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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

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

Ditto as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel. Full of LLM generated rubbish [1] with no descriptive mentions of the event (see "The Capture" section). – Garuda ^Talk! 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and India. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a hoax. It doesn't even agree with the quotations from its own sources. Historical records such as al-Tabari's history (translated by Bosworth, SUNY Press, 1991) record that Ujayf ibn Anbasa defeated the Zutts in 834, not that the Zutts captured things in 834. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:N, largely relies on one source and no other verifiable sources or evidence of this massacre having occurred exist. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iran, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I really do not see as to why you want it to be deleted, I have put 3 sources on it and there is probably more that I do not know off. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The sources lack any indication of WP:GNG (significant coverage). Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a few sources but they all seem to relate to one event, namely his criticism of Ali Khamenei as a student [2]. I'm not sure if that is important enough to mention on Ali Khamenei or 2009 Iranian presidential election protests or a similar article but if it is then a merge could be an alternative. Shapeyness (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article has notability concerns since Dec 2020. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON with passing mentions and event results. Just playing in a league/Pro volleyball club is not enough to become notable. Similar concern was expressed here for this Basketball player Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hossein Rahmati. I would like to know what other contributors think. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with nominator. Tehonk (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message Exchange Bus (MXB) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

not a single reasonable source Baratiiman (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If a user doesn’t know Persian or how to simply translate a Persian page to English with Google Translate, it doesn’t make all the Persian references unusable or unreasonable. The Persian references in this article come from the most reasonable, reliable, mainstream, and important news sites in the Persian language, some of which have more than 70 years of experience. The English references are not mainstream, but most of them are reliable and rational or at least secondhand, if not firsthand. Having problems with references doesn’t make the whole subject worthy of deletion; rather, adding more reliable references would be more reasonable.

Thank you for your time. Taha Danesh (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Danesh. The article does need work, though. With so many false statements in essay-like prose that I just removed, I wouldn't be surprised if the article was written with AI. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, participants are welcome to re-review this article which has been edited since its nomination,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Two of the ITO sources are press releases and therefore fail WP:PRSOURCE, while the "Digital Platforms and Services" page only contains a single sentence about the MXB and therefore doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I would vote to delete, but I don't know enough about Iranian media (or any of the language) to make a judgment on the other sources, so I'll leave it at that. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly that page is made by the government, so it would be primary either way. Secondly, I think that every source that's not from ITO here qualifies for GNG, even discounting the ones I removed which also count. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [3] and [4] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Strong Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, participants' opinion is divided. If the only problem is NPOV, that can be corrected through editing. The question is whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated by sources so both those editors seeking to Keep and those advocating Deletion should be focusing on that aspect and not on whether the current content is appropriate for the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an undoubtedly notable Iranian gov-backed org. However, I would reiterate that certain phrasings in the article might not meet WP:NPOV and should be fixed. That doesn't necessitate deletion though. Eelipe (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. Has no place on Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The entire premise of the AfD is extremely problematic. "The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it." - WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources. AgusTates (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article required significant improvements, including proper sourcing, neutral tone, and the removal of unsupported claims, all of which I have addressed. The subject is notable, and the article now meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliability. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article is partially biased. AgusTates (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sourcing still needs, at minimum, to be clarified. All of the sources are in Persian, but none of the citations identify the sources being used, except for one citation to the society's own website. I just deleted a Waze map showing the location of the society's office from the external links, per WP:ELNO #15. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there is already an entry Society for the Defense of Palestine, and it is neither neutral, it is very promotional and not at all transparent, maintains a lot of false information and not supported by reliable sources. Promise provocative actions. --190.219.102.29 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Society for the Defense of Palestine is clearly a different organization, so that has no relevance for this discussion. The IP user 190.219... has no other edits apart from 3 other Middle East-related AfD votes within a short time-span. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, IPs can't participate in consensus forming discussions covered by WP:ARBECR. They are only permitted to post edit requests on article talk pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We are not a soapbox, or social media platform, or propaganda ministry for the government of Iran, which is coterminous with its media. The only countries with worse media than India are North Korea, Iran, and Russia. At least India'a media can be used to verify the existence of a village. Iranian media and government are one entity; they publish incorrect information on gas stations and nursing homes as if they're villages. Continuing to allow countries who would ban us, from pushing us around, is detrimental to the Wikimedia Foundation. This article is not just biased, but harmful to us. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you considered that bias on Wikipedia can be fixed? This isn't a valid argument against. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I literally just gave a talk about that at Wikimania NYC. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" folks don't seem to be having the same argument the "delete" folks are having. If you're going to !vote keep, please show what makes the org notable - what sources? Furthermore, if an article is extremely biased, we can delete it, as a WP:TNT argument. Let's get this back on track and look at the sources, please. Reminder that this falls under WP:PIA and only extended-confirmed editors may take part in this discussion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please interpret my argument as Team WP: TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of this article just consists of quotes or paraphrases of the organization's own statutes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ditto as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel. Full of LLM generated rubbish [5] with no descriptive mentions of the event (see "The Capture" section). – Garuda ^Talk! 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and India. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a hoax. It doesn't even agree with the quotations from its own sources. Historical records such as al-Tabari's history (translated by Bosworth, SUNY Press, 1991) record that Ujayf ibn Anbasa defeated the Zutts in 834, not that the Zutts captured things in 834. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for verification. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reason: WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is (Redacted). Please see 1, 2: 1. image author and uploader, 2. Nathan (Chaya's husband, a full professor in the Biu) - the same author and camera, a different date; image was taken at home: no Torah books at the math dept. in Biu, and (Redacted).
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect.
WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Mathematics, Computing, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Loeweopta: Are you arguing that Neriah is related to this professor just because Neriah took her picture? This doesn't really follow. Neriah was able to suppress the redirect because of their global rollback permission. International sources are not required to satisfy notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted). Loeweopta (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep. As Helpful Raccoon has pointed out, international sources are not required to prove notability, and an alleged COI is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I'm unsure of whether the subject passes WP:NPROF, but I think she probably does pass WP:GNG on the basis of coverage like [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Her team's solution to Ringel's problem also got some press coverage, such as this article in Haaretz [13]. Maths isn't my area and I'm not too familiar with the sources that covered her so I'm very open to changing my mind here, but my sense is that her publications and awards aren't quite significant enough to meet WP:NPROF, but that the other coverage is probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I will repeat the reason for the PROD by user Iamnotanorange~enwiki: "There is no political movement known as Jewish Fascism, which means this article is synthesizing new information by making an analogy between Italian Fascism and rightwing Jewish political movements, all of which have their own pages and do not need to be grouped together into this page. Without a coherent, non-synthesized topic for this article, this article is an Indiscriminate collection of political movements. See Talk page for more info and discussion."

