Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

Points of interest related to Middle East on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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. 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.
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.

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East/archive

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

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

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

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015 Egypt bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Searching for sources after 2015 only turned up other bus crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 35+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to literally ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all the sources I can find state that ~12 people were killed; the bus was just carrying ~35 - I'm not sure if that's an error or if there was an updated figure at some point? [1] Per AP at least 15 were rescued[2]. I can't find any real coverage of this particular one after the initial breaking news period. Looked through some Egyptian news sites as well. Zzz plant (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I am usually keen to defend bus plunge articles on WP:SYSTEMIC grounds, but such defences can only stretch so far. I've done both an English-language and Arabic-language search, and cannot find any coverage beyond the day-of news reports. Even amongst those news reports, there is widespread contradiction about the details (was it tourists or construction workers aboard, how many died vs how many were rescued, etc). As a result, having an article about this becomes somewhat impossible, even if, in spirit, such a tragic event with a high death toll should be considered notable. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to have enduring historical significance or otherwase lasting effect Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Architecture. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the awards [3] may indicate notability since he / his team seems to have come in first but these awards only exist since 2016 so I doubt that they are relevant for WP:ARCHITECT. Also he is listed as one of multiple people on a design team for the award, so overall I dont think winning a non-notable award as part of a team can count towards notability. Also, the page reads like a CV and needs some WP:TNT. --hroest 13:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Awards and recognition

  Moein Jalali has received individual recognition in international architecture awards:

  2A Continental Architectural Awards

  • 2016 - Won for Parsin Dental Clinic
  • 2018 - Won for Palemos Villa 2

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

Regarding the 2A Asia Architectural Awards' significance:

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

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

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

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

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

Jury appointments

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

Selection for such judging panels typically requires:

• Recognized professional achievements
• Specialized expertise
• International perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites (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:NTRUMP. The sources in the article and the sources that i can find are all centered around when the threats were issued and do not support any long lasting impact. There's nothing in this article's contents either that justifies it existing and not just being deleted and having its contents merged in other us-iran diplomacy articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." Politicians and elected officials make threats all the time - but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless it actually occurs.— Maile (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Seemingly no lasting coverage, and part of this wider topic. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC

• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Another one of those "things" by Trump. Unlikely to have lasting coverage nor continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Trump says a hundred unhinged things a day that he never follows through on. Nothing happened here. Move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not more than a mention of Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration would be needed. Shankargb (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. A perfect example of such. Conyo14 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wish there was a "you supported him, you knew, you were warned, you agreed with my assessment of his status, but you voted for him anyway because eggs" option. Bearian (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:TDS Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [4][5][6] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dilovan Kovli (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)

Unsourced BLP and an autobiography. The previously deleted autobiography was about an Iraqi artist but this reincarnation has now put him down as a field commander in the Syrian civil war. I can see that Kovli has been added to Hêzên Komandos but this edit was made by a now-globally locked IP account, so is highly dubious. The only mentions of him online are Yahoo and NL Times, which are both image captions giving credit to the Wikipedia user Dilovan Kovli and making no mention of the field commander. Searches in Kurdish ( دلوڤان کوڤلی) yield zilch. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - User:REAL MOUSE IRL tagged this for speedy deletion but it was removed by a logged out editor for no reason. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see talk of socking, UPE, and AI hoaxing in the last AfD, which would go a long way in explaining the strange IP editor and shift in article topic. I G11'd it as a recreated autobiography, but it seems like multiple criteria would apply. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 16:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No sources found, two articles linked in article are dead, and I couldn't search them either. Article is highly promotional in tone, high chances it is written by AI due to the language used. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In addition to being unsourced, the article is highly promotional in tone.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. This will likely be eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5 if it's confirmed that creator is a sock (which I highly suspect that they are). CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and probably salt too due to repeated recreations. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I've just failed verification on both of the sources in the article. Neither article actually exist, whether as the result of a deliberate hoax or an AI hallucination is unclear. Searching online shows only that the name matches a user on Commons. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Salt, too. Blatant self-promotion with random references. Aintabli (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - hoax or AI hallucination. GoldRomean (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Same reasons Spiderone, Aintabli and GoldRomean. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015) (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)

One of the sources is duplicated, that means 3 sources support the article, and the 4th source quite literally does not state what is said. This article is not notable enough. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by multiple reliable sources, including Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count, and ReliefWeb, all of which cover the Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash. The fact that one source is listed twice doesn’t change the reliability of the information. This event is significant and has been reported by independent sources. Deleting the article over this issue is not justified. DataNomad (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2/4 of your citations should be on this page, and 2 is too little. Furthermore, this is an incredibly insignificant clash which could easily be included somewhere else. Setergh (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It doesn't appear to meet WP:NEVENT guidelines for sustained or in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I don't see why this is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

