Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Middle East

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: We also have the Arab Islamic Republic, which is smaller in size and surrounded by many unverified rumors. Additionally, we have the United Arab Republic (1972), which I doubt many have heard of. There are sources, books, and interviews about this experiment, and we even have interlanguage links about it. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

Egypt Proposed deletions

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)

Iran

Mansur Alavi

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

Fails notability, I checked the refs, two of them are completely fake. and in other 3 he is just mentioned as the assistant coach of the national team and/or the para-table tennis junior team coach. that's far from being notable. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahra Alavi

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

Fails notability, this is just one line of article and then throwing lots of not-really-related references to trick wikipedia. for example one of the sources is about District 8 Championships! (and not even the national youth championship) Sports2021 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennis. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morteza Khoshbakht

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability, this was deleted once but recreated with more or less the same thing. I have to repeat what I wrote first time. the article just has a bunch of refs without much to say, from what I found he is a former world youth/cadet (not junior) champion back in 1996 but that's not enough to make him notable. he never won anything in junior or senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG in WP:NATH. No WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 15:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kheyrollah Ghahramani

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

Fails notability, he probably won some youth medals but achieved nothing in major events in senior level. the article claims he won two silver at 2012 and 2013 Asian Senior Championship but that's not correct and he never even made it to those competitions. Sports2021 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure how much help it is, but this source suggests he did in fact have a silver at the Asian championships and a bronze at world championship. [1] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this source fails to mention these medals are in cadet level. this is his resume in UWW database. as I said he never won anything special in senior level. Sports2021 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meisam Yarahmadi

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

Fails notability. just being a coach in youth level in a non-Olympic sport is far from being notable. this looks like WP:COI. Sports2021 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the coverage is significant and independent. All of the references mention him as coach of national youth teams but only in the context of the team preparing for competitions, him announcing results, or competitors being invited to training camps. He is either being interviewed or mentioned in one sentence as the national junior team coach. That doesn't show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob David

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

WP:NOTE, subject of article only has two sources discussing his life Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, searching the subject on Google only brings up two major sources regarding his biography, and searching his name in Farsi doesn't seem to bring other results as well. I previously requested a deletion for the article based on this criteria. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Iran, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:ANYBIO, the reference in Iranica is sufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I also found this from the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. More appears easily found using the Google search "Jacob David Assyrian Chicago" sans quotation marks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet further print resources are available, per this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a person being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, does it matter more the quality of the sources, or the quantity available to write on them? If it's just the above I'm sure I or another editor can work to enhance the article with more information, but I'm gonna keep the deletion discussion open. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline based on the sources, which are pretty thin unless, as Pbritti notes, there are print sources not currently accessible, but I see a bare GNG pass with the Encyclopedia Iranica biography and this article at the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. (It's not an ANYBIO pass, since Encyclopedia Iranica isn't a national directory of biography, but it is SIGCOV and thus contributes to GNG.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[2] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reiterate what the problem with the article is again?

Notability and source reliability (original issue) was addressed after it went article creation process and was approved.

Is the issue that it was deleted, improved and then re-approved? Avaldcast (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avaldcast, it's quite hard for editors to evaluate the article when you were inserting reliable sources that do not even mention Patrick Bet-David. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avaldcast. ChopinAficionado (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see my comments in the last AfD for source evaluation. Nothing has changed none of this new coverage is specifically about David, but only mentions him in passing, and the majority of sourcing is from self-published sources like podcasts which are not indicative of notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was approved when new articles from reputable sources were published since he interviewed President Trump and Crown Prince of Iran and other politicians and notable guests. Avaldcast (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for pinging me, Hydronium Hydroxide. I approved this article and moved to it to mainspace because of the sources that were added to the aricle with the the Vanity Fair one added very in depth coverage. With the other sources of CNBC and RealClearPolitics I felt that it passed WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a brief look over some of the sources added by avaldcast, and they did not verify much of the content added to the article. See: Talk:Patrick Bet-David#Editing by Avaldcast. I've done tidy up, but might be helpful if other users considering this AfD could briefly check others before they decide. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please just delete lol you have a personal issue with this person. Avaldcast (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in RealClearPolitics, ABC News, and Vanity Fair among others. Fernweh0 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fernweh0, brief mentions in RCP and ABC do not establish notability. Bet-David is not the focus of those articles. I just removed the ABC one because it didn't confirm the sentence it was cited against. The RCP source is simply a transcript of a Fox News interview, not reporting from RCP. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can his interview on Fox News establish notability? I don't fully understand the notability rules. Fernweh0 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fernweh0: interviews are generally considered to be not independent because the subject is talking about themselves. So the interview on Fox News would not contribute to notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analyst would be helpful at this point. User:NebulaDrift, I assume you didn't mean it when you asked for the article to be deleted. AFD discussions are a give and take between editors who hold different opinions, getting to a consensus is part of the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think its a keep because of the sources already mentioned above because as per my experience experts often say that even if its one article in a reliable source it should be good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I really don't know why this is even at AFD. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cited sources are nearly all from contributing writers not staff writers and many of these sources are listed at WP:RSP as being marginally reliable. For instance, the WP:SPECTATOR article is written by someone who is not even listed on the masthead. Many of the other sources are interviews with Bet-David or in some cases written by Bet-David himself, which do not contribute to his notability because they are not independent sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Take a look at the RCP source for example. It's not even secondary source reporting from RCP. It's just a transcript of a Fox News interview? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being a transcript of an interview from another source, the author of the RCP source is not even listed as a staff writer on the RCP website (not sure what exactly he even wrote though, did he transcribe the interview himself?). TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Regardless of how any of us may feel about the article itself or the subject, his notoriety makes him more than worthy of having a Wikipedia page. Frankly there are people in his field with far less subscribers and views and name recognition who've had profiles here for quite some time and without any arguments. If there are issues with the quality of the article, they can and should be addressed, but deleting the article would be foolish. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny Rose 11: would you mind linking to reliable sources that you believe demonstrate notability? Having subscribers and views and name recognition does not equal notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you people taken a look at Wikipedia lately? The "hawk tuah" girl has a Wikipedia page. Everybody with subscribers and views has a Wikipedia page. You people need to get a reality check. 118.149.67.235 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Proposed deletions

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

Iraq

Israel

Nelli Ioffe

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakol Over Habibi

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Source search only shows unreliable sources or brief mentions in reliable sources, and is only notable for their appearance in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1981 (going off the article and sources) and have almost no coverage besides that, can't find anything related to the alleged albums in the article.

