wanting before I rejected it. To say it needs work, is the understatement of the century. scope_creep^Talk 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, seconding that. As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this. X (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known activist. The very fact that he has been interviewed repeatedly by the mainstream press is convincing evidence of notability. Non-notable people are not sought for interviews. Moreover, there is no rule against using the content of interviews in BLPs. The strictest rule is WP:ABOUTSELF which allows such material. Zero^talk 14:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your a bit out of date, aren't you. Certainly your allowed to use interviews in biographical article, but per consensus there must be other supporting coverage. It is a list of interviews and nothing else. Anybody can get interviewed by anybody and make a list of interviews. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply not true that anyone can be interviewed multiple times by the press. And you need to read WP:BLUDGEON (and learn how to spell "you're"). Zero^talk 15:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets looks at the references, to find these three elusive WP:SECONDARY sources.

Ref 1 [10] This is exclusive interview. Not independent.
Ref 2 [11] This is contributor. Its non-rs.
Ref 3 Unable to see it at the moment.
Ref 4 [12] This is another interview. Not independent.
Ref 5 [13] This is another interview style PR business article. Not independent.
Ref 6 [14] This is from a press-release. It is non-rs.
Ref 7 [15] Ami Dror, founder. That is not independent.
Ref 8 [16] Non-notable trade award. A small profile on Dror.
Ref 9 [17] His business is thrilled to annouce. A press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [18] Another press-release Non-RS.
Ref 11 [19] An interview. Not independent.
Ref 12 [20] Business interview. It is not independent.
Ref 13 [21] Another interview. Not independent.
Ref 14 404
Ref 15 [22] A radio interview. Not independent.
Ref 16 Unable to view it.

Out of the 15 references in the first block, the majority of which are interviews. So nothing to prove any long term viability for this WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 18:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following references are solid and satisfy WP:GNG:

Ref 32 [23] - "Shine News" in Shanghai
Ref 33 [24] (Hebrew) - in Calcalist
Ref 30 [25] - in Israel21c

Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano:. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is not idependent.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either. Its is him talking.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is not independent.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They satisfy WP:GNG and that is sufficient enough. Kindly retract your deletion request. --Omer Toledano (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Comment Some discussions mentioned requirements from WP:NCORP WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. These are requirements for using special Notability Guideline "way in" for Companies/Organizations. This is an article about a person, not a company or organization. The applicable standards would be to pass either the sourcing WP:GNG (the center of the discussion here) or the people SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people) (not discussed here). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article mixes WP:BLP and promotes a stong business content via PR which are pure spam links and that one the reason that it was repeatedly declined continuously on WP:AFC. It has been established practice since about 2018 and is consensus to note these when it fails a policy, even if its WP:NCORP. The PR spam link reference make up a tiny number, less than 3-5% of the total. There not independent. scope_creep^Talk 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for posting these @Omer Toledano: in the spirit they are intended. I will take a look at them.

Ref 32 This is a business interview style article for a new business by Dror, based in Shanghai. It is a promotional PR piece and is not independent.It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 33 This is also a business style interview with Dror that comes under WP:NCORP as part of PR branding drive for his new company in Shanghai. It is not independent either.
Ref 30 This is another PR style article with no byline, promoting the business. It is non-rs.

None of these are independent. They are not valid sources for a WP:THREE exercise. This is a WP:BLP tha must pass WP:BIO to remain on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Not one of these 19 sources can satisfy notability to prove it. They are not independent, they are not in-depth and they are not significant. I'll look at the second block. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the 2nd tranche of references:

Ref 17 [26] Another interview. Its not independent.
Ref 18 [27] Another interview. Seems he was the bodyguard of Netanyahu.
Ref 19 Non-rs
Ref 20 Non-rs
Ref 21 Unable to view it
Ref 22 [28] Its a passing mention.
Ref 23 Non-rs
Ref 24 [29] It is a profile. It is junk social media. Non-rs.
Ref 25 [30] Essentially a passing mention.
Ref 27 [31] "Ami Dror, said in an interview with CNET" Not independent.
Ref 28 [32] Doesn't mention him.
Ref 29 [33] It is a passing mention and is not significant.
Ref 30 Duplicate of above. PR
Ref 31 [34] A small profile. Not significant.
Ref 32 Described above as PR that fails. It is a WP:SPS source.
Ref 34 Non-rs
Ref 35 [35] That is a press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 36 [36] That is a routine annoucenent of partnership that fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