For example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Hamek (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 seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". This also happened during the Iran–Iraq War, which is an incredibly well documented event, therefore I'm unsure why there would be no mention of this battle. Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a historical battle, not legendary. I intend to expand the article and add appropriate sourcing to support its notability.  Zemen  (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. - The battle happened during Iran Iraq War, If this engagement were real and notable, It would be almost certainly be mentioned in reliable sources covering the war in detail. Additionally the Article lacks of reliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@R3YBOl Are you aware that many incidents and genocides involving Kurds remain undocumented and largely unknown to writers and historians? This video features Najmadin Shukr himself speaking about the battle. Why do you think he has articles across multiple languages of Wikipedia? It's largely because of this battle. What writer or historian would easily uncover a battle that took place in a remote, desolate village. especially during a time when larger conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war, were dominating attention.  Zemen  (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video of the person supposedly involved in the battle mentioning it is still not a reliable source. The argument of the Iran-Iraq War dominating attention and therefore meaning this battle gets none is absurd, especially when there is not a single source I could find that wasn't affiliated with the Kurds (at least not a reliable one) about such an insane victory. If this battle was known to be real, at least a few people would briefly mention the battle, but this seems to have never happened. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video is from facebook, not yt. It features Najmadin, the commander in the battle. I know it is not a reliable source, and I'm still working on finding a credible version or a copy from a trusted place, or atleast find a source. but for now, I support deletion.  Zemen  (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Najmadin Shukr Rauf where the conflict is mentioned. We can’t have encyclopedia articles based on vague, unscholarly and highly partisan eulogies. Mccapra (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mccapra The battle is already mentioned in the page of Najmadin Shukr Rauf, Yet still cited by unreliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree there aren’t enough reliable independent sources to support a standalone article about the battle. That’s a different thing to saying the encyclopedia should not make any mention of the battle at all because we can’t even be sure it happened. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If proper reliable secondary sourcing, preferably of the academic publication type, can't be shown covering this battle in detail, then I think we'd be better off just deleting. Currently, this seems like some form of exaggerated hagiography than coverage of an actual historical event with factual backing. Since the latter would have actual book and academic paper coverage. Silverseren^C 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think (assuming the decision is that the article is a COI) there are two main options: if the article is deleted, the mention can be kept of a reported or potentially legendary battle in the Najmadin Shukr Rauf page. If the article is kept, it can be reworked as a probable propoganda story. I won't support a motion for this since I think either one could work, but those are my thoughts. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Reasons:

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [7]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parts of this page are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) Administrators may disregard the above message. You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [8] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

•  Remind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Osama if the person is NOT notable in English Wikipedia, he isn't so in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't find you nominate the Arabic article for deletion and I think he meets WP:GNG enough, so I lean to Keep it. The issue now is that there is a conflict of interest and I don't think it's a good reason for deletion, since there is a maintaining tags, e. g. {{COI}} and you can rewrite this article according to Wikimedia guides. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [9]. Conflict of Interest - Mass Deletions Across Projects Maxpro2025 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care what happens at other wikis - this article on this wiki is appropriately sourced and demonstrates this subject meets the WP:GNG standard for notable BLPs. Will also remind all participants that this AfD falls within a CTOP and they should make sure they're aware of its rules. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might justify a COI tag and a cleanup to improve NPOV a bit, but it's not so outrageously promotional that TNT is warranted, and the subject clearly meets GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk)

• Keep I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion. Writing an article on yourself, while strongly discouraged, is not a deletion argument. And the nominator has not given any arguments to back up their claim of non-notability, especially when a strong one would have to be made considering the large number of proper sources currently in the article. The subject appears to be widely and properly covered in media. Obviously spanning years in relation to his detainment (see here, here, here, and here as some examples), but also previously to that for his work, such as this, this, this, this, and this. And there's plenty more out there. The coverage of him seems significant. Silverseren^C 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage appears independent, significant, and spreading over time, not just focused on a single event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Saleh Faraj (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. 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]

@LibStar, I have great respect for your contributions. If you think it should be used another way, then you can say that but there's no reason to make personal comments. --Habst (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you see it from the other perspective, there is only one person making these types of comments. You rehash the same opinion, seemingly completely regardless of the subject. This is a matter of being taken seriously in discussions, a meta-debate so to speak. Geschichte (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, thanks, even if we disagree I still am a fan of your work. I'm not at all the only person making these types of comments; see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs? which I have only made one comment in. You can have principles founded on P&G, but I also think it's important to consider each article on its own merits without making sweeping arguments. You're free to think what you want, but I think it's generally best to let the arguments stand on their own. --Habst (talk) 12:09, 8 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]
• Redirect to Kuwait at the 1976 Summer Olympics as above. We do not have significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and all I could find elsewhere was some mentions like [[10]]. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and a search in GNews/TWL didn't come up with anything to help this subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this guy is an olympian, but doesn't meet the GNG or WP:NOLYMPIC requirements. This is also a BLP and good sources are lacking.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if no sources are found, or redirect to Lebanon at the 1960 Winter Olympics. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lebanon at the 1960 Winter Olympics where his name was mentioned. Better redirect than delete as with many other Olympic participants. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The only issue with a redirect is that the subject participated in the Olympics in 1964 as well. Let'srun (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect to 1964 Summer Olympics article would be fine for me, which was the person's highest record. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think there need to be more RSes to support inclusion. I was thinking of leaning towards a redirect but the fact that he competed in the 1964 Olympics as well does make that problematic. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parts of this page are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) Administrators may disregard the above message. You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [11] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