Not to mention it's a BLP without any references or external links, which makes it eligible for BLP PRODing. —Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 08:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cydoor

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

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Israel, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

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

Article started by Icewhiz sock. Article is taken straight from Zionist propaganda: Palestinians are "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine, when Jewish immigration was far larger Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is a POV bias in this page, that should be resolved by editing. If the topic is notable, which it appears to be, that wouldn't be a valid deletion rationale. Has sources, and ineligible for G5 since other contributions were made after the sock. Andre🚐 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Arab migrations to the Levant page and this page are pretty long, so I'm not sure if a merge is the best route. I could see there being a page about each of the major periods of migration. It doesn't seem like this topic is currently covered in the former page though. I'm going to remain at Keep for now and not Merge even though I can understand the argument to Merge. Andre🚐 23:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Article is Zionist propaganda" is not a valid deletion argument. Specifically, according to WP:SKCRIT, this is a nomination that is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga: As Andre said, the page has substantial edits from one other person and doesn't qualify for G5. The editing dispute is that Huldra is unhappy with the article's content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Demographic history of Palestine (region). I don't think the wording of this proposal was necessary, but regardless, outside of being mostly written by a blocked sock, this article feels like undetailed retreading of already existing articles. It relies too much on the writings of 1 author, David Grossman, with 5/16 sources written by him + as far as I can tell online, he also had a hand in Zvi Ilan's 'Turkmens, Circassians, and Bosnians in Northern Sharon", though I could be misreading that. It also contains content unrelated to the topic such as Druze communities & settlement to areas that weren't a part of Ottoman Palestine like Damascus, Ajloun, and the Hauran. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'd actually be better. I had originally proposed Demographic history of Palestine (region) because I thought it was also being merged with Arab migrations to the Levant, but I now see that proposal isn't gaining traction. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab migrations to the Levant. There was nothing special about Palestine in the Ottoman period as far as Muslim population movements were concerned. The I-P conflict is the only reason for the focus on Palestine, and that focus creates the misleading impression that Palestine was special when it wasn't. This article also fails to give a balanced account as there is no attempt to place migrations in context or weigh their significance relative to the existing population. Zero^talk 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my mind after checking DaWalda's source investigation. The mention of Volney was only correct because I had fixed it recently, but DaWalda is right that the next page is also crucial. Unfortunately, nothing that Icewhiz ever wrote can be trusted. As far as merging is concerned, the main claims are already in Demographic history of Palestine (region) where they also need to be carefully assessed against the sources. Zero^talk 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content could be suitably added to Arab migrations to the Levant or Demographic history of Palestine (region). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have thoroughly reviewed only the sections on the 16th century, the 17th–18th centuries, and the 1830s because these are the periods I am most familiar with. However, they are so flawed that even a merge would not be worthwhile:
16th century: This section does not address immigration at all.
17th-18th century:
The first paragraph cites Krämer. The referenced pages 134f. only state: The total number of nomads [in Palestine] appears to have been small, at least until the immigration of Bedouin clans from the Hijaz, Syria, and Transjordan in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The cities, too, were surprisingly small. Pp. 50f. do not specifically concern Palestine and more likely focus on East Jordanian areas. The passage begins: ... Bedouins could also become partners with the Ottoman government and its local representatives, acting among other things as guardians and protectors of individual stretches of road, especially along the pilgrimage route from Damascus to Mecca. Up into the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman authorities pursued a policy favorable to the Bedouins [..., followed by a description of this policy].
The same Krämer references are repeated four times in the 1830s section, and in none of these cases do they support the claims made in the Wikipedia text.
The second paragraph is sourced to Ehrlich 2022, p. 82, but this discusses only the Golan, the former Decapolis region, Banias, and Jabal al-Druze—all locations in Syria or Jordan, albeit near the border. Again, nothing about immigration to Palestine.
The third paragraph is acceptable, but if Volney is cited, the subsequent page must also be included, where it states that most of these mentioned Egyptian migrants eventually perished.
1830s:
In the first paragraph, sentences 1 and 2 are accurate. Sentence 3, as mentioned, is a misquotation. Sentence 4 is misleading; Sabri does not discuss the deserters mentioned by Grossman in sentence 2 but rather a different migration movement of 6,000 peasants (cf. Aharoni/Kressel 2018, p. 9; Grossman, p. 47 [English ed.]).
In the second paragraph, Jaffa is correct (Grossman estimates 2,000 Egyptians there: p. 52). However, regarding the Gaza area, Grossman explicitly states: In most cases the Egyptian army dropouts and the other Egyptian settlers preferred to settle in existing localities, rather than to establish new villages. ... The southern coastal plain (Philistia) ... [h]owever, ... was densely settled and, therefore, its land reserves were low. Accordingly, all locations with Egyptian populations shown on the map on p. 53 are north of Gaza.
The next sentence is again misquoted but could instead be supported with Grossman, pp. 55–57.
Regarding the final sentence about residents of the southern coastal plain moving to Wadi Ara, Icewhiz appears to have generalized the story of one Egyptian immigrant interviewed by Grossman (p. 55) to all Egyptians who migrated to the southern coastal plain/Wadi Ara. The only verifiable claim here is that some Egyptian immigrants also settled in Wadi Ara.
=> In summary, these three chapters provide roughly four usable sentences for a merge. However, identifying which sentences are salvageable would require access to and command of the original sources. Given both, one could better supplement the Demographic history of Palestine (region) article directly with these sources, without relying on this flawed article. DaWalda (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaWalda, who did the work and has uncovered troubling misrepresentation of source material.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta ask. Does anyone think this misleading article on a non-topic written by a liar should persist? There are almost no contributions to it except from the liar and people trying to clean up the liar's mess. What are we even doing here?Dan Murphy (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. This article was AFD before but I don't really agree with the provided sources by the now-blocked user. They don't seem to pass WP:SIRS in my view regarding the subject itself. Another user has tagged this article for multiple issues including notabilit. It also doesn't help this article is created by a suspected paid editor who has 5 out of 6 articles deleted with this being the last one remaining.