So another block of junk reference. Not one of them is a WP:SECONDARY source. Some passing mentions, lots of interviews, a lot of business PR and not one that satisfies WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV. The article is a complete crock. (edit conflict) scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest and stop WP:BADGERING. Longhornsg (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been linking to essays, guidelines, and policies which I feel in several cases has been incorrect regarding what they are, their applicability (including the context of where they came from) and interpretations of them. Other than to note that, I don't plan to get deeper in on them individually. IMO the core question is whether the topic/article has the sources to comply with a customary application of WP:GNG Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the WP:NCORP mentions per discussion, although the businesses are heavily promoted in the article. The rest of the reference in the 3rd tranche are of equally poor references, made up of profiles, interviews, podcast and lots of non-rs refs. It none of secondary sourcing needed to prove the person is notable per WP:BIO. Of the three criteria in WP:BIO, this person fails all of them. Up until Dror started to protest which was quite recent, he was invisible. Its all of the moment. scope_creep^Talk 14:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an AFC reviewer myself, I don't think articles like this one would have or should have gotten through. And it didn't by anyone from AFC, but someone totally independent of it all of a sudden moved the draft to main space. I'd personally strongly discourage moving pages (that can be considered contentious or have issues) that are ongoing AFC material/submission. It defeats the entire purpose of the project, especially so when it was declined multiple times and clearly had, still has a lot of issues. AFC was started for quality control and reducing AFD's like this.

Nonetheless, I must admit this is one of the strangest AFD's I've come across. So many things here feels convoluted and fishy. X (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it's come up a couple times there's one thing which I'd like to address (given that I moved the article into article space.) which is the multiple prior rejections at AFC. I've done a few thousand NPP reviews and I'd guess taken more than 100 articles to AFD so I'm no pushover. I'm also an AFC reviewer, but ~95% of the reviewing I do is NPP. (I didn't use the AFC tools available to me for the move on this one.) The official AFC criteria for acceptance is that it has a reasonable chance of surviving an AFD. There has been considerable discussion of this at AFC talk, including concern that some AFC reviewers were declining based on criteria other than this. And the relevant AFD criteria is wp:notability which requires that it pass either a relevant SNG or the sourcing GNG. The SNG criteria has not been invoked leaving the sourcing GNG as the criteria. And this requires typically 2 GNG references. The first AFC decline/ draftifying in essence said that they looked at a sampling of about 10 (of the many dozen references) and there weren't GNG references in that sampling. The criteria is that it has GNG references, and a look at only 20% of the references does not determine that they don't exist. The subsequent reviews not only did not make such an analysis, they simply referred to the first decline in essence saying "no change since the first decline". IMO it has suitable GNG references, and much stronger than the typical standard at AFD, which is the basis for my actions, just trying to do the correct thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment/response. However, I've asked you earlier in the thread to care to list at least 3 sources which you've found/consider the best? Regards. X (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a clear majority of editors who want to Keep this article, there are editors who believe the sources do not establish GNG with SIGCOV so this isn't a slamdunk close. If editors arguing to Keep this article could find more significant sources, this discussion might be closed relatively soon. But this is not a Vote Count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Desertarun (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both for what should be happenning here and also for where I want to invest my scarce wiki minutes, IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist, rather than an analysis of my review. For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start: [37] [38] [39] . Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made a quantitive versus a qualitive argument in this comment and the last comment. Wikipedia strives for quality at every level and for some reason, you decided to support this article even when 4 other AFC editors in good standing decided it was junk. You have rationalised somehow that those other editors didn't make a proper WP:BEFORE review, before declining which is both disengengous and a failure of WP:AGF. Your essentially stating they have a lower standard of reviewing at AFC than yourself, yet you can't identify here what is good source amongst all these low quality sources and offer 3 paid for PR sources as though they valid, the best there is. It is an extremly poor argument for a supposed NPP reviewer in good standing, that fails WP:AGF in disparaging four good editors, one of which is myself who has written close to 750 articles (you have written 17 small article) and has almost twice the number of edits as you. Current consensus regarding WP:THREE, which changed last summer at a WP:RFA and is now considered best practice, is three WP:SECONDARY reference. Even though you happen to provide three reference for other editors to examine, which are extremely poor. I don't have confidence in you as an NPP reviewer. Lets looks at these references:

