Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kuwait

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Kuwait|~~~~}} 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 Kuwait. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kuwait/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Kuwait

Saleh Faraj

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

Declined prod. All sources are databases/results listings and insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep must show indepth sources LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article like many others was brought to AfD by the nominator just after I found several additional sources and expanded it. This mass nomination of hundreds of articles has been controversial and a better system is needed: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?.

Subject had a years-long career over multiple international championships as the best hurdler from his country, as confirmed by multiple reliable sources (Olympedia, ATFS, Tilastopaja, World Athletics) that are fully independent of each other. There is always SIGCOV available for these athletes when the relevant Arabic-language archives are searched, but in many of these cases the archives are never searched and then the article is deleted despite notability being based on the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. A better system is needed for these nominations. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling the good old NEXIST argument again. Many people including admins have you told you to stop using this in athlete AfDs. You must actually show evidence of in depth sources. Not assert they exist. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, which admins have told me to stop using NEXIST or any P&G with community consensus in AfDs? I agree that we have to show evidence of sourcing and asserting that they exist is not enough. That does not change the broader context of the scale of these nominations, and that notability is determined by the existence of sources and not their presence in articles. --Habst (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still use the tired NEXIST. Others have said your continued use is tendentious And continue to bludgeon discussions with weak argument. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have used NEXIST unsuccessfully in at least 30 maybe 50 athlete AfDs, what makes you think it will actually work? LibStar (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always respected consensus and I've only responded to your comment directly addressing me in this AfD. I think there is some misunderstanding here because AfDs are never about winning or being "successful", they're about finding community consensus founded on P&G. --Habst (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still use the tired NEXIST. Community consensus is that waving NEXIST is not persuasive in meeting notability when no indepth sources can be found. Others have said your continued use of NEXIST is tendentious. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with using a policy-based argument, even if you disagree with the interpretation, when it has community support – it is part of WP:Notability, and if it was never able to be used then why is it there? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way Habst uses NEXIST that is questionable and not supported. Even an admin said Invoking N:EXIST without some evidence that sourcing has been (potentially) identified is not a path to a Keep and those !votes have been disregarded. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that admin's position, and it isn't contradictory to the argument I'm making. Like I said earlier, AfDs are not about winning or losing, they are about finding community consensus based on Wikipedia P&G. There's nothing tired about WP:N (which includes NEXIST) just as WP:V isn't a tired policy, because they are both core P&G concerning how we build an encyclopedia. --Habst (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way you use NEXIST that is tiresome not the policy itself. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which clearly provides in mandatory terms: "All sports biographies ... must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Moreover, his performance (by far the slowest of all athletes in his event) does not suggest the likelihood of SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics: Subject has no indication of notability under the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. His poor performances on the international stage invalidate the WP:NEXIST argument. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]