I am submitting this article to look at this again given that NCORP requirements are more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Israel. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this reads as an advertisement and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Wilson (basketball)

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

Prolific high school/college basketball player fails WP:NHOOPS. Page is an absolute mess and was likely created as promotional material by an WP:SPA. Novemberjazz 18:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Basketball, Israel, France, Germany, Montenegro, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Indiana, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search found some references, more can be found more than likely given his collegiate career. Article needs cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a notable college basketball player. Passes WP:GNG with coverage such as Award is 'big deal' to Wilson, Speaking in tounges, Marcus Wilson is on quite a roll - so UE is, too, South Bend's own on call...while Wilson hopes for best and Numbers adding up to Evansville guard.Alvaldi (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think he meets notability just enough, but the article itself is in desperate need of an overhaul as it’s badly written and full of puffery inflating his accomplishments. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes GNG. The article feels a bit promotional but the subject himself is notable. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Problems with the article aside, the subject pretty easily passes GNG as a former conference player of the year. JTtheOG (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was notable as a star basketball player and refs on the article and in this discussion show it. The article seriously needs cleanup though. Looks like an IP refocused the article and deleted some refs in 2021, maybe Wilson himself. Rikster2 (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, though agreed that the article needs major cleanup as it reads like a press conference, so an editor could go and blow it up and start over if necessary. Madeleine (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources already provided in this deletion discussion appear to be sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Issues with the article can be addressed by editing. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[3] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[4] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[5] is not independent
[6] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[7] is a copy of a press release
[8] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[9] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[10] copy of a press release
[11] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[12] Summary of a press release
[13] Summary of a press release
[14] Summary of a press release
[15] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Schreiber

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Israel. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Believe she does satisfy notability. Actually not sure what the issue is about the article. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tel Aviv truck attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING, seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kept five weeks ago, with very few delete opinions. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting effects, all news is from over a month ago at this point. The media cycle has moved on it seems. Two deaths is rather routine and nothing out of the ordinary, even in a regular traffic accident. This isn't the Yonge Street attack in Toronto where a dozen people got caught... Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no coverage after the first week. LASTING and NOTNEWS definitely apply. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of vehicle-ramming attacks or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024. Concerns above do apply but it is in the scope of those two lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally prefer the first target (also any merge should be very cut down). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not aware of much continued coverage so far (it's still early), but that isn't strictly required, and the initial coverage was quite extensive, easily meeting WP:N(E)'s standard of very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. There are far too many RS to list, probably 100+. Just to mention some of the largest: BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NPR. The article needs work but there's ample source material. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDanielx, your quoted standard refers to national or international impact, but I'm not sure any of your linked sources go over that in any detail? Can you clarify what you believe the lasting effects are? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I was thinking of the human toll (a death and 30-40 injuries), but on second thought maybe impact is a gray area. I think ultimately since WP:N(E) has no hard requirements, we have to consider multiple factors, but the WP:DIVERSE factor certainly supports inclusion. I also just feel that when coverage is so extensive, the WP:GNG presumption should carry weight, leading us to default to inclusion unless there's a particularly strong argument for why it would fail WP:N(E). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they may be WP:DIVERSE sources, no sources extend past a few days after the event. This attack has no WP:LASTING impact and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And while I understand that I should WP:FOC with this, I think it's important to note that the article creator wrote the page while the news was still WP:BREAKING, and has been PBlocked for these creations, something which should be relevant here as the article was created regardless of the event's impact. E_F⁵ 17:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the burst of coverage immediately after (the guideline's language), there was still significant coverage days after the event, like [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Most of that was 2-3 days after, though the last was Dec 2.

I wouldn't say WP:PERSISTENCE particularly favors inclusion, but this doesn't exactly fail the standard either. In any case it's only one factor, not a requirement, while other factors like WP:DIVERSE favor inclusion.

I don't think the author's motivations should be considered, particularly since that was a while ago and this already survived one AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stay is a fact with significant coverage and great impact on Israeli society that is going through moments of fight against terrorism. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@190.219.101.225: Can I get a few examples of significant and lasting coverage, and that this event had long-lasting, if any, impacts on Israeli society? E_F⁵ 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the prior AFD was just held last month. It's pretty soon for a return trip to AFDLand. But I'm relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has significant coverage and is notable. Should be kept. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask this again, where is the significant coverage here? I see 5 sources, all of which were published right after the attack. E_F⁵ 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be in the current article to contribute to notability though. I listed more above, including 7 which were not immediately after the attack. Would you be convinced by a much longer list (including ones immediately after)? I'm happy to compile one if it would be useful. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 days after an event is normal. There is zero WP:LASTING coverage. E_F⁵ 13:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this attack has left fourty (!) people injured and has a good sources. It definitely fulfills the criteria for GNG and thus it should be kept. Karol739 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the coverage provided is run of the fill news reports. No secondary sources have been identified. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate further? News reports are normally secondary sources (unless the topic is the news org or what not). Are you saying you'd like to see non-news sources like books or papers? It seems too early for that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are normally secondary sources This is incorrect. You're confusing secondary with independent. It seems too early for that. This is correct. That's why the article is up for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't as per the link provided by Alien. I'd like to see secondary sources.

> It seems too early for that.

Then this article should not exist until it can meet the criteria for GNG, which requires secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no WP:LASTING coverage. Would make sense maybe as a section in another article – this one maybe? – but we don't have an article for every single thing that happens, even if those things do get news coverage. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no long lasting effects and not significantly covered Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not count toward notability. Death count is irrelevant, and citing it indicates that one still needs more time to learn how notability works on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Seconding/per xDanielx. Regardless; Also am uncomfortable with the amount of time passed since the last AfD; This discussion should be procedurally closed as per WP:6MONTHS.MWFwiki (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay not a policy. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you could tell me where I said it was, I would greatly appreciate it! It is still a good guideline, and it exists for a reason; whenever someone points-out “it’s just an essay,” I encourage them to nominate it for deletion if they feel it has no value; regardless, re-listing after less than a month is wildly inappropriate, IMO. I should also point-out that WP:BEFORE explicitly links to this essay. MWFwiki (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait

