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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East.

Further information

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East/archive

Gharqad

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

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

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%AF?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia treats Gharqad as a synonym for the genus Nitraria, and includes some references that could be added to the English article. The Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ר'רקד also has some references that might be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion, here is why

Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

• I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia

• This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.

• I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

• Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.

• This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

• So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.

• If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

• The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.

• It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

• Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?

• This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

• I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?

• What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

• How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow contributor,

Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.

Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:

• Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.

• As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?

• In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

• The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.

• As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.

• Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.

• Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.

Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.

I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.

"Warm regards,

Sajid (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, @Oaktree b ,

  Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  • Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  • No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research

  Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.

  Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.

  Regards,

  Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant concept. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

Sports broadcasting contracts in Central America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sports broadcasting contracts in Middle East & North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and South America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These lists are not TV guides. Claudio Fernag (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not as in what time your favourite league is on your TV channel. More like a list of what channel you can watch your favourite leagues. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't encyclopedic content, and it doesn't meet WP:NLIST in any way, shape or form. Note: the only person so far advocating keeping is the creator of the South American article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:There are other similar articles on lists of sports rights (football, Olympics, basketball, etc.) that are a contribution and not TV guides.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:USEFUL applies to this argument. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons outlined by Claudio Fernag --Pablo inos (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please come up with a better argument than that. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beni Ebeid Stadium

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

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing much which could be included however the sources may not be in English. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No located sources.

🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as ATD. Definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sport of athletics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Beni Ebeid, the town it's in. The stadium isn't owned by the football club, they just operate there. The football club Beni Ebeid SC also needs to be merged into the town article. As it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as above; not even mentioned at the town article. GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I sent Beni Ebeid SC to AfD, so now it's an inappropriate target! And it is mentioned in the town article now! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it needs fixing rather than deletion! Similar to what I've done to Beni Ebeid SC, I'll update this article one with new content in the nearest possible time. Ben5218 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've updated the article and added references. It's still a stub, but I think that's enough to keep it. Thoughts, everyone? @GiantSnowman, @Govvy, @Mccapra, @JayCubby.

  Ben5218 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment thanks for finding these Ben5218 but a Facebook post and two pieces of coverage saying the name of the stadium is changing don’t make it notable. I still a merge and redirect to either the club or the town is best. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. GiantSnowman 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That Facebook post contains a video discussing the stadium's and club's history, though, and only one reference covers the name change, not two. Since my last comment here, another four references were added (I can find and add more easily, if needed), and I also added more content. This topic definitely passes WP:GNG now, in my opinion. Ben5218 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per the sources currently in the article. Decent enough coverage about an Egyptian topic. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 2026 Asian Games

Iran at the 2026 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This article was created by the same user who created Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games and Vietnam at the 2026 Asian Games. As was said by CycloneYoris, it is still too early for this article and the accompanying articles to exist. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Author has been warned numerous times, but they're clearly ignoring and not heeding any of these warnings. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all other 2026 Asian Games articles created by author per nom and TOOSOON. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and oppose draftspace, as way WP:TOOSOON and will still be too soon for a year or more. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly way WP:TOOSOON for the article to exist. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per comments on the Singapore one. Geschichte (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Etemadi

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Music. Waqar💬 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan Mahmoudi

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

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

Redirect to List of Iran women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Iran. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also on sources: I took issue with citing to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which as a political think tank is non-neutral in discussion of Iran.[1][2][3] The Guardian article cited fails verification – there's nothing about ethnolinguistic minorities in that article. Dan • ✉ 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Research of Shahnameh

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability of the "Research of" topic. I would have merged it into the Shahnameh article but the only content appears to be some rather vague essay-like wiki-editor created text plus a quote that is not really about the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a better title would be “Shahname studies”. Just as Shakespeare studies is a recognised field of scholarship in the anglosphere, Shahname studies is a recognised field in Iran. Sourcing is likely to exist in Farsi, but without someone adding that (and ideally a bit more detail to the content) it’s hard to make a case for keeping. Mccapra (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Al-Tash Garrison

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, Iraq, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vanderwaalforces, please don't make assumptions about what I might know. [4], [5], [6], [7] are a few examples that go to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971. You should read comments properly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD. Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know." I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources. I'm done with this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Slutzker

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

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

No significant, numerous, third-party sources can be found to support notability in in general or as an artist; just a couple of interviews and one advertorial: A young artist like myriads of others. No judgement whatsoever on artistic value, this. But Wikipedia is not a complete directory of artists nor a random collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gharqad

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

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

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%AF?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia treats Gharqad as a synonym for the genus Nitraria, and includes some references that could be added to the English article. The Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ר'רקד also has some references that might be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion, here is why

Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

• I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia

• This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.

• I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

• Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.

• This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

• So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.

• If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

• The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.

• It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

• Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?

• This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

• I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?

• What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

• How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow contributor,

Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.

Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:

• Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.

• As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?

• In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

• The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.

• As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.

• Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.

• Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.

Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.

I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.

"Warm regards,

Sajid (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, @Oaktree b ,

  Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  • Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  • No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research

  Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.

  Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.

  Regards,

  Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant concept. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zivit Inbar

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

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

Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Israel, and Australia. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphan article that looks like a CV. WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails WP:GNG among other notability cirteria, and WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I searched for reliable sources and found no evidence of notability. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Looks just like a CV, clearly intended as promotional. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Phase Operation

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

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

This article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED; sources in the article only regurgitate the UNRWA press release.

Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider, but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment. Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is:

  At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter.

  Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added.

  And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones. The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic.

  The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record. The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well. I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources. nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable. It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED. Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article. nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable). I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We had an article within hours of the initial attack. Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable. Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be. nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards. Seems WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war as a premature SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Gidonb. Galamore (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes. Unlikely this will receive sustained coverage given it doesn't even have IRS SIGCOV now. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Insignificant on its own, covered almost only around the event. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Hi, So I think Billedmammal has a point but I can also understand merging so both options are good I think. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg

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

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

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Israel, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To mitigate my forumshop concern, I'm inviting EVERYONE to this debate who has expressed an opinion in the previous AfD that was just closed as keep. Please, all, express your opinion once more! Ping: CurryTime7-24, Oaktree b, Tehonk, Ostalgia, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, Jeraxmoira, I'm tla. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Still a delete, I didn't see coverage a month ago, nothing's changed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I voted delete in first nom, still think the same, the sources do not really satisfy SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep: Per WP:6MONTHS. Personally, I am leaning towards delete unless someone does a source analysis of the articles mentioned in the previous AfD to show WP:THREE or other relevant SNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my procedural keep vote. Though other editors may not feel the same and there should never be an excuse because we have the WP:6MONTHS rule for a reason, I believe this nom was done in good faith without the knowledge of the previous AfD, so my vote should be taken as Draftify until a clear source analysis is presented. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I really did miss the fact that an AFD had just taken place, so it wasn't trying to pound the article, but once it was done, I felt I should let it snow, or let more people look at it. Really, I just don't see how this passes GNG with anything remotely related to significant coverage. Maybe it is too soon, maybe it will get there eventually, but it isn't there now and there is no reason to think there is enough sigcov out there. Plenty of mentions? Sure, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any more support for Draftifying? It just seems odd to close the 1st AFD as Keep one month and then Delete in the 2nd AFD