I might add that I proposed to rename the article to "Political spectre in Judaism", but now I realize that wouldn't work. First, the article would have to be fully rewritten anyway, so WP:TNT should be used all the same. And second, we already have Politics of Israel for the full picture, and Far-right politics in Israel for the topic of this article. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Judaism, and Israel. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's very little unique in this article, most of the sections are just copied and pasted from Far-right politics in Israel. E.g. Jewish fascism#From the signing of the Oslo Accords to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1993–1995) is identical to Far-right politics in Israel#The Oslo Accords and the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. There's a place for summary style and excerpting, but – and I see the primary page author is banned – do not do this, we do not need this kind of duplication. Jewish fascism#Allegations of fascism and comparisons to past fascist regimes seems to be new, perhaps that should be merged to the Far-right page or Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. Nom is correct - nothing in the article discusses Judaism whatsoever, it's all about the Israeli government and political groups. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; so little of this article's sourcing makes any reference to this term, which does not refer to any notable concept. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah this was my impression as well. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TNT as WP:SYNTH. There are clearly notable interactions between fascism and religious movements (eg Nichirenism, Hindutva, Christian fascism) but this article conflates particular political groups/parties with Judaism (the religion). It's a false association and does not discuss the inter-relationship of the *religion* (or its interpretations) with facsism. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the one originally pushing for deletion, for all the aforementioned reasons. Thanks to Cambalachero for helping me through the AFD process and posting this here. Also, thanks to Reywas92 for pointing out that Far-right politics in Israel covers the same information, with a much more accurate name that won't mislead people. Similarly, Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany can cover all relevant allegations that are sought after in Jewish Fascism.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a fork of far-right politics in Israel. While Jewish and Israeli are distinct, this article does not offer different content. A redirect is inappropriate due to the misleading title, which would suggest a broader or different scope than what is actually covered at far-right politics in Israel. gidonb (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - besides poor sourcing, and synthesis, it just is absolutely nonsense. As I wrote in my edit summary to second the proposed deletion, "Normally, controversial topics such as this should not use prod, but this has been discussed before," namely on the talk page. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A few users have stated that far-right politics in Israel covers this topic but that's not true. Betar was a political organization in Europe which existed prior to and separately from the State of Israel. The fact that Betar is not even mentioned in the Jewish fascism article indicates that the article is deficient as is and perhaps that it needs improvement rather than deletion. This article seems to have the same merits as the page Christian fascism. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit more complex than a simple true/false. As I mentioned and you agree, there should be a difference. Our article, however, is a fork. This tension between the theory and practice makes a redirect undesirable. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS - thank's for the links, I think that'll be really helpful in this discussion. I will say that Christian fascism looks like it needs some love, but in my view there are a few things that differentiate the Christian and Jewish pages.

• The Christian version has explicitly stated their theory up front, so we understand what we're talking about when we use CF as a term. When a reader sees Christian Fascism, they can see that most of the definitions are forcing christianity into specific parts of public and private life. (side note: There seems to be one example of a Christian Fascist committing anti-abortion murders, but that can't be the only example can it? There has to be more).
• The Jewish version doesn't have a clear definition. Are we talking about Jews that force Judaism on other people in the style of Christian Fascism? Are we talking about Italian Jews in the 1930s who joined Mussolini? Are we talking about a Jewish dictator intent on bringing back the roman empire, and allying with Nazis to do it? It's hard to argue what should fit on the page when there's no clear definition, because it's not a term people really use, outside of a pejorative context.
• Even with the example of Betar, we have a solid scholarly work showing a connection to Fascism, but it seems largely superficial, focusing on uniforms and salutes, rather than ideology. According to the Betar page, they mostly fought Nazis and helped Polish jews escape to Israel. There are some modern incarnations of the movement, but they don't currently seem very Fascist. One is just a student group in Canada, arguing about the semantics of the I/P conflict.
• Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany seems like sufficient coverage for the aspects of Israel's behavior that encroaches on Fascism.