[40] This has video shot by the Shine company, where Dror does an another interview. It is classic PR where he WP:PUFF's himself up. That is not independent.
[41] The images come from Leaplearner which is Dror's company. It is PR and is not independent, failing the criteria.
[42] The images here have been provided by Dror. Its states it clearly. It is more PR and is not independent. His business partner states: "Hussein tells ISRAEL21c. “People like us have a responsibility to do something big." That is not idependent either. Its is a busines PR article. Its may be non-profit but it still not independent. scope_creep^Talk 17:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far no indepth, secondary, independent coverage has been offerered. scope_creep^Talk 18:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many many elements in your post, include IMO mischaracterizations, ad hominem approaches and many which I consider to be out of bounds regarding Wikipedia behavior. It's not my MO to pursue such things. I'm not going to engage further on that and am content to let others decide on this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One quick exxtra note, having images supplied by or credited to the person in the image is common, not something that deprecates the published piece that it is used in. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article feels as odd as this AfD, to be honest. From a business point of view, I'd be a clear delete - I agree with scope_creep's analysis of the WP:THREE sources presented by North8000. It does seem like he could be a notable protestor, but the best-looking links I can see are either Youtube videos or interviews, not significant coverage. And there looks like some paywalled articles I can't access which might be significant coverage. I wouldn't have accepted this at AfC, it needs a complete re-write, it reads like it's written close to the subject, it's badly source-bombed, but it's not clearly not notable. I'm really not sure how to !vote here on notability grounds but notability isn't clear from the time I've spent parsing it, but if you made me make a decision about this one I'd draftify it. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From where did you get the idea that interviews are not significant coverage? How many non-notable people are regularly sought for interviews? Moreover, what someone says about themself in a interview is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Zero^talk 07:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews aren't significant coverage for WP:BLP's. Interviews can't prove notability for BLP's and that has been consensus for more than a decade. They are WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't know where you get this idea that is both misleading and disengenous that WP:ABOUTSELF seems to trump WP:BLP and WP:BIO. It is a complete of misreading of policy and completely out of date. I've done 1000's of Afd and I've never read anybody making a statement like that. Never seen it mention once. More so, concering your comment above, We live in the age of internet and youtube where folk with millions of followers get interviewed on the most banal things and that is seen by quanities of people that even in the golden age of mainstream press in the 1940-60's, could never compare. It is a false argument. There is no analysis here to show Dror has lasting notable, by secondary sources, the standard way of measurement of notability for people. It's Dror showing up at the camera and talking, for every reference. Its all surface and no depth. scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all applications of WP:ABOUTSELF are to primary sources, so that's not a valid argument. (Anyway, that is about the reliability of the content of the interview, which is different from the reliability of the interview itself.) As for interviews, it is not the mere fact of an interview that proves notability but the independence of the venue and the reason for the interview. If a journalist goes to an event and interviews whoever happens to be there, that obviously does not indicate notability. Nor does an interview sponsored by the interviewee. But if a journalist specifically seeks out a particular person to interview for publication, that is an obvious case of notability indicated by an independent reliable source. The independent reliable source in this case is the journalist and their news outlet. Notability is also indicated if the journalist's report emphasises the notability. So it is incorrect to just dismiss interviews out of hand; instead they have to be examined for their circumstances. I don't see any such examination here. For example, dismissing this as non-independent as you did is wrong unless Judy Maltz works for Ami Dror. By the way, your signature is ugly and visually annoying. Zero^talk 10:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying the newspaper and the journalist in this case are somehow exceptional and should be reliable in this instance, even though time and history has shown that argument to be be wholly false, in any number of ways, i.e. subject to human vagaries of corruption, incomeptence and all the other problems that beset humanity, human bias and political favour. There is no basis argument for that on Wikipedia. This is another curious and unusual fringe argument that I've not seen. For me, its never been the channel nor the venue that is important but the source that provides the information and whether another source reflects that information, making it uniquely idependent of the first, that is important in WP:V. That is whole reason for WP:SECONDARY sources. The argument has been reinforced at every level in my whole Wikipedia existance, right back to 2005. Its has no validity. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only time I seen that argument is in talk pages when its been used to support using some information like the date of birth taken from a twitter message or linkedin profile, not for a mainstream BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 11:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a logic error in confusing the reliability of an interview article (which means the interview is correctly reported) with the reliability of the interview content (which means the person being interviewed told the truth). There is no contradiction in a reliable interview article quoting the interviewee telling lies. The notability tick is placed if the interview article is reliable. Articles by journalists in respectable newspapers are one of the sources most commonly accepted as reliable in WP. In this example, as Haaretz has always been considered reliable, this is assumed to be a reliable report. Whether the things that Dror told the journalist are reliable is irrelevant for notability and thus irrelevant for AfD. (I would be happy to cite Haaretz in our article with attribution to Dror, but that's another argument.) Incidentally, I was already an admin when you joined WP so you won't get anywhere with the longevity argument. Zero^talk 12:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid the context creep which might be starting, here was the context of me mentioning those three sources. "IMO this needs to be about folks determining whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist.....For folks making that determination, there's a lot to look through in the article and elsewhere; here's a few places they might want to start:" So it was nothing more than that, it was not explanation of my own overall opinion on "whether or not suitable (to a customary degree of rigorousness) GNG sources exist" North8000 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my opinion on an answer to that question is a strong "yes". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan[edit]