Lebanon

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Oman

Palestine

Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

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

Article started by Icewhiz sock. Article is taken straight from Zionist propaganda: Palestinians are "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine, when Jewish immigration was far larger Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is a POV bias in this page, that should be resolved by editing. If the topic is notable, which it appears to be, that wouldn't be a valid deletion rationale. Has sources, and ineligible for G5 since other contributions were made after the sock. Andre🚐 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Arab migrations to the Levant page and this page are pretty long, so I'm not sure if a merge is the best route. I could see there being a page about each of the major periods of migration. It doesn't seem like this topic is currently covered in the former page though. I'm going to remain at Keep for now and not Merge even though I can understand the argument to Merge. Andre🚐 23:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Article is Zionist propaganda" is not a valid deletion argument. Specifically, according to WP:SKCRIT, this is a nomination that is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga: As Andre said, the page has substantial edits from one other person and doesn't qualify for G5. The editing dispute is that Huldra is unhappy with the article's content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Demographic history of Palestine (region). I don't think the wording of this proposal was necessary, but regardless, outside of being mostly written by a blocked sock, this article feels like undetailed retreading of already existing articles. It relies too much on the writings of 1 author, David Grossman, with 5/16 sources written by him + as far as I can tell online, he also had a hand in Zvi Ilan's 'Turkmens, Circassians, and Bosnians in Northern Sharon", though I could be misreading that. It also contains content unrelated to the topic such as Druze communities & settlement to areas that weren't a part of Ottoman Palestine like Damascus, Ajloun, and the Hauran. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'd actually be better. I had originally proposed Demographic history of Palestine (region) because I thought it was also being merged with Arab migrations to the Levant, but I now see that proposal isn't gaining traction. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab migrations to the Levant. There was nothing special about Palestine in the Ottoman period as far as Muslim population movements were concerned. The I-P conflict is the only reason for the focus on Palestine, and that focus creates the misleading impression that Palestine was special when it wasn't. This article also fails to give a balanced account as there is no attempt to place migrations in context or weigh their significance relative to the existing population. Zero^talk 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my mind after checking DaWalda's source investigation. The mention of Volney was only correct because I had fixed it recently, but DaWalda is right that the next page is also crucial. Unfortunately, nothing that Icewhiz ever wrote can be trusted. As far as merging is concerned, the main claims are already in Demographic history of Palestine (region) where they also need to be carefully assessed against the sources. Zero^talk 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content could be suitably added to Arab migrations to the Levant or Demographic history of Palestine (region). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have thoroughly reviewed only the sections on the 16th century, the 17th–18th centuries, and the 1830s because these are the periods I am most familiar with. However, they are so flawed that even a merge would not be worthwhile:
16th century: This section does not address immigration at all.
17th-18th century:
The first paragraph cites Krämer. The referenced pages 134f. only state: The total number of nomads [in Palestine] appears to have been small, at least until the immigration of Bedouin clans from the Hijaz, Syria, and Transjordan in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The cities, too, were surprisingly small. Pp. 50f. do not specifically concern Palestine and more likely focus on East Jordanian areas. The passage begins: ... Bedouins could also become partners with the Ottoman government and its local representatives, acting among other things as guardians and protectors of individual stretches of road, especially along the pilgrimage route from Damascus to Mecca. Up into the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman authorities pursued a policy favorable to the Bedouins [..., followed by a description of this policy].
The same Krämer references are repeated four times in the 1830s section, and in none of these cases do they support the claims made in the Wikipedia text.
The second paragraph is sourced to Ehrlich 2022, p. 82, but this discusses only the Golan, the former Decapolis region, Banias, and Jabal al-Druze—all locations in Syria or Jordan, albeit near the border. Again, nothing about immigration to Palestine.
The third paragraph is acceptable, but if Volney is cited, the subsequent page must also be included, where it states that most of these mentioned Egyptian migrants eventually perished.
1830s:
In the first paragraph, sentences 1 and 2 are accurate. Sentence 3, as mentioned, is a misquotation. Sentence 4 is misleading; Sabri does not discuss the deserters mentioned by Grossman in sentence 2 but rather a different migration movement of 6,000 peasants (cf. Aharoni/Kressel 2018, p. 9; Grossman, p. 47 [English ed.]).
In the second paragraph, Jaffa is correct (Grossman estimates 2,000 Egyptians there: p. 52). However, regarding the Gaza area, Grossman explicitly states: In most cases the Egyptian army dropouts and the other Egyptian settlers preferred to settle in existing localities, rather than to establish new villages. ... The southern coastal plain (Philistia) ... [h]owever, ... was densely settled and, therefore, its land reserves were low. Accordingly, all locations with Egyptian populations shown on the map on p. 53 are north of Gaza.
The next sentence is again misquoted but could instead be supported with Grossman, pp. 55–57.
Regarding the final sentence about residents of the southern coastal plain moving to Wadi Ara, Icewhiz appears to have generalized the story of one Egyptian immigrant interviewed by Grossman (p. 55) to all Egyptians who migrated to the southern coastal plain/Wadi Ara. The only verifiable claim here is that some Egyptian immigrants also settled in Wadi Ara.
=> In summary, these three chapters provide roughly four usable sentences for a merge. However, identifying which sentences are salvageable would require access to and command of the original sources. Given both, one could better supplement the Demographic history of Palestine (region) article directly with these sources, without relying on this flawed article. DaWalda (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaWalda, who did the work and has uncovered troubling misrepresentation of source material.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta ask. Does anyone think this misleading article on a non-topic written by a liar should persist? There are almost no contributions to it except from the liar and people trying to clean up the liar's mess. What are we even doing here?Dan Murphy (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Redirects