DuckOfOrange (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some groups can be verified as embracing fascism, it would be synth to term the groups jointly as "Jewish fascism". Correlation does not equal causation. Sourcing needs to be able to show "Jewish fascism" as a distinct phenomenon, which classes groups jointly. There's no reliable sourcing that does this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article is poorly sourced and serves as synthesis / fork of other existing articles. Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggestion: Revise whereas it actually believes in conservative views on gender roles, Integral Nationalism, and NationalSyndicalism and if it checks all boxes then either make it stay or makt it a part of "far right politics in Israel", "Fascism", "Ethno-Nationalism", "Forms of Zionism", or "Fascism post-WW2". I'd say that although there'd seem to be some sort of connection in the case of Zionist-Revisionist-Maximalism and Abba Ahimeir on a form of inspiration between Fascist movements' totalitarianism, and ethno-nationalism, whereas they are or not Fascists (in the "classical fascism" term of the word) would depend on whereas they ever advocated or not on ideological/moral grounds for a National-Syndicalist State, as Fascism as an ideology existed in a more fringe way previous to Mussolinni, hving been started started by Charles Maurrais and later developed by George Sorel during his second phase, practided for the first time by Guisseppe D'annuzzio on the Regency of Fiume (although he later renounced and changed his views in the early 30s), Mussolinni coining the term "Fascism" in reference to the National-Syndicalist State to later claim authorship of the movement (the fascio representing the same thing as the Falange for Falangism, which is basically Spanish Fascism). So, although the article on itself might be unneccesary and could be a part or an annex/outgrowth of "far-right politics in Ierael", revising it based on whereas Ahimeir wanted or not a National-Syndicalist State for reasons of Integral Nationalism, anti-liberalism, anti-socialism, and gender-related-traditionalism/reactionary-views-on-gender-roles-by-21st-century-standards would be, in my view, the right way to go to see whereas it stays or is it jsut an opinion based on how the term "Fascism/Fascist" has degenerated since Umberto Eco's 14 points. On the connection with ChristoFascism, I think it's more related with Falangism than Catholic Social Teaching inspiring maurrais' National-Syndicalism and Integral Nationalism and Sorel's views during his second phase. So, I'd say revise it and if true then making it stay on it's own aswell as adding it as a part of other articles. Nico JB18 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, forgot to add a part, I was talking about specifically about Ahimeir's views on seemingly fascism-inspired nationalism. As the introduction out of the blue might be confusing. Nico JB18 (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article primarily based on 3 primary sources from the Israeli government. 2 of these merely confirm no embassies, a third is a factoid that Seychelles allowed Israelis to visit during the pandemic. There appears to be no third party of these relations. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Israel. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The intro focuses on REFERENCES, while calling these sources. References are in an article. For these one does not have to search. AfDs should be focused on SOURCES, which are out there, per the golden NEXIST rule. A quick scan of the internet proves that there are third party sources, for example in Walla and Mako and Channel 13 of Israel. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the Channel 13 source seems an advertorial for Air Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now you have reacted to everyone who disagreed with you yet never convinced why this article should be deleted. There should have been a strong case in the intro. We did not see that. Instead, you shopped in the references, now shop in the sources. The problem is that sufficient unchallenged sources remain. And the listed articles are just a small sample. Maariv regularly covers the subject. For example: Maariv1 Maariv2 Maariv3 Maariv4. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Reliable coverage is easily discoverable from a cursory web search. This topic is significant enough on its own to warrant an article; it just hasn't been expanded beyond a stub yet. Yue💌 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources did you find from your search? LibStar (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt the article is poorly written and the sourcing is lacking, but that can be resolved without deletion. The topic meets WP:N and WP:RSs do exist for this topic. Eelipe (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article lacks citations to reliable, secondary sources, and I am not finding any either. Yilloslime (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by the GNG. The article is supported by multiple sources, identified by me in in the comment above and within the article itself. More sources exist. No compelling case for deletion has been made. The deletion rationale mentions sources, yet only critiques references. It selectively focuses on three references that support the article's content, while ignoring the Israel Channel 12 news item that supports notability. On the downside: the article is rather short, yet meets the threshold for viability. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Channel 12 or 13? LibStar (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 12. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: proper WP:BEFORE should have been done FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Highly promotional article whose references are almost all primary--the subject's resume, their publications, or the longevity websites they seem to be running. Two books, that's promising in terms of WP:PROF, but they are self-published and really not a in a good way: see this one. Instead of references or reviews, then, we have spam links, and maybe one independent reference--but this is pretty lousy, in a publication that doesn't inspire much confidence. In addition, the article was created by a now-blocked sock (blocked by Spicy but I can't tell if G5 applies. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF, and the books would only count towards WP:AUTHOR if they had multiple published reviews. I think the Wired article may be WP:SIGCOV counting towards WP:GNG but it's the only one and it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his books and publications are quite notable. Thus pass WP:AUTHOR. 102.91.93.141 (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Duplicate vote from near-identical IP struck. Left the one below. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Though notability of the person is really under question, it is rather "yes" than "no". I added several references to the article. There are other short mentiones of the person in press in various languages. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet in my opinion, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 17:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to very quickly drop into using profiles to support it, particularly on the new references. I would have expected to see a lot more in that first block of references, but quickly becomes very poor. I had a look for the books to see if they had a WP:NAUTHOR pass. The current refs are non-rs and there is not much there. I found one link for 'A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century' but is mostly blurb and not a real review so no multiple published reviews. The single Wired article insufficient for blp. When compared to other academics of a similar field, he is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18] are enough to establish notability. 102.91.92.159 (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third of those are plainly non-independent. The second is the Wired article mentioned by scope_creep above. The fourth does not contain significant coverage (it's one sentence, mostly not about Stambler). These sources do not help show GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I lean keep. Per Google Scholar [19] he has published multiple things with varying amounts of citations. He has a chapter in a book published by a scholarly press [20]. He's referenced in a book about Transhumanism as well [21] and cited in this Encyclopedia of Biopmedical Gerontology by Elsevier [22] and his work is briefly discussed in this book from the University of California press [23], also this news article [24]. To my understanding, Times of Israel was declared generally reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_461#RfC:_Times_of_Israel, and this article by them describes Stambler and some of his work noting him at the time as "the director of Research and Development at Shmuel Harofe Geriatric Medical Center in Beer Yaakov"[25]. Per its own description, Shmuel Harofe is a government hospital affiliated with the Tel Aviv University Sackler Medical School. If the article is promotional, it should be re-written, but I don't think deletion is appropriate here. Emm90 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not seeing enough to meet NPROF or GNG here. Other than the Wired article, which has borderline coverage at most, the sources listed above are typical citations, non-independent, passing mentions, or quotes from him. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that per WP:NACADEMIC being the Director of Research and Development at Shmuel Harofe Geriatric Medical Center would have fulfilled "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society", no? Given its association with the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, with Tel Aviv University being the largest University in Israel and all. Emm90 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither an academic institution nor an academic society, and "director of R&D" is not the highest-level position... C6 also says director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university). JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
2. bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
3. The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
4. thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
5. The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.

None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per TarnishedPath nomination and extensive explanation. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tony Lupton#Personal life per ATD and CHEAP. The reasoning of the delete-supporters is sound; the conclusion differs. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to the suggested redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RebeccaGreen convinced me that the author passes NAUTHOR. See list in her comment below. gidonb (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's her articles which are widely quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being quoted is not independent from the subject. Isaidnoway addressed that above. We don't count sources which are not independent from the subject as counting towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being quoted is being cited, that is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR #1 is about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least 10 sources, other than "The Age". Her views are being widely discussed. SRamzy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources? I have demonstrated above that none of the sources brought to the AFD demonstrate notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per multiple sources presented during the AfD that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Independent sources that cite her views include: Voices of Us [26]; The Bible and the Business of Life, p201-202 [27]; Rise of the Right [28]; Pandemic of Perspectives [29]; an article in the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics [30]; Guy Rundle, 'Goodbye to All That', p 329, in The Best Australian Political Writing 2008 [31]; and see Google Scholar's list of her works and the articles and books they're cited in [32]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the articles in mention that you've provided appear to be mentions in passing. 6 mentions in passing is not what I consider would meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".