Sohaib Al-Malkawi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Couldn't find any articles or independent information about him online. The article is mostly puffery. Probably a COI - draftifying might be an alternative, though I can't find any coverage about him at all. Clear friend a ^💬 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Jordan. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Reyada School[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED school with no good place to redirect. A quick search reveals nothing more. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination is incorrect in that the school has a reference. When the article was crerated I believe this scraped through as a "Highschool" because it was judged at the time that such a school was inherently notable. Today I have my doubts. A diligent WP:BEFORE finds that some sources have potential, but do not meet WP:NSCHOOL. I choose to remain neutral in this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait[edit]

List of Al-Arabi SC (Kuwait) players[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people which does not meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Football, Asia, and Kuwait. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. A category is sufficient to group footballers who played for the club. Svartner (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon[edit]

Khalil Rahme[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) I am changing my recommendation to a redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup quarter finalist, several references (though more needed), suggesting player has had/having a career in Australia's first and second tier. Article needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played at the RLWC, nine sources, every line sourced.Fleets (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads#Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. No standalone notability and no established first grade career. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participation-based athlete criteria, which both keep !votes are based on, were deprecated 2 years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions[edit]

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

Oman[edit]

Palestine[edit]

Jacqueline Sfeir[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ and never been effectively referenced. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a journal article that describes her work (Reference 2, Harvard Educational Review), although I could only see a snippet. In a Google Scholar search at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Jacqueline+Sfeir&btnG= her name appears several times as someone being cited or described. I couldn't find an article about her in the Arabic Wikipedia, which would be at ar: جاكلين صفير I think there's enough evidence that she had a significant influence on others. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added coverage of her work from Proquest and from several books available at archive.org; these additions discuss her impact on early childhood education. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance[edit]

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

Delete or merge into Ahmed Yousef. Fails WP:NORG. Only fleeting mentions of this organization in RS, and an official testifying before the UK Parliament does not establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

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

Templates[edit]

Categories[edit]

Redirects[edit]

</noinclude>

Qatar[edit]

Saudi Arabia[edit]

AfD debates[edit]

Tawal[edit]

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

I don't see this meets the criteria laid out in WP:NCORP The article relies on unreliable sources and press releases, and therefore fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator who added several sources to the article, as well as links to the GScholar profiles of the editors. Unfortunately, none of the references are in-depth discussions of this journal and most are not independent either. The GScholar profiles strongly suggest that none of the editors are notable themselves, with the possible exception of one, but in any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Law, and Medicine. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Saudi Arabia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to contest the proposed deletion of the Wikipedia page for "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health." My argument rests on several pillars of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically those related to academic journals (WP:NJournals) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Here are the key points supporting the retention of this page:

1. Significant Contribution and Scope: The journal was established during the critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to inform policymakers and appraise best research practices in the fields of medicine, law, and public health. Its interdisciplinary focus spans crucial areas such as epidemiology, mental health, emergency medicine, and medical ethics, underscoring its broad academic and practical relevance.