</noinclude>

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen

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

POV fork of 2024 Magdeburg car attack/WP:BLP1E. No need for standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Germany. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has warranted their own article. Haskeymorrison (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article. That the article is POV, as you wrote, is a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person is famous enough even with the article on Magdeburg attacks Athoremmes (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person has received a lot of attention from the media and easily meets the notability standards. Theofunny (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the persons controversial views, ideology, and his role in the Attack make him notable enough for a standalone page. Deleting it would lose important context about his actions and background. Instead, we should focus on improving the article. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not just a "generic" terrorist Braganza (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the previous reasons stated, this individual's actions and ideology are enough to warrant its own page Fishthatflies (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously per WP:GNG. Plenty of good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even before the attack he had a website, was on BBC and had over 40,000 followers on Twitter Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged popularity in social media does not confer sufficient notability for an encyclopaedia article. It's irrelevant. Spideog (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article!
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources is not the issue. The question of notability and BLP1E are the issues. Spideog (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met here. In addition BLP1E isn't met, given that the event is significant, and the person's role is substantial and well documented. Gust Justice (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a borderline notable public figure prior to the attack and complex enough to warrant a separate page Mason7512 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article terrorist will try it if the article become famous. Great achievement (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe U:Mason7512 is saying that if perpetrators of criminal or terrorist acts get their own Wikipedia articles that may motivate someone to commit criminal or terrorist acts in hopes of getting their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think that argument is one of the ones considered valid for a keep/merge/delete discussion on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think that's gonna happen Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article.Abstrakt (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient information aside from yesterday's car attack to merit a separate article on the identified suspect. 9March2019 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article --2A02:3038:201:7EE4:B469:EBE5:1175:5CBB (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The useful information can be merged into the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason Luigi Mangione was kept. Sushidude21! (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bafflingly, was probably notable or close to notable before this happened. What a world we live in. If it turns out to be better to cover as one article, we can merge it later, but he is one of the few mass attackers to not actually be BLP1E. He was a well known Saudi dissident and had lots of pre-attack media coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read the article, and this person had news media coverage before the car attack took place. I'm not sure how BLP1E applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough media attention to warrant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind the gap 1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources on this person, there is nothing certain about him, including the name or date of birth.Marcelus (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So BBC and Al Jazeera aren't reliable sources? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Der Spiegel, Reuters, not reliable ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source evaluation would be nice here. What are the sources that cover him before the Christmas incident? Badbluebus (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Magdebourg car attack: Better notable, the prepator article can have nonsense since there are probably poor sources, unlikely the car attack article, in addition, having two articles can be too enough, IMO. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are sources pre-attack that focus on him:
BBC News video piece on his website and what he does from 2019, how his website was a "go to resource" for refugees

The Jerusalem Post piece from 2019 on him as a refugee activist

2019 FAZ piece

2017 piece on him from the New Arab

He was covered before this. With the attack it makes this more complicated. Probably a few more, but a lot of it is in German and there's 50+ more articles that quote him, and it's mixed in with breaking news from today so it's hard to sort out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add these to the talk page to be worked on? Theofunny (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of BLP1E. Some have argued here that he was notable or nearly notable before this event but no article here reflected this alleged prior notability and any article about him would have been nominated for deletion before, as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one. Spideog (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one", don't think that's true. We don't have articles on plenty of notable people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This character only became notable for one act. My point was that prior lack of interest in creating an article underlines his prior lack of notability. Spideog (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of BLP1E, point 3 explains "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.". Event is significant, role was substantial and well documented. --ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article is about the alleged perpetrator of an attack that happened in Germany in 2024. As we have enough media attention to warrant article, person is almost a notable public figure and because this article of said person will be useful and relevant for later purposes it would be better if we keep this article especially since we have continued to keep the article of Luigi Mangione who happens to be a similar case (as mentioned by an editor). General Phoenix (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not meet WP:BLP1E because neither of points 1 and 3 in that are met: news items about him existed before the event, and he (allegedly) had the main role.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What was he doing before the attack? He wasn’t widely known and had no significant impact. His fame will be short-lived. While unfortunate, it doesn’t warrant a standalone article. Valorthal77 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I feel like this always happens with these sorts of tragedies, with the perpetrator getting their own article. The info here can easily be merged into the article it is a WP:FORK from. See 2016 Berlin truck attack#Anis Amri, Halle synagogue shooting#Perpetrator, Christchurch mosque shootings#Perpetrator for examples on how very similar articles handle this.Yeoutie (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the information in this article is already in the attack's article.675930s (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned above: The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify [his] own article.. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage had existed prior to attack, so WP:BLP1E should not apply. S5A-0043^Talk 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a case of 1E, the subject has had coverage amongst many RSes even before the incident. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability arguments of nearly everyone else. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. I think it's clear that this not a BLP1E issue because he had coverage prior to the attack. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage prior to the attack was inadequate to confer notability. Most activists are not notable even when their activity attracts occasional media notice; that is part of the game. Getting one's name in the newspapers is not enough to establish notability in an encyclopaedia (see WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be", etc., etc.). That is normal. Some activists do go on to establish notability, but this motorist had not done so before his Christmas outing. Following major news events, many Wikipedia editors, especially those comparatively new to the project, those less familiar with policies and their import, and those who do not distinguish properly between newspaper notability and encyclopaedia notability, become overexcited. For now, at least, the subject's details can be covered in the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Abdulmohsen was very unusual, being a Saudi ex-Muslim who campaigned against Islam. From this BBC item, he was "a very unusual citizen". There is the argument in Wikipedia that something can be inherently notable. By the way: I'm usually a deletionist. --A bit iffy (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments in favor of it above. Merge arguments suggested by 4 so far are not convincing.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WHY do you claim they are "not convincing"? A driveby assertion is not an argument. Spideog (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most mass killers, Al-Abdulmohsen had already become newsworthy five years before the attack. The attack may be the most notable thing he has done with his life, but it's not the only thing.Mikalra (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, newspaper "notability" is not encyclopaedia notability. This mistake is common throughout this discussion. He wasn't even impressively notable in the newspapers: he just appeared in them rarely, in a minor way. Even by media standards, he was a very minor figure. Spideog (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is notable for the attack only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs)
Delete as the subject fails the basic notability guideline at WP:GNG. WP:GNG says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that 'sources' should be secondary sources. However, most, if not all of the sources used for this subject are only supported by recent news media articles, which, per WP:PRIMARYNEWS are primary sources if they are any of the following: eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, Investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds - which most of them are. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was actually pretty well known for being an anti-Islam activist before he killed 5 people. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per WP:BLP1E into the attack article. Most of this is just about the attack and his motivation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; I would normally be opposed to articles like this being created so soon after the event, but he seems to be a complex individual with more information constantly emerging and the article covers a lot of points really well already. We can always review again whether or not the article meets notability guidelines in a few weeks/months. Buttons0603 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack article. All the sources, except one, are primarily related to news about the attack and are dated after it occurred. While the remaining source predates the attack, it is a primary source that has been promoted after the attack by additional "updates". This person is not separately notable, and as the prime suspect is not otherwise notable. Guidelines WP:BLPCRIME applies and Wikipedia should not have a separate article about the alleged perpetrator before he has been convicted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale has been offered. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." ProudWatermelon (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the article isn't WP:BLP1E though, it is that the article fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources it uses are primary, and GNG is very specific that sources should be secondary. WP:PRIMARYNEWS says recent news media articles, which most of the sources in the article are, are primary sources if they are eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds. I don't think many of the sources used escape this test.