  The 7th link you've provided appears to be mostly populated by her own articles. I see J Szego - The Age, 20xx or similar over and over. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Google Scholar link shows Szego's articles and the number of times each has been cited. If you click on 'Cited by N', you see lists of the other books and articles which cite her - evidence that she has been widely cited by peers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of her newspaper articles are getting between 2 and 4 quotes. I hardly see that as evidence of being regarded as an important figure in the field of journalism or being widely cited. Indeed when I look at that list the only sources that get more than 4 cites are the works of others, which would be mentioning her in passing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath We're long past the point of WP:BLUDGEON. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per rationale of RebeccaGreen.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject fails GNG and NSPORT for not having SIGCOV from IS and RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for verification. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 08:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kuwait. Cassiopeia talk 08:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. With not 1 but 32 international caps, and being a triple league and triple cup champion, he looks notable. An Arabic WP:BEFORE is needed. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#Kuwait as possible search term. GiantSnowman 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. If more sources appear, I'll change my vote, the player seems to have had a relevant career at local level. Svartner (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject fails GNG and NSPORT for not having SIGCOV from IS and RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for verification. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 21:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kuwait. Cassiopeia talk 21:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Eliminated in 1st round of heats. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  delete. fails all criteria for WP:NTRACK and google search brought up only one source: 1, that does not even have any significant coverage of him. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 23:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the Arabic name for this subject is محمد سراج تميم, and I'm seeing multiple Google hits for that name. Subject was the Lebanese national 100 m record-holder (aka "the fastest person in Lebanon") in the post-Internet age, so I'd be very surprised if there wasn't coverage. See for example this BBC Arabic article where the subject is profiled: [33] --Habst (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Interesting one. I am removing a CSD tag that states, in essence, that the article is a hoax. The problem is that there are sources, albeit weak ones that appear to be motivated by a particular interpretation of history because it supports their religious beliefs. If we decide to keep an article on this topic we would want coverage of the possibility that the subject battle never took place. I do believe that deletion is likely the better outcome which is why I am listing it here. UninvitedCompany 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. UninvitedCompany 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lebanon, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakness is definitely a consideration. The first source is the defunct WWW site of a catholic church in Pennsylvania. However, there's an 1899 source by François Nau (Opuscules maronites) that talks about "combat près d'Amioun" and in its turn sources the claim to the writings of Étienne Douaïhi d'Ehden, so this might need more scrutiny than just outright dismissal for being mostly sourced to a dead anonymously-written inexpert early 2000s WWW site, although there's still the possibility that al-Duwayhi invented this and Nau offers scant independent corroboration. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have added additional sources backing the documentation of the battle. The claim that the subject only exists because of certain authors backgrounds is problematic in it of itself but has little strength unless one were to argue that Gibbons, Hitti, Sandrussi, Selim and Encyclopedia Britannica were all Maronite apologists. The prerequisite of the battle not happening or else it will be deleted does not have any justification and seems to just be an excuse to delete the page. Red Phoenician (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod with additional info added up on competing in Summer Universiade. I don't think that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:SPORTCRIT is met by the wealth of newspaper sources at [34]. I'll wait for a native speaker to dive in further, but those from Al Anwar seem to indicate the subject was a 1987 national champion which would fulfill WP:NATH as well. --Habst (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know all those hits in Arabic are the same person being the athlete? Could be a name sake. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar, the sources from Al Anwar say that the subject is a 1987 national champion in athletics. Do you think that there's another person named Jihad Salame that was an active Lebanese sprinter in 1987? This same argument could be applied to any source from any article. There are occasionally some borderline cases, but for this AfD the context makes it clear that it's definitely the same person. --Habst (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:NATH is not fulfilled. Lebanese athletics it practised on an egregiouslu low level, falling far short of the provision with the exception of those who have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year. Also, Habst's argument that the coverage in archive.org is more than WP:PASSING mentions is largely speculation. Geschichte (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources of SIGCOV have been identified. A spot check of 16 of the hits linked above, from 1986 to 1993, showed all of them to be either passing mentions or (the majority) for different Jihad Salamas (the author of something called "The South in Confrontation with the Zionist-Fascist Alliance", a junior wrestler, etc.). Does not pass SPORTSCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he competed in 1991 Summer Universiade but I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I found several articles in Al Anwar covering Kawas including the fact that he was a cross country champion, not previously in the article. There's more at [35] under his Arabic name I'll have to comb through but I wanted to get this out first. The nominating statement says that SPORTCRIT isn't met, but it's actually fulfilled by the found coverage, which combined with WP:NATH (being a national champion) makes this a candidate to keep based on policy. --Habst (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which "found coverage" is significant? The source for his cross country championship says "Runner Bassam Kawas won the title", which is under no circumstances SIGCOV. It also doesn't say it's the "1992 Lebanese Cross Country Championships", it says "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship", and anyway winning a national title in athletics only suggests coverage if the subject has been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year, which I don't see evidence for. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, the newspaper coverage amounts to SIGCOV because it can be combined per WP:BASIC. Because "open" in the context of athletics just means "open to all age groups", and the newspaper article was discussing the 1992 race, it's accurate to say that Kawas won the 1992 Lebanese XC championships, I worded it that way to match that of the other articles in Category:National cross country running competitions. Kawas ranked 53rd in the 800m at the '92 Olympics administered by the IAAF, but the subject specific notability guidelines are irrelevant if GNG is met anyways.

  Because you know Arabic, can you post your interpretations of the other Al Anwar matches here or look for others, because the archive.org Arabic scans don't always get the flow of text correct? --Habst (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You know that SPORTSCRIT requires a citation to a source containing SIGCOV. I will not explain this to you for the 30th time.

  And no, the burden is on you to show the coverage you claim establishes notability. Single-sentence mentions and routine stats are worthless, so whatever you paste better be a lot more than that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have a lot of respect for your contributions and hope you can extend me the same – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we work together to improve. I found the subject's native name and several newspaper articles about the subject in a language I don't speak, but the machine translations look promising to me. Do the Al Anwar matches here not constitute SIGCOV and thus fulfill SPORTCRIT? I'm happy to add the info to the article once we can get some good translations. --Habst (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  YOU need to paste exactly what you think is SIGCOV of this athlete. Search results do not demonstrate SIGCOV and do not satisfy SPORTCRIT, which requires a citation to a specific source. I am not going to waste my time writing up a source analysis for a bunch of search results that you are too whatever to even look at yourself, that is outrageously entitled. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, Wikipedia P&Gs don't necessitate pasting text in a language I admit I don't understand, they actually say the opposite at WP:NEXISTS, by which we can presume notability by simply knowing that sources exist. I linked several textual matches from a reliable source in Al Anwar, so we know that these exist and it's valid for me to use NEXISTS for that reason.

  I've done my best with machine translation and I even added a fact to the article based on one of the cites from An-Nahar here: "Annahar , 1992, Lebanon, Arabic" (in Arabic). Retrieved 4 February 2025., but the OCR isn't perfect. I don't know what else I can do without the help of a native speaker. Can you help if you know the language? --Habst (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You have zero evidence that any of these sources are suitable and notability-indicating, and NEXIST does not "presume notability" at all anyway. And that source is the same utterly trivial six words of coverage from earlier, clearly not SIGCOV.

  I don't read Arabic, you have the same access to translation tools as I have. Do your own work. JoelleJay (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, both Al Anwar and An-Nahar are both reputable newspapers, there's no evidence at WP:RSP that their suitability has ever been contested, in fact An-Nahar has been cited twice as a reputable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#Tahawolat a reliable Arabic journal looks like this An-Nahar and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_405 An-Nahar, a reputable daily newspaper in Lebanon, known for its reliable reporting.

  I thought you could read Arabic because of the comments about "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship" above, which were about the specific wording. Invoking WP:NEXIST is warranted here, and I'm open to incorporating more data from those sources as soon as we have a good transcription. It's not just about translation tools here, because the archive.org OCR effectively makes deciphering large blocks of text from these newspapers very difficult unless you know how to read the source text. --Habst (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me get this straight: you are interpreting NEXIST as referring to the existence of any coverage, no matter how trivial, in RS, rather than the existence of notability-establishing ("suitable") coverage in RS? So, to you, someone having any RS coverage at all is enough to presume the subject is notable.....?