2. Indexing and Accessibility: "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" is indexed in WorldCat (OCLC No. 1427524091), affirming its accessibility and presence in significant academic repositories. This indexing supports the journal's credibility and accessibility to researchers globally, an important criterion under WP:NJournals.

3. Editorial Credibility: The editorial board comprises scholars who are actively contributing to their respective fields, as evidenced by their profiles on Google Scholar. This not only demonstrates the journal's commitment to high academic standards but also enriches its contributions to the academic community.

4. Publication of Notable Research: The journal has published significant research studies, such as those assessing patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and evaluating temperature measurement methods during the pandemic. These publications are indicative of the journal's active role in addressing timely and impactful health issues, aligning with WP:NJournals emphasis on the journal's influence in its field.

5. Adherence to Rigorous Academic Standards: It adheres to a stringent double-blind peer-review process, ensuring the integrity and quality of published research. This process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and supports the journal's standing in the academic community.

6. Future Directions and Potential for Growth: Plans to expand into cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence in healthcare and the legal implications of emerging medical technologies signal the journal's forward-thinking approach and potential for future impact on interdisciplinary research, fulfilling aspects of WP:GNG.

In light of the above points, it is clear that "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" meets both the specific notability standards set forth for academic journals and the general criteria under WP:GNG. The journal's contributions to its fields, its accessibility, and its rigorous editorial standards all argue against its deletion and for its further development and recognition on Wikipedia.hence: Keep. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm appreciative of your devotion to this subject but unfortunately, none of the above shows any notability and misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the efforts to improve the article. I understand your concerns regarding the notability standards as per WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. However, I would like to further substantiate the journal's significance by presenting detailed evidence, particularly focusing on the impact and recognition of its editorial board, which indirectly enhances the journal’s credibility:
- Editorial Board’s Scholarly Impact: The editors of "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" are not only experts in their fields but also highly cited scholars. For example, Sharafaldeen Bin Nafisah, the editor-in-chief, is well-recognized for his contributions to medical law and public health, with a substantial citation count reflecting his extensive influence. Similarly, Abdulaziz Boker, known for his work in medical education and ethics, and Jameel Abualenain, focused on emergency medicine and public health policy, have publications that are widely cited, indicating their prominent roles in shaping academic discourse. Other editors like Bandr Mzahim, Abdulrahman Ahmad Alzahrani, and Khaled Al-Surimi bring significant insights from emergency medicine, health informatics, and public health advancements, respectively, each with a strong citation record that underscores their scholarly impact. Almost all of the editors of this journal have more than 200+ citations individually.
- Independent Citations of Published Articles: Several articles published in the journal have been independently cited in other scholarly works, demonstrating the journal's role in contributing valuable knowledge to the field. For instance, studies on patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and the effectiveness of temperature measurements during the pandemic have been cited multiple times according to Google Scholar, indicating their impact on related research areas.
- Indexing and Academic Usage: Beyond just being listed in WorldCat, the journal's articles are referenced and used by academics and professionals, affirming its utility and relevance in the fields of medicine, law, and public health.
- Broad Academic Discourse and Future Directions: The journal’s commitment to expanding into interdisciplinary research involving emerging technologies like AI in healthcare represents its potential to influence future academic and practical applications, aligning with the WP:GNG which requires potential for significant coverage.
- A book called "The Art of Emergency Medicine: A Practical Approach for Emergency Physicians" has been published in 2021.This resource is crucial for assisting emergency healthcare practitioners in navigating the complex treatment of both adult and pediatric emergency cases.
In light of this additional information, I urge the community to reconsider the notability of the journal. The citation metrics and scholarly influence of its editorial board, combined with the independent citations of its articles, substantiate the journal's impact and relevance in its academic field, thus meeting the criteria set out in WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Their collective contributions ensure that the journal remains a critical resource in the fields of medicine, law, and public health, enhancing its notability and justifying its presence on Wikipedia. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this journal has gotten any significant coverage. Nothing other than the creating editor's opinion of its importance suggest it meets WP:NJournals. Getting an OCLC number is no criterion at all, that just means that at least one library somewhere has it in its holdings; it's no more a sign of notability than an individual in the US having a social security number. The potential notability of some of its contributors in no way suggests that the journal has inherited that notability; see WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear fail of WP:NJOURNALS, per RK and per TJRC. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with proposed deletion tags[edit]