•  Remind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Osama if the person is NOT notable in English Wikipedia, he isn't so in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't find you nominate the Arabic article for deletion and I think he meets WP:GNG enough, so I lean to Keep it. The issue now is that there is a conflict of interest and I don't think it's a good reason for deletion, since there is a maintaining tags, e. g. {{COI}} and you can rewrite this article according to Wikimedia guides. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [12]. Conflict of Interest - Mass Deletions Across Projects Maxpro2025 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care what happens at other wikis - this article on this wiki is appropriately sourced and demonstrates this subject meets the WP:GNG standard for notable BLPs. Will also remind all participants that this AfD falls within a CTOP and they should make sure they're aware of its rules. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might justify a COI tag and a cleanup to improve NPOV a bit, but it's not so outrageously promotional that TNT is warranted, and the subject clearly meets GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk)

• Keep I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion. Writing an article on yourself, while strongly discouraged, is not a deletion argument. And the nominator has not given any arguments to back up their claim of non-notability, especially when a strong one would have to be made considering the large number of proper sources currently in the article. The subject appears to be widely and properly covered in media. Obviously spanning years in relation to his detainment (see here, here, here, and here as some examples), but also previously to that for his work, such as this, this, this, this, and this. And there's plenty more out there. The coverage of him seems significant. Silverseren^C 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage appears independent, significant, and spreading over time, not just focused on a single event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [13]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget

</noinclude>

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with sources like [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. A rename to something like "Foreign donations..." might be appropriate, since Qatar is the largest donor but other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China are also involved. The ISGAP/NCRI reports have been mentioned in reliable sources, so claiming that "Wikipedia should not amplify" them is puzzling. Also puzzling is the claim that the page "overwhelmingly deals with one issue" - yes, that is what a single Wikipedia page is expected to do. Other complaints about "undue weight" and "speculation" are content disputes about what should be in the article, not about whether it should exist. Astaire (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Saudi Arabia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations not enough for this very highly cited field (quite apart from the general issue raised here[25]). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Some academic works are there but not enough to meet criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

––– ~~~~ Arif11 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheikr Al-Shabani (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. All sources are databases/results listings and insufficient to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep must show indepth sources. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 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 Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This article, like many others, was nominated just after I improved it. Note that subject was the top Saudi athlete at the entire 1975 World XC Championships in any event. There is always coverage of these types of athletes when Arabic-language sources are searched, and the mass-deletion of hundreds of articles by the nominator has been controversial: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rate-limiting new PRODs and AfDs?. We need a better solution for these types of nominations. --Habst (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Was nominated just after I improved it". Good way to imply some wrongdoing or following you around. You mean "the nom prodded it, I deprodded and added some databases, and they nominated it for AFD" which is the normal way these things progress, considering that databases don't count for sportsbio notability anyway. "The top Saudi athlete" means that after more than 150 athletes had arrived, we had a few Gibraltarian athletes, 6 Saudis in a row, and 2 further Gibraltarian ones, and then no one else? The level of the Saudis was so low that they could beat just 2 out of the 6 Gibraltarians (a city-state with at the time less than 20,000 inhabitants!), and no one else at all. And this is somehow an indication that he was a top athlete? Fram (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fram, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. This isn't a concern only brought up by me, see related comments. With respect to the performance, see WP:DIDNOTWIN. Notability has always been dependent on context, and being the best runner from a large nation like Saudi Arabia has historically been indicative of SIGCOV. --Habst (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not controversial at all. This is all part of Habst's failed campaign to make all athletes notable despite lack of indepth sources. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LibStar, so I understand, are you saying that a mass deletion of hundreds of articles that has generated hundreds of comments both for and against over a period of months is not controversial at all? --Habst (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saudi Arabia at the 1976 Summer Olympics. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which clearly states in mandatory terms: "All sports biographies ... must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Even if prong 5 were not mandatory (which it is), his performance (one of the three slowest times of the 42 entrants in the preliminary heats at the 1976 Olympics) does not suggest a likelihood that he might have received SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Per Cbl62. Svartner (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilovan Kovli (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)