  I've explained to you before how to copy-paste archive.org snippets of Arabic text into Google Translate. Yes it takes some effort if you want to expand the snippet beyond what is provided; if you aren't willing to do this to prove a given hit is SIGCOV, then don't claim any of those hits are SIGCOV! JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, I don't think that's what NEXIST means and it's not how it's being invoked here. NEXIST is based on probability, because when you don't have the sources, the only thing you can do is say the likelihood of them existing. So how can we establish that notability-indicating ("suitable") sources exist with a high degree of certainty? Here's a checklist for this specific instance:

  There are several text hits for the name. Are they mentioned in the context of athletics, i.e. referring to the subject? Yes, as far as I can tell. Are they part of advertisements? No, not based on the translated snippets. Are they trivial mentions? It doesn't seem that way from the translated snippets either, i.e. part of paragraphs, and keep in mind after a name is mentioned once it may be mentioned after using only the surname which wouldn't show as a text match.

  Given that, yes it's valid to say that sources exist and I have linked the search result to them above. I actually already machine-translated all the matches but due to inaccurate OCR, the text is garbled and nonsensical when translated and copy/pasting doesn't fix the OCR issues. At some point, you have to rely on having a native speaker. --Habst (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NEXIST is there solely to make sure people are basing their assessment of notability on the sources they can find rather than only on the ones cited in the article. It is not supposed to be used to presume notability, and it definitely does not suggest that you can use unassessed search hits to assert that SIGCOV is likely.

  If you think a six-word sentence in a routine results announcement isn't trivial coverage then you should not be evaluating sportsperson notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, yes, that's exactly how I'm using NEXIST in this discussion. I'm not sure how you can say that the 1992 An-Nahar snippet is only six words considering we have no access to the text on the rest of the page, and when I translate it based on the OCR the text comes out non-sensical. --Habst (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can be sure that it is a trivial mention, because the context is clearly routine results announcements! The translations are coming out garbled because they're literally uncontextualized sports stats rather than prose. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, not all are sports stats, as you've shown below, and even paragraphs of content have shown up with unreliable character recognition for me. We also need to look for mentions of the last name قواص on the pages, because often times a full name is only mentioned once and we only have the context immediately surrounding that. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And for the record, I have translated all the search results and not a single one goes beyond a trivial passing mention, even when searching for just his surname. These were the only ones that had full sentences of prose:

  • Jump 1- Gaby Issa El Khoury (Al-Jammour) 0 meters. Runner: -1 Philippe Bejjani (Al-Jammour) 1.80. 00 meters: 1 Bassam Kawas (Al-Ansar) 10.41.01 minutes. He came in second. The Federation chose the runner Bassam Kawas to represent Lebanon in the Olympic Games, hoping that the Federation would also choose the runner Charbel Abi Tayeh...

  • The Mariamite Club Dik Al-Mahdi achieved a double victory in the Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship for men and women; by taking first place in the race. Runner Bassam Kawas won the title of Lebanese champion for men and runner Solange Abi Ghosn won the title of Lebanese champion for women.

  • On participating in the Summer Olympic Games in Barcelona: The Minister of National Education, Dr. Zaki Mazboui, issued a decision based on the proposal of the Director General of Youth and Sports, Mr. Shawqi Attia, to form the following delegation: [List of athletes] Jumping: Christian Vervensis (ranked among the 4th in the world. Participated in the World Championship (1999). [...] Athletics: Runner Bassam Kawas (Lebanese champion in the 10084 and 1000 meters).

  JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, thanks for your work translating these. There were 11 newspaper hits, so what can you see in the others? Part of my difficulty in translating these is that I can only get the text immediately surrounding my search term, and even then it's often garbled for a non-Arabic reader.

  Is it possible that this sports administrator is him, shown here being interviewed for a Lebanese TV programme? --Habst (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The others are lists and stats, as should be apparent from the format the original text is in. I also searched his last name in every one of them. There is zero reason to expect anything more substantial than routine results coverage exists. And no I am not going to watch some facebook-hosted interview in Arabic because it doesn't matter whether it's him or not, it's unusable for GNG and would not suggest further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, based on the characteristics (see above, name present in prose, not only part of lists, likely more than mentions), combined with the fact that several hits are probably missing due to poor digitization of the text, I don't agree that only routine results coverage exists of this person. The fact that an interview is hosted on Facebook isn't at all disqualifying because Facebook isn't the publisher of the interview -- the Lebanese TV programme LFC Sports is. Many recent article hits (in Arabic) seem to be related to this position, so it's worth looking into. --Habst (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We know they are not more than mentions. Every single hit occurs within stats or lists, even the prose ones. They do not refer to him again later in the page because again, these are routine results announcements, not articles. NSPORT requires you to cite a source that we know for a fact has SIGCOV, that is absolutely not achieved with trivial mentions and totally baseless assertions that we can presume any further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, how can we know that they're not more than mentions without even having access to the entire page of digitized text, given the OCR issues and the fact that we both can't read the language?

  Subject-specific notability guidelines like NSPORT are irrelevant if GNG is met, which can be fulfilled by NEXISTS. I haven't made any baseless assertions, I've actually linked full TV interviews and newspaper articles from reputable sources that we know cover the subject – demonstrating that suitable sources do exist. --Habst (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We have access to the entire text. We know that his surname doesn't appear elsewhere on those pages outside of trivial mentions.

  You have not linked a single source of SIGCOV. He meets neither SPORTCRIT nor GNG. How many times does this need to be repeated? You are insisting that his name merely appearing in newspapers that you can't figure out how to read means that they must be discussing him in further detail on those pages, while somehow not ever mentioning his surname again, and despite the context obviously being things like "Mithal Sahmarani (Al-Ansar), Bassam Kawas (Al-Ansar), Bilal Hathof (Al-Ansar)" and literal bullet-point lists. TV interviews of him are not secondary coverage and can be dismissed outright.

  Source evaluation: 1 two passing mentions, his name in stats and his name in the delegates announcement N, 2 trivial stats N, 3 trivial stats N, 4 trivial stats N, 5 trivial mention N, 6 trivial stats N, 7 trivial
  mention N, 8 trivial stats N, 9 trivial mention in list 10 trivial stats N, 11 trivial stats N. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, would you be in a position to now cast a !vote in this AfD? LibStar (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay, You have not linked a single source of SIGCOV -- I don't agree with this (I've linked multiple) but more importantly this is a misunderstanding of the notability policy, which explicitly does not require links so long as it can be demonstrated that coverage exists otherwise.