Syria[edit]

Luke Rutter[edit]

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

Article on a British man killed fighting in Syria. Seems completely non notable, was only reported in the news because he died. A sad event, but not one that makes him notable. No sustained coverage of him since this either, all sources seem to be directly after his death/repatriation in 2017. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, Military, Syria, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey[edit]

Grand Mosque of Bucharest[edit]

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

This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, Romania, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the best reason for deletion. The tangible topic that exists is the controversy around the plan. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to a keep I can go for at this point is a merge unless someone comes with a better reason to keep. Aintabli (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with what? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Romania for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

United Arab Emirates[edit]

List of songs about Dubai[edit]

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

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context - the mishmash sources or the songs' lack of standalone notability don't help. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be one thing if it involved native UAE artists singing about the city, but this is just a list of rappers and singers name-dropping it because 'it's a money city', along with somehow three generic inspirational tunes for a delayed expo that took place a year late. Nate • (chatter) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lahyani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Essentially the same reason as last time. Delete because the only coverage is WP:SPIP, the article is promotional and for failing to meet any notability criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Entrepreneur is in-depth and reliable, but all the rest of his sources are not in-depth or are interviews. 2 of the sources are about the company and some are profiles, not articles. Rustypenguin (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XPANCEO[edit]

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

Spammy article on company that, as far as I can tell, struggles to meet WP:BASIC, let alone the more stringent WP:CORP. None of the sources in the article contribute to notability:

Ref 1: A Forbes Contributors article.
Ref 2: An advert on the website of what looks to me to be a dodgy award.
Ref 3: An obvious PR/paid-for piece.
Ref 4: A Forbes profile of the company founder that, if nothing else, is obviously not significant coverage of the company.
Ref 5: The source contains a few lines about the founder, again; nothing about the company.
Ref 6: More or less the same as Ref 5, and therefore the same issues.
Ref 7: Most of this TechRadar article reports what the company has to say about itself, or peripheral information about the field - not independent reporting on the company's work.
Ref 8: This looks like a version of a press release subject to churnalism by multiple other outlets as well. Searching on Google for the headline of this article unearths other articles such as this press release.
Ref 9: not significant coverage of the company.

Searching the company on Google doesn't yield anything better, as far as I could tell. I mostly found interviews, blog posts, passing mentions, PR pieces or churnalism. Java Hurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Companies. Java Hurricane 12:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, I do not think that it is appropriate to say the article is Spam while in the reality that it represents something true. Over google there could be plenty of PRs. But, here I used references from reliable sites and non PR ones I have also included some more references and will continue to add more if I am getting time. And for your information this article was created and was live on Wikipedia's main-space for a long time but, for unknown reason the main contributor of the article made it blank and that is why it was removed and I tried to make it happen again. Joidfybvc (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Ahmed Saleh[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We used to keep footballers who had played 2 or more professional games, so I am guessing this article got in with the old rules, but now it must be removed as there is no coverage about this person.Hkkingg (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1984 AFC Asian Cup squads#United Arab Emirates as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Lopes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER or WP:BIO. The subject has coverage only for winning a private island. No other significant coverage on his works or states any importance for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. None of the sources are reliable and independent, except CBC, so by definition this isn't significant coverage. What's left is a single incident that has no lasting legacy or coverage. I add that we very frequently delete articles about producers, directors, and DJs, all of whome are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only significant, secondary, independent sources are all rehashes of the same story and cover Lopes in the context of the competition he won. Simply participating in or winning such competitions, lotteries, and game shows does not make one notable. Per the CBC article, Lopes "makes video content for businesses by day and is a DJ at clubs and private parties by night". He is far from being a notable filmmaker or DJ, with 0 coverage of his "works". Mooonswimmer 18:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners[edit]

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Juest wanted to note, I'm alright with redirect, though I'm not so sure the other company is notable either. Don't really think there's anything to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kennedys Law: Trivia PR coverage doesn't meet WP:NCORP, appropriate to merge to parent company even though sources in Kennedys Law aren't really independent Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article there are many articles about it being purchased by Kennedys and its cases prior to the purchase [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. Also covered in multiple legal books including the European Legal 500 until its merger and Chambers UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfloving (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen[edit]