As this rules out the use of most of the cited sources to establish notability, we can categorically say it fails the GNG notability test, so must go. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack. I don't think this man would have been notable before the terrorist attack, and it is due to the terrorist attack that he is notable. Pretty much all sources regarding this man are in relation to the terrorist attack. For these reasons, I believe that this article should be merged into the article on the terrorist attack. IJA (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this article is about the alleged perpetrator of the attack, he played an important role in the incident. So, it is only natural that there is a separate article about him, because people who are directly involved in such a major incident, especially when there is clear evidence, should indeed be recorded. Ariankntl (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its important for people to remember this moment, so the victim will not be forgotten. Donpolloinohio (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing and insufficient grounds. This is not a vote! Valorthal77 (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think...we are at a consensus. 47.157.126.174 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E, person is only known for this attack. The keep votes are symptomatic of the bias within Wikipedia. If this had been a white terrorist massacring a bunch of brown people, all those voting keep would be voting delete e.g. Brenton Tarrant. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taleb was notable for his activism prior to this attack. Firecat93 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, and his activity was limited to some posts on X. Valorthal77 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources cover for WP:GNG. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable per GNG. There aren't any reasons to remove or merge that article. Karol739 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a strange nomination. Individual is clearly notable (including for his work, which received coverage in RS prior to attack). Firecat93 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Honestly fine with either, but I strongly oppose deleting. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are substantial enough details available on the main article regarding his motive, background, etc, then not to mention the WP:RS updates in subsequent days ahead.

TheRevisionary (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was not notable before the event, but there was some coverage of his activities, notably on New Arab, BBC, Jerusalem Post, The World, Der Spiegel, Business Insider, in addition to this article in Arabic were he was accused of being responsible for a Omani lesbian's suicide. This certainly does not make him a WP:BLP1E case. In aggregate, he should be considered notable.--Ideophagous (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above
Waleed (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per a number of above arguments. Relinus (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Skitash (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Removing the article about the Christchurch perpetrator reflects sensitivity to the victims and the Muslim community affected. However, maintaining this Assault Perpetrator article ignores this principle. Is the suffering of the victims in Magdeburg considered less important than the Christchurch case? This difference not only reflects inconsistency, but can also be considered discriminatory.

Phantasmcoa (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with notability, not sensitivity. Perpetrators of genocide like Hitler, 9/11 terrorists, and war criminals like Assad all have Wikipedia pages. Firecat93 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:BLP1E due to notability prior to the attack. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was notable even before the attack. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable. TheBritinator (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. Mmnashrullah (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with proposed deletion tags

Syria

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre

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

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([23]) and New Arab ([24]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.
    
    Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.
Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria as proposed by Sabri76. This justifies a split from Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war which currently only has #2024 Rojava offensive pointing to 2024 Manbij offensive and 2024 Kobani offensive. The more detailed reports seem to be mainly from Kurdish-related sources; this includes both Iraq-based and Syria-based Kurdish-related groups, which are not a monolithic group, so the biases are to some degree mixed; western mainstream media tend to be focussed on 'our' interests, but do have some reports. Overall, 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria is very likely WP:NOTABLE. Last week or so: 9 Dec 2024 Rudaw Media Network; 10 Dec 2024 Rojava Information Center; 16 Dec 2024 The New York Times; pre-fall-of-Assad: 24 Oct 2024 The Guardian; kurdistan24.net '1 month ago' Kurdistan 24. Boud (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This seems sufficiently significant, but needs to be renamed/moved and possibly expanded, for example, as suggested by Boud just above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep an article with the present scope (this attack, regardless of whether the "massacre" label is justified) or reframe this as an article about all the airstrikes in the most recent episode? At the moment I see an even split between these options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: We also have the Arab Islamic Republic, which is smaller in size and surrounded by many unverified rumors. Additionally, we have the United Arab Republic (1972), which I doubt many have heard of. There are sources, books, and interviews about this experiment, and we even have interlanguage links about it. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Turkish Airlines Flight 1878

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Turkey. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: only immediate news coverage, no lasting effects or in-depth analysis. The event is already mentioned at Turkish Airlines § Incidents and accidents and Atatürk Airport § Accidents and incidents; there's slightly more detail at the latter page that could potentially be added to the former, but I don't think there's anything further here that deserves a merge !vote. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Has no continued coverage. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenette Maitz

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

Non-notable figure skater. Only competed in two competitions: 1st place (with no other challengers) at the Turkish Figure Skating Championships and 26th place (out of 27 teams, though the 27th team was technically a withdrawal) at the 2010 World Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Turkey, and Pennsylvania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kutay Eryoldaş

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Turkey. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Wilson (basketball)

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

Prolific high school/college basketball player fails WP:NHOOPS. Page is an absolute mess and was likely created as promotional material by an WP:SPA. Novemberjazz 18:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Basketball, Israel, France, Germany, Montenegro, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Indiana, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOOPS. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick search found some references, more can be found more than likely given his collegiate career. Article needs cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a notable college basketball player. Passes WP:GNG with coverage such as Award is 'big deal' to Wilson, Speaking in tounges, Marcus Wilson is on quite a roll - so UE is, too, South Bend's own on call...while Wilson hopes for best and Numbers adding up to Evansville guard.Alvaldi (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think he meets notability just enough, but the article itself is in desperate need of an overhaul as it’s badly written and full of puffery inflating his accomplishments. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes GNG. The article feels a bit promotional but the subject himself is notable. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Problems with the article aside, the subject pretty easily passes GNG as a former conference player of the year. JTtheOG (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was notable as a star basketball player and refs on the article and in this discussion show it. The article seriously needs cleanup though. Looks like an IP refocused the article and deleted some refs in 2021, maybe Wilson himself. Rikster2 (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, though agreed that the article needs major cleanup as it reads like a press conference, so an editor could go and blow it up and start over if necessary. Madeleine (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources already provided in this deletion discussion appear to be sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Issues with the article can be addressed by editing. Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)

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

Appears to lack any significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Note that train stations have no inherent notability (per WP:NTRAINSTATION) and I'm just not seeing anything beyond routine sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect T3 (Tram İzmir) as ATD. The creator made articles for every station and they cannot be WP:BLARED since there already has been a draftification attempt, so might be good to convert this to a batch nom? Jumpytoo Talk 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I do intend to nominate the rest of the recent creations as a batch, but I prefer to test the waters first before doing a batch nom that could end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, why can't they be redirected due to being draftified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I meant BLARED without discussion, since the draftification was opposed they have to go through AfD Jumpytoo Talk 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused, since drafting isn't redirecting, I'm not seeing why "opposed draftification" means "cannot boldy redirect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one opposed draftification, it would be reasonable to expect they would oppose a redirection too. Theres nothing that disallows a BLAR after draftification, but it usually will be fruitless since it would likely be reverted and youd have to AfD anyways Jumpytoo Talk 17:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is very promotional and lacks independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottoman mosques in İzmir