  If we have access to the entire page of text, then please paste or link the entire transcript. The archive.org full-text links don't preserve the flow of text, and search results only digitize the snippet of text directly surrounding the matching term. Without this access and without knowing the language, a source analysis would be impossible to perform.

  The linked TV interview can also be considered secondary (non-primary) coverage, per Wikipedia policy and echoed by this comment from an administrator Special:Diff/1245933378: My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there. [...] Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? Because the interview isn't only about a match, it has to be considered as part of coverage. --Habst (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. SPORTSCRIT requires sportsperson articles cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to meeting GNG. Not a single such source has been identified. The refdump above has nothing but routine sports announcements; of the ones that are even in prose, I have provided the surrounding text demonstrating their triviality. His last name does not appear outside of brief passing mentions. A subject talking about himself in an interview is, obviously, not independent or secondary coverage of him (no, one editor's unsupportable opinion in some other AfD does not reflect "policy", much less overturn actual policy stating interviews are primary) and does not at all suggest additional coverage exists—this is on top of the fact that the interviewee, a youth soccer coach talking about coaching youth soccer, has not even been positively identified as the same person as this middle-distance runner (and the interview is hosted on a facebook page with no evidence of being from an independent RS news source!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could somebody other than Habst and JoelleJay please comment on this discussion, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Could be notable, but there isn't enough sourcing to write an article, simple confirmation of event participation. It's not a guarantee to get an article as a participant at the Universade, only showing they could be eligible for one when decent sourcing is available. I can't find anything in Gnews or Books, but this was long before the Internet, so might be hidden away in a paper format somewhere... Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:ATD, pending better sourcing as above. On the one hand, it must be correct that NEXIST can't be used as a cover-all "just in case" there may be some source somewhere, but on the other hand there must be an allowance for instances where it is certain, or so highly likely that it is as good as certain, that there are sources which are not accessible for some good reason. Since neither Habst nor JoelleJ actually speaks Arabic - although great appreciation for the efforts of both - I don't think there is quite enough certainty here either to delete or to keep, whence Redirect, keeping the history in case with closer evaluation of the sources than presently appears possible, reanimation becomes feasible later. Ingratis (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unequivocally fails NATH. Habst's evaluation of sources seems disjointed from reality, and the amount of bludgeoning serves to drive others away from deletion discussions. Not in favor of redirection either, in order to put the entry to rest and avoid a future revert cycle. Geschichte (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer redirect over delete. I feel like there's likely SIGCOV out there, its just that we can't access it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he is a surgeon but I don't believe it is enough to meet WP:BIO. Also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Medicine, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, I was able to confirm that Maher Abbas the Olympian and Maher A. Abbas the acclaimed Stanford cardiologist (surgeon) are the same person and added to the IP editor's claim with that. Abbas' work and books have been cited in at least 36 different articles on newspapers.com, some going into detail about his life, see for example "Olive oil full of healthy fats". Iowa City Press-Citizen. 16 Aug 2000. p. 21. Retrieved 2 February 2025. and "Tuscan oil cream of the crop but don't disregard the others Continued from page C1". The Toronto Star. 20 Oct 1993. p. 42. Retrieved 2 February 2025.. The assertion in nominator statement that Abbas doesn't meet SPORTCRIT isn't true because of the provided cite, and GNG is met making the subject-specific notability guidelines moot anyways. Edit: See below for coverage as an athlete, the sources confirm he's a surgeon but not a cardiologist. --Habst (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  the links in the article describe him as a "colorectal and gastrointestinal surgeon" with zero mention of being a cardiologist in his experience listing. Is that the same person as the Stanford cardiologist you refer to? Cardiology is a completely different speciality. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  this source about Tuscan oil I would not regard as WP:SIGCOV, it's a few lines mentioning Abbas in a larger article and quoting him rather than coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No you have not "confirmed" that the colorectal surgeon and cardiologist are the same person! None of the sources suggest this. The Scopus profile of the surgeon makes no mention of any cardiology work (which would be unheard of for a colorectal surgeon...), and the Anavara page says he only got his MD at Stanford and did his residency and practiced elsewhere, so would never be called a "Stanford" anything. The 1993 article would put him as a practicing cardiologist at 27 years old, which would mean completing medical school at 21 at the latest, all in the midst of training and competing as an Olympic athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks JoelleJay. I think the strong keep is looking weak, by providing sources for a completely different person. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar @JoelleJay, just to be clear, you think that there are two different "Maher Abbas" who are both Lebanese, studied at Stanford University at around the same time, and happen to work in the medical field? Because we know that at least one Maher Abbas who did all of those things is the Olympic athlete and article subject.

  In the 1980s, most Olympic athletes were still amateurs who didn't train full time, so yes, it's entirely plausible he was a medical student while competing. --Habst (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously he is not both a colorectal surgeon and a cardiologist! JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the 2 sources that confirm he is a colorectal surgeon and not a cardiologist appear to be primary or a database. I don't think he meets notability based on his medical career. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar, here's another article that talks about him going to medical school and nonetheless covers his athletic career enough to meet SIGCOV:

  "Student to Participate In Olympics For Lebanon". The Atlanta Journal. 8 Sep 1988. p. 140. Retrieved 3 February 2025. "Abbas From Page 8". The Atlanta Journal. 8 Sep 1988. p. 143. Retrieved 3 February 2025.

  Given that SIGCOV is met based solely on the athletic achievements, it seems like the identity issue, which again I think it would be highly unlikely that there are two Lebanese "Maher Abbas" in the medical field that studied at Stanford at the same time, would be a content dispute that can be resolved on the talk page unrelated to the deletion discussion. --Habst (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why doesn't his current profile not list any cardiology in his experience? I strongly contest this Maher Abbas is both the same cardiologist and colorectal surgeon. There is insufficient evidence to say they are the same person. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He was a college senior in 1988. The idea that he became a practicing cardiologist by 1993 is laughable. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoelleJay @LibStar, that's fine, I've struck the cardiologist cites as we have SIGCOV clearly about the athlete anyways. Thanks for your fact checking on this. --Habst (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have WP:THREE good sources that cover Abbas? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar, there should be many more sources about Abbas in The Emory Wheel as he was their first Olympian, but those archives are only available to Emory students. Maybe we can put in a query at WP:RX? --Habst (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per the significant coverage in The Atlanta Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- the references added to the article are good enough. Ingratis (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No relialbe media coverage, only acquisitions coverage (not in-depth). Thus it fails per NCORP Cinder painter (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that AfD volunteers should consider checking the article's history and following the link I put in when I first created it.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [Later] Okay. To non-admins it looks like I created this article on 7 July 2011 (unless you happen to be one of those non-admins who check the logs). In fact, I created it after the community specifically authorized its creation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 28.
• Admins will be able to see that the real original creator was User:Chadlupkes. After Chadlupkes created it, User:Prm1 made it a great deal more promotional. (Special:Contributions/Prm1 shows you that 100% of Prm1's contributions have been deleted.)
• The promotional version was summarily deleted by User:JzG, who was at that time a sysop.
• JzG's deletion was brought to deletion review by User:John Vandenberg, who was at that time also a sysop and sometime member of the Arbitration Committee, on the grounds that we ought to have an article about the M1 Group. The community, including tragically now-deceased sometime member of the Arbitration Committee User:DGG, agreed.
• As you can see from the M1 Group talk page, I created it by translating from the French Wikipedia article, at fr:M1 Group. On checking this again now, I suspect that the French Wikipedia article was itself a translation of the en.wiki article version originally created by User:Chadlupkes.
• Therefore the correct result of this AfD is to undelete the history from first creation in order to restore attribution for compliance with the Terms of Use.
• Finally, I would note that although I translated this from French, I don't speak Arabic. You would expect any company based in Lebanon and owned by a former Lebanese Prime Minister to have sources in Arabic, but I don't know the correct search terms. In view of the company's entry on the Dirty List for its dubious activities in Myanmar, I would also suggest searching for sources in Burmese (and, considering the geopolitics, possibly Hebrew).—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the namedropping of the arbitration committee, which doesn't decide content, is irrelevant. The old history up to but not including the advertising blurb rewrite, is now undeleted. Perhaps we can concentrate on sourcing now. Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
2. bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
3. The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
4. thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
5. The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.