Wadi Dawan attack[edit]

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

All the coverage is from the time of the event in January 2008. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Yemen, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen, there was some coverage the next year from Belgian publications over the perpetrators getting the death penalty for terrorism, but I don't think it's in depth enough to justify an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event article meets the requirements of the GNG, EVENT, and LASTING by plenty of coverage at the time of the event and since. For more recent coverage, see "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" by Doann Houghton-Alico, from 2016, in Google Books. Not sure why this has been nominated for deletion. The research leaves to be desired. Furthermore, the merger suggested above my opinion would create a situation of undue and should also be rejected. Wadi Dawan attack is a proper SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"plenty of coverage at the time of the event" does not meet WP:EFFECT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. You've found 1 source, are there others? LibStar (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is untrue. I found plenty of sourcing AND ESTABLISHED LASTING WITH AN RS! This nomination is a clear BEFORE failure! There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago. However, there are two. It also appears in The Last Good Man: A Novel, page 33, A.J. Kazinski, from 2012. Libstar, you frequently claim fact-free that events are not LASTING. Why would you do that? gidonb (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sourcing? you've mentioned a mere 2. If this nomination is a failure it would be a unanimous keep which it isn't. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? I'm interested in what it says. Thanks LibStar (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"There needn't be more sources than one since 2008 because the event was less than 20 years ago." You're now inventing rules for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of contemporaneous sourcing for the GNG. Really big numbers. Enough to visit the articles in the other wikis to see that. In addition, there is more than sufficient sourcing from books to prove that this has a LASTING impact just as well. Therefore meets the GNG and EVENT. gidonb (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look in Google Books and withdraw this nomination after you do? You should have done a BEFORE upfront! gidonb (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please supply actual text from the 2 books you cite? Why can't you provide this? LibStar (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something you're hiding by not producing text as requested? LibStar (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I try to lead a life also beyond your failed nominations. Some 10 books write about this incident beyond the contemporaneous coverage that is also extensive. I gave 5 examples. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous coverage and that all your fact-free nominations of terrorist incidents under your assumption that these get forgotten – this isn't so and LASTING is met. Terrorism is a real problem and these events get revisited time and again. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS trumps GNG. Otherwise we'll be creating articles for every event reported in the media. There was a factory fire near my home, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or a few weeks ago, Australia's east coast received a lot of rainfall, well reported in all the media, but why isn't there a Wikipedia article for it? LibStar (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS DOES not apply to terrorist events with a LASTING IMPACT. You are wasting the valuable time of the community by making baseless claims, and then arguing under the opinion of everyone who disagrees with you, after it is found that haven't done a thorough BEFORE. You have already written eight times under my opinion while you should have invested time before nominating instead of wasting mine. gidonb (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least one other editor (PARAKANYAA) doesn't agree with you. Everyone's time on WP is voluntary, how you choose to spend yours is your choice. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Which page number of "Voice of a Voyage: Rediscovering the World During a Ten-year Circumnavigation" are you referring to? it's a 276 page book. so page number would be helpful. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on two pages in the book. There are more book mentions. About five, not counting other languages than English. gidonb (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages in the middle of Chapter 9. Google Books does not provide page numbers for this particular book.

Which pages? LibStar (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the text: About a month prior to that in Wadi Dawan,...two Belgian tourists and their driver were killed by a group of insurgents. A 1 line mention in a 276 page book is hardly WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned. Coverage continued on the next page. gidonb (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here:

Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Mahboob Illahi, 2018
Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, IBP USA, 2013
Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes, Page 230, Victoria Clark, 2010

Hang on, closer to ten. This nomination ranks among the more failed ones. gidonb (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked p.230 of "Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes". the slaughter of the two Belgian women tourists and their driver in the Wadi Doan A 1 sentence mention in a 300+ page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly in Doctrine of Terror: Saudi Salafi Religion - Page 214, Al-Qaeda militants opened fire on a convoy of tourists in Hadharmauy, killing two Belgian tourists... A 1 sentence mention in a 324 page book is not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant. The SIGCOV is contemporaneous. The article meets the GNG based on contemporaneous SIGCOV in RS. However, since it is an event, that's insufficient for keeping. In addition, there also needs to be interest in this event over time since for LASTING. Lasting has also been established. Instead of arguing more, this failed nomination should be withdrawn. gidonb (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, and I think your statement is contrary to NEVENT (which is somewhat confusing but still). There isn't enough to keep this as standalone.