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

Is links to 5 articles enough for a list? If so I think the mosques without articles should be cited Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either List of mosques commissioned by the Ottoman dynasty or List of mosques in Turkey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this will likely close as Merge but is there a preference for a Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Al-Mustariha massacre

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

Non-notable massacre or air strike. One of the source (ANHA - Hawar News Agency) is linked to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). ANHA is forbidden in Turkey because it's seen as a propaganda tool of SDF, therefore I have no idea about what exactly is written in the source. Other source (arabi21.com) don't talk about Al-Mustariha or even a kind of massacre commited by Turkish air force. I'm not sure can we create an artice about every air strike and can we name every air strike as a massacre. I found no reliable sources online. I think it fails WP:RS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If there is a real massacre, this page can be used: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 14:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Comment As mentioned above, neither of the two listed sources describe the event in question. However, there are other sites online that do, such as here and here, but no major news agency has reported on it yet. --Leviavery (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned below, SOHR just make news of anouncement of SDF controlled Raqqa Governorate. Turkey has made lots of air strikes and some of them might kill some civillians but I mean we need more reliable sources that air strike is a massacre. SDF/PYD controlled news agency ANFA try to create a perception that Turkish Air Force deliberately bombed a civillian house for order to ensure the emigration of the people. We're sure there were many airstrike and some soldiers and civillians are killer but we're not sure is this a massacre or an ordinary air strike. SDF-PYD don't want loose their areas because they want autonomy and independence if it's possible in the future. Therefore they create news like that for gaining inrernational support against Türkey. Therefore wikipedians should be suspicious about these type of claims and need more reliable sources. We have to ask what makes this event (air strike) special if we consider last bloody 10 years of Syrian Civil War?--Sabri76'^talk 20:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ANHA shouldn’t be used, it’s clearly not reliable considering the context, but SOHR is a reliable source. As other sources have started to emerge confirming the details, I don’t see a need to delete the article. Please keep WP:NPOV in mind, as both Turkish and Kurdish aligned sources have bias. Flalf^Talk 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo | Turkish drone kills 11 SDF fighters in eastern countryside - The Syrian Observatory For Human Rights

SOHR itself calls them to be fighters, though this article calls it massacre of civilians by the Turkish Armed Forces. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The whole article of such an important event only has two references, thus the mentioned sources lack overall credibility - there's no report from any respectable/well-known media agency. AscendencyXXIV (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Keep SOHR is a reliable source, and while the coverage is limited as of now, this leads me to believe that there is more to come. Flalf^Talk 17:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR shared the anouncement of SDF-led Raqqa Governorate and it says "191 air strikes". If this is a massacre, how about other 190 air strikes and dead bodies? If it's a systematic air strike massacre, why there is no other news and why big city centres are not bombed? SOHR also says totally 20 civilians killed in air strikes besides 32 SDF soldiers and 3 Assad regime soldiers. Also massacre is so disputed concept in this civil war. For example in here civillians died besides soldiers and I've searched key word of "massacre". I've found that just SDF (YPG) asserted Turkey committed a massacre against civilians and the source belongs to SOHR. I think using only the SOHR source prevents the objectivity of the event. The event in the article is the killing of soldiers and civilians as a result of air strikes and I think that it is not necessary to open a separate article since it is not a sui generis event in this civil war.--Sabri76'^talk 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak). Coverage in SOHR ([25]) and New Arab ([26]). Suggest a requested move for the title. Longhornsg (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The massacre occurred today, and we have two reliable sources reporting on it as mentioned above. It's also worth noting that the Arabic divisions of Sky News and The Independent have both covered this attack. Biases within Kurdish sources such as ANHA should be taken into account, but most Kurdish sources I've seen source SOHR instead of SDF. Jebiguess (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: All news are based on SOHR and SOHR based on Raqqa Governorate. No photographs or witnesses in the news. Even if we accept this event is real but still no one has answered these questions yet: Does the bombing of a building make it noteworthy? Should an article be created for it or should it be simply moved to page List of massacres during the Syrian civil war ? In List of massacres page, Turkey wasn't mentioned. Is this a new and only massacre from at the beginng of the Syria war? If 190 air strike kills SDF-YPG soldiers and one of them kills civillians, is this make a massacre? Are you sure that it is a massacre instead of an air strike? For examle we have this article: April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq. Also civillians killed in those air strikes. This article was created to show that Turkey only carries out air strike to massacre innocent civilians. However, this airstrike is only one of 191 airstrikes against the SDF-YPG, and how neutral is it to open an article for a building that was bombed intentionally or accidentally? Israel also killed 6 civillians in this air strike (2024 Homs airstrikes) Why this is not a massacre?--Sabri76'^talk 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Offer: (My offer is valid provided that there is a consensus that the article should remain) I've found Turkish-based English news and I can see the photos. Therefore, I propose to change the title of the article as 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria, because Turkey does not want an autonomous or independent PKK-affiliated structure to be established in northern Syria and therefore, it is highly possible that operations will continue and air strikes will increase. Thus, this article will be open to develop for further actions.--Sabri76'^talk 06:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Update: My opinion is this is not a noteworthy event for creating an article unlike air strikes in Syria. If you want to see real massacre about Turkish Air Force, Roboski massacre is most popular one and this was widely discussed in the Turkish media and parliament for many years. If you have a consensus about this event is a massacre you can mention in here: List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. However this article but there are no sources to prove that it was a massacre. However massive air strikes are a fact.--Sabri76'^talk 10:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t understand your opposition. I’m not anti-Turkish or trying to push a narrative, as a Wikipedian I’m simply trying to encourage documentation of facts. There is now a significant amount of independent coverage (particularly in Arab language sources) and even of a Turkish source (as you provided). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Perhaps there should additionally be made an article about the more general air strikes, but this refers to a specific event.
    