None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per TarnishedPath nomination and extensive explanation. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tony Lupton#Personal life per ATD and CHEAP. The reasoning of the delete-supporters is sound; the conclusion differs. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to the suggested redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RebeccaGreen convinced me that the author passes NAUTHOR. See list in her comment below. gidonb (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's her articles which are widely quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being quoted is not independent from the subject. Isaidnoway addressed that above. We don't count sources which are not independent from the subject as counting towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being quoted is being cited, that is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR #1 is about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At least 10 sources, other than "The Age". Her views are being widely discussed. SRamzy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What sources? I have demonstrated above that none of the sources brought to the AFD demonstrate notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per multiple sources presented during the AfD that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Independent sources that cite her views include: Voices of Us [36]; The Bible and the Business of Life, p201-202 [37]; Rise of the Right [38]; Pandemic of Perspectives [39]; an article in the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics [40]; Guy Rundle, 'Goodbye to All That', p 329, in The Best Australian Political Writing 2008 [41]; and see Google Scholar's list of her works and the articles and books they're cited in [42]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All of the articles in mention that you've provided appear to be mentions in passing. 6 mentions in passing is not what I consider would meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".

  The 7th link you've provided appears to be mostly populated by her own articles. I see J Szego - The Age, 20xx or similar over and over. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Google Scholar link shows Szego's articles and the number of times each has been cited. If you click on 'Cited by N', you see lists of the other books and articles which cite her - evidence that she has been widely cited by peers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of her newspaper articles are getting between 2 and 4 quotes. I hardly see that as evidence of being regarded as an important figure in the field of journalism or being widely cited. Indeed when I look at that list the only sources that get more than 4 cites are the works of others, which would be mentioning her in passing. TarnishedPath^talk 10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TarnishedPath We're long past the point of WP:BLUDGEON. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per rationale of RebeccaGreen.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [43] and [44] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Strong Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, participants' opinion is divided. If the only problem is NPOV, that can be corrected through editing. The question is whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated by sources so both those editors seeking to Keep and those advocating Deletion should be focusing on that aspect and not on whether the current content is appropriate for the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an undoubtedly notable Iranian gov-backed org. However, I would reiterate that certain phrasings in the article might not meet WP:NPOV and should be fixed. That doesn't necessitate deletion though. Eelipe (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. Has no place on Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The entire premise of the AfD is extremely problematic. "The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it." - WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources. AgusTates (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article required significant improvements, including proper sourcing, neutral tone, and the removal of unsupported claims, all of which I have addressed. The subject is notable, and the article now meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliability. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article is partially biased. AgusTates (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sourcing still needs, at minimum, to be clarified. All of the sources are in Persian, but none of the citations identify the sources being used, except for one citation to the society's own website. I just deleted a Waze map showing the location of the society's office from the external links, per WP:ELNO #15. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there is already an entry Society for the Defense of Palestine, and it is neither neutral, it is very promotional and not at all transparent, maintains a lot of false information and not supported by reliable sources. Promise provocative actions. --190.219.102.29 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Society for the Defense of Palestine is clearly a different organization, so that has no relevance for this discussion. The IP user 190.219... has no other edits apart from 3 other Middle East-related AfD votes within a short time-span. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, IPs can't participate in consensus forming discussions covered by WP:ARBECR. They are only permitted to post edit requests on article talk pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We are not a soapbox, or social media platform, or propaganda ministry for the government of Iran, which is coterminous with its media. The only countries with worse media than India are North Korea, Iran, and Russia. At least India'a media can be used to verify the existence of a village. Iranian media and government are one entity; they publish incorrect information on gas stations and nursing homes as if they're villages. Continuing to allow countries who would ban us, from pushing us around, is detrimental to the Wikimedia Foundation. This article is not just biased, but harmful to us. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you considered that bias on Wikipedia can be fixed? This isn't a valid argument against. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I literally just gave a talk about that at Wikimania NYC. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" folks don't seem to be having the same argument the "delete" folks are having. If you're going to !vote keep, please show what makes the org notable - what sources? Furthermore, if an article is extremely biased, we can delete it, as a WP:TNT argument. Let's get this back on track and look at the sources, please. Reminder that this falls under WP:PIA and only extended-confirmed editors may take part in this discussion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please interpret my argument as Team WP: TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of this article just consists of quotes or paraphrases of the organization's own statutes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