I'm of the opinion that terrorist attacks are almost always notable as part of a pattern, and should be mentioned somewhere: a merge accomplishes this. To warrant its own article there must be enough coverage on something to write besides "it happened, people got arrested". None of the later sources you provided are enough. IMO, the most important factors are a mix of both quality and distance of coverage in writing these kinds of an articles. A single high quality retrospective on an event would do a whole lot more for convincing me to vote keep than say, continuing legal developments. This isn't even that, these are just one or two sentences! Not sigcov. I also doubt this would pass on "effect" grounds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PARAKANYAA LibStar (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there was lots of coverage of this event when it happened. I never went in to that. Only discussed coverage since. gidonb (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOTNEWS, WP is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style A spike in coverage at the time of the event is not a good indicator of notability. For example, there was a factory fire near my home covered in the media, should I create an article because it meets GNG? LibStar (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also irrelevant. This is an event with global and lasting coverage. gidonb (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasting coverage which is not indepth as pointed out by PARAKANYAA. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Yemen Mineral, Mining Sector Investment and Business Guide - Page 189, Belgian tourists and their Yemeni driver were killed in Hadhramout governorate in eastern Yemen. Again, another 1 sentence mention (in a book of 260 pages) that isn't WP:SIGCOV. None of these 1 sentence mentions in the 4 additional sources given establish WP:EFFECT, An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing[edit]

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

The 2 sources provided are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Islam, and Yemen. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subsequent reactions to the event are presented in the zh.wiki page, here is one source: [50] where the attack is described as "a dangerous escalation in the northern conflict". Broc (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one source is from the day after the attack, so is part of the news cycle, WP:NOTNEWS. We need lasting coverage to see an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen under its own section. The coverage above does not convince me of long term notability; there was some commentary immediately after it occured, but not a lot. Most notable as part of the overall terrorism situation (which merging it to the article preserves) It's possible of course that long term coverage exists in another language and if evidence of that is ever provided I would not argue against its recreation, but I doubt it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom, or as ATD, Merge to Terrorism in Yemen per Parakanyaa. Local decision if "under its own section" or not. Does not meet GNG. Rationale: Wikipedia does not need to be a world newspaper on every incident, helping add or provide legitimacy to terrorism, regardless of notability. They do not need any help. Articles such as this, or like 2007 Marib suicide car bombing, with coverage when it was breaking news, but no real significant coverage as an event deserving an encyclopedia article. Makes too much sense: The state of the article does not determine notability and AFD is not cleanup, HOWEVER: Once notability (test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article) is questioned the solution is evidence by multiple (more than one or two) reliable, published (See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Good research and WP:Reliable sources#Definition of a source), independent sources. Most of the time news articles are meant to be shocking, or otherwise tantalizing as opposed to being neutral that is supposed to be not only a mandate but a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen University[edit]

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

I know it is unusual to delete a University - but I cannot find any online information about the University (except the bare fact that it is on Yemeni University lists - although I am not sure how old these lists are). It appears no longer to have a website. Links are either not orking or provide no helpful info. No obvious lkinks to anything else. The wiki page suggests the unbioversity is strong in nutrition - but https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9517972/ suggests it is not on the 2022 list of Yemeni universities awarding decrees in nutrition. Perhaps it has changed its name or amalgamated? Newhaven lad (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is entirely unsourced (general external links are used as reference) and filled with original research. Before reaching a conclusion whether to delete or keep I think it'd be fair if someone draftified it and use sources then we could've judged it based on it's merit. But if it stands as is, then delete seems impending. X (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists and it is a university. The poor sourcing is due to the language barrier. Desertarun (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Regular university. Agreeing with Desertarun. gidonb (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input. "It exists" is not a valid argument in favor of retention, especially when we haven't verified that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a private university it needs to meet WP:NCORP which it definitely doesn’t. I’ve searched in Arabic and got no news hits at all and nothing much on a general search. Nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]