    Also as I mentioned earlier, please keep WP:NPOV in mind. I understand you are Turkish, but you should remember to consider your own biases, especially in sanctioned areas such as around Kurdish related topics. Flalf^Talk 16:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AscendencyXXIV:, @Flalf:, @Braganza: I'm convinced about reality of the event and this discussion can be closed with a consensus, but I still have doubts about the definition of massacre, I think it's about moving the title and it's not the topic of here. I do not have any bias on issues related to Kurds, but I see a lot of systematic Turkophobia in the English Wikipedia, which is supposed to be unbiased. There is such a high level of prejudice against Turks on wikipedia that I don't participate in discussions because of the risk of being labeled as a nationalist even by writing a sentence, but calling the Turkish Air Force as mass murderer because one of the 191 bombings led to the death of innocents doesn't sound neutral at all. If the creator of the article hadn't used the word "massacre" but said "air strike", this article wouldn't have attracted my attention. I have heard on the news that they've been carrying out air strikes in recent days, but massacre is a very big claim. I would like to invite you to the page to get your views on the topic related to the title, I apologize for keeping this place busy.--Sabri76'^talk 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Closing Discussion I think it’s fair to say the title is more in dispute than the article itself and that the deletion discussion should be closed in favor of a Request for Move.
Flalf^Talk 18:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support closure Braganza (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - I've changed my mind because I still cannot find the location of Al-Mustariha. News says it's in the west of Ayn Issa and north of Raqqa, but we just see Mustariha village in Idlib. Before this news, there's no information about Al-Mustariha village in Ayn Issa. This is so weird. Almost I've found a Mustariha in Hama Governorate. Why I cannot find the location? If we cannot find the location, could we presume that event took place in Ayn Issa Province? I've used VPN and I've seen ANHA news which says 12 dead people but SOHR says 11 civillians. I think one of 12 killed people is SDF-YPG soldier but ANHA didn't mention it because of ideological background of news agency. SOHR used the Raqqa Governorate's statement and it's normal ı think. However, it is very interesting why all the websites reporting the news only stick to the SOHR announcement and don't clarify the location of the village. There are photos, but not finding any information about the location of the village or any information about the village before the incident makes me suspicious. A few small opposition websites in Turkey, known to be close to the HDP, reported this news. No medium or large-scale news website, also known internationally, mentioned this incident. I am contributing to this page for the first time, but I would like to ask if this is normal. The level of media freedom in Turkey may be low and therefore some news may be ignored, but if it is serious enough to be covered, I ask why other large or medium-sized news agencies didn't report it. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim bombings and deaths didn't occur.--Sabri76'^talk 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria as proposed by Sabri76. This justifies a split from Turkish involvement in the Syrian civil war which currently only has #2024 Rojava offensive pointing to 2024 Manbij offensive and 2024 Kobani offensive. The more detailed reports seem to be mainly from Kurdish-related sources; this includes both Iraq-based and Syria-based Kurdish-related groups, which are not a monolithic group, so the biases are to some degree mixed; western mainstream media tend to be focussed on 'our' interests, but do have some reports. Overall, 2024 Turkish airstrikes in Syria is very likely WP:NOTABLE. Last week or so: 9 Dec 2024 Rudaw Media Network; 10 Dec 2024 Rojava Information Center; 16 Dec 2024 The New York Times; pre-fall-of-Assad: 24 Oct 2024 The Guardian; kurdistan24.net '1 month ago' Kurdistan 24. Boud (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This seems sufficiently significant, but needs to be renamed/moved and possibly expanded, for example, as suggested by Boud just above.My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep an article with the present scope (this attack, regardless of whether the "massacre" label is justified) or reframe this as an article about all the airstrikes in the most recent episode? At the moment I see an even split between these options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

United Arab Emirates

Al Laith Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP, this is also WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Global School Dubai

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are not reviews, guides or PR pieces using the same images. The sources do not pass the WP:SIRS check and fails NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Oyekan

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and has no WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the challenge with cryptocurrency enterprenuers. This fellow has been building and gaining recognition for it since 2017, what else is sustained notabillity? WP:SUSTAINED

It also sufficiently satisfies WP:NOTPROMOTION. Oyindebrah (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Oyindebrah:I am still finding it very difficult to understand how this article is not promotional? Or are there any other sources apart from those listed in the article? Ok, let's take a brief look at them. Shall we?

Source 1 is a promotional piece. The lead of the article clearly started with puffy sentences: Danny Oyekan can be said to have the entrepreneurial spirit ingrained in him from birth. How is that even possible? Another one: He was amongst the first wave of Bitcoin investors and is considered a pioneer in establishing the use of virtual currency in the African market. Who named him pioneer?

Source 2 is unreliable and full of promotional pieces. From the first sentence Danny Oyekan is a trailblazing tech entrepreneur, investor, passionate advocate for blockchain technology, and founding Chairman of Dan Holdings to the last His journey serves as an inspiration to aspiring entrepreneurs and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, showcasing the transformative power of embracing emerging technologies and forging one's path to success are purely promotional.

Source 3: Error 500

4 and 5: promotional pieces, Daniel Oyekan’s journey in the world of investment is rooted in his belief in the potential of new technologies and groundbreaking ideas. I also find it very odd that two independent news media will publish the same post words for words. It can only happen if a PR is involved.

Sources 6, 7 and 8 is about BlockFinex and the rest are press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to access source 3 and I can confirm that it is a sponsored post. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Ibjaja055. Entry on subject is based solely on sponsored posts that are obviously not independent thus failing the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://fij.ng/article/dubai-based-daniel-oyekan-borrowed-40000-from-friend-then-vanished/

https://tribuneonlineng.com/daniel-oyekans-coins-app-sparks-global-social-payments-revolution/

https://guardian.ng/news/we-believe-fintech-is-the-future-dan-holdings-danny-oyekan/#google_vignette Oyindebrah (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oyindebrah, this doesn’t cut it. We need independent, secondary significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Tech

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

Blatant advertisement. Only coverage is press releases/companies announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. Fails WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and United Arab Emirates. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bakhtar40: if it's blatant advertisement, it would be eligible for CSD G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Killarnee (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Killarnee, You might be right. Since it was already marked as afd. How can we move it to the G11 standards now? Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is superior to SD, so we should wait for the outcome of the AfD. I also did not mean that it is blatant advertising, but only what would be appropriate if it is so. Killarnee (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Dhabi T20 Trophy

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

Salim Yahya al-Kharega

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions

Egypt

Egypt Proposed deletions

Iran

Iran Proposed deletions

Iraq

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Proposed deletions

Oman

Palestine

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Redirects

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Articles with proposed deletion tags

Syria

Turkey

Others

United Arab Emirates

Yemen