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

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

Ditto as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel. Full of LLM generated rubbish [45] with no descriptive mentions of the event (see "The Capture" section). – Garuda ^Talk! 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and India. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a hoax. It doesn't even agree with the quotations from its own sources. Historical records such as al-Tabari's history (translated by Bosworth, SUNY Press, 1991) record that Ujayf ibn Anbasa defeated the Zutts in 834, not that the Zutts captured things in 834. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsalvageable article, which is totally LLM'd [46] with one line of passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad. Topic is scarcely notable, WP:TNT applies anyways. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Ad Dair shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable mass murder, WP:NOTNEWS Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searching for sources in any right to left language is really annoying, but there is continuing coverage from years after the fact (2021 2021 2021? year is weird for this source ) from established Saudi sources, including Al Watan (Saudi Arabia), CNN, etc. My issue is that these are mostly about the guy who did it being executed. There is more but searching in Arabic is difficult for me. Still, that's not nothing. Saudi Arabia does not have very many mass shootings so this seems decidedly unusual, especially in how it targeted an educational facility. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a more thorough search later and then decide. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there are quite a lot of sources on it in Arabic meeting WP:GNG, the Arabic wiki's page on it is a good place to start. It can definitely be expanded upon. jolielover♥talk 05:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted before. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 142 minutes in the highest Saudi league, plus some more on lower levels. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountain passes in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged 12 years ago as having no cites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Why_do_wikipedia_lists_need_references? and the Turkish article also lacks cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be a common problem in these List of mountain passes in... articles - List of mountain passes in Switzerland also has no refs, List of mountain passes of India isn't much better, List of mountain passes of South Africa links to a google map and List of mountain passes in Wyoming (A–J) is simply referenced to the US geological survey --Spacepine (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge table to List of mountain passes#Turkey. This is a navigational list and the respective links are implied to be references, but it does not need a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eduant Private Russian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although the Hürriyet cite is fine I am not sure about the other cites so I doubt this school is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Russia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Uncited and nothing in this article says why it is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I can find sources talking about other Turkic languages such as Kazakh and Azerbaijani, because of course those have a history when it comes to Cyrillic. But no linguistic source that I have consulted talks about writing Turkish in Cyrillic. And the signal-to-noise ratio is so large that it is impossible to track down proper documentation of the claimed Bible. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whilst there is was apparently a phenomenon of writing Ottoman-era Turkish texts in Cyrillic alphabet (https://www.zeitschrift-fuer-balkanologie.de/index.php/zfb/article/view/223/223), it appears unrelated to this transliteration scheme presented here. No indication that there has been a Cyrillization of modern Turkish language. --Soman (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH, which is exactly what Soman is describing. Bearian (talk) 05:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR.Tehonk (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of treaties of Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am not really familiar with lists. I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists but I am still not sure - for the lists in https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Turkey.html#Cites%20no%20sources should we just remove the ancient “uncited” tags? I mean if there are no red links do such lists need to be cited? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI - User:Nedim Ardoğa who created this article has been deceased since 2022. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see stopping notifications has been requested some years ago at https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/1476 but sorry I don’t know how to do that Chidgk1 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its just as valid as List of the United States treaties and the others like it. This is an obvious encyclopedic thing to have. A valid information list. Dream Focus 18:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But that article has a lot of cites whereas this one has none Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We have a category for this. Azuredivay (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Navigational lists are always more useful than categories, since they allow more information, in this case the year the treaty was passed and which nations were involved other than Turkey. The rules clearly state you shouldn't delete one because another one exist. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates Dream Focus 03:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Help desk#Why do wikipedia lists need references? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then click on anything, see the same information is listed in the infobox of the article for the treaty, and copy the reference over if you think it needs it. There is nothing stated here other than the basic facts of the treaty's name, with a link to an article for it, what nations were involved, and the date it was signed. So no statements that anyone sincerely doubt and need a reference to convince them it was true. Dream Focus 14:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every category needs to be converted into an article. These types of articles only increase maintenance work for editors. Azuredivay (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dream Focus, it's encyclopedic and trwiki article has a lot of refs.Tehonk (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. She is known for being one of a few people who were expelled from the Turkish army after a recent controversy. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Events, and Turkey. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree, textbook example of BLP1E, I was planning to add notability tag to the page and then I saw it was nominated for deletion. I don't think it will pass WP:10YEARTEST at all, most likely won't even pass a "one year test".Tehonk (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E, this individual appears to be hardly documented other than in the event of her being being expelled from the Turkish army, an event which is not significant in its own right. jolielover♥talk 10:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It is true that Ebru Eroğlu was expelled from the military due to a recent controversy. However, the focus is on her because she is the most significant figure among those involved in the action mentioned in the article. This type of incident has occurred for the first time in the history of the Republic of Turkey, impacting both the military and the public. While it has been covered almost daily by the entire Turkish media, it has also gained attention in European and American press. Additionally, she is the first female soldier to graduate as the top student from the Turkish Military Academy. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the article to remain. Biologg (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Merge to Turkish Military Academy#2024 Oath controversy, where the incident is covered and she is mentioned by name; it does seem to be her only claim for notability, so BLP1E seems relevant. Changed vote to "Merge", on seeing that the text of the oath isn't yet in the target article. PamD 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Having examined all the sources in the article (except the offline German article from the 1930s), and done some searches of my own, I think there is only a single sentence of information extant about this figure: he was king when Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma invaded Hayasa-Azzi. He gets namedropped in passing in histories of the Hittites, but the discussion does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because all sources are gossip that centered on his celebrity wife who was a Miss World Contestant. Twice, the article was moved to draft space for incubation and to pass through AFC review but was moved directly back to the main space. Majority of the sources are from non WP:RS and they are all written in same format of "Who is ...", "Net Worth", "Age", "Early life", "Education", "Wife". Patre23 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – It appears that his only claim to significance is his previous marriage to Ruffa Gutierrez, but notability isn't inherited. The sourcing, unfortunately, reflects this as pointed out by the nominator. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate given that there's nothing significant about Bektaş in Gutierrez's article. Yue💌 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [[47]],[[48]] and [[49]] are enough to establish notability.

  102.91.102.2 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Few reliable sources are available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, "Few reliable sources are available" is not a strong argument for a Keep. Which sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject appears notable due to his business, diplomatic roles, and UN affiliations, but the article lacks proper sourcing and structure. A rewrite with reliable citations is needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garvitpandey1522, what are some reliable sources that exist today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The independent coverage is essentially gossip and tabloid journalism, this person is not independently notable. His position as a businessman and diplomat does not make him notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The current coverage is plenty to meet WP:BIO. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: None of the above sources provided by the IP are reliable. eksisozluk is something like a reddit or twitter, that link is like giving a search URL for the name from twitter and calling it a "reliable source with significant coverage", that's just nonsense, feeddi link literally says the text is taken from wikipedia at the end of the page, the first link is not reliable either, it's more about the wife and it's more like a tabloid journalism like stated by Helpful Raccoon. There is zero "reliable sources with significant coverage enough to establish notability" here. The other keep voters didn't specify any source at all so can't even evaluate these mysterious "few reliable sources". If they were referring the ones linked by the IP, like I explained it's 2 spammy links with one of them being a direct copy paste from wikipedia, and one is a link to a twitter-reddit like user-generated site. Tehonk (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sırrı Yırcalı Anatolian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is only one good source in the Turkish article https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ege/turkiye-birincisi-bahce-10794778 and nothing in this article to explain how the school is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, There is a very detailed article in the [50] source. This is [51] rebuilding article. It is first Anatolian High School in city. May be this sources can help. İmmortalance (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We commonly delete middle and high school articles much better sourced than this page. Nothing presented directly detailing the institution, just discussion of the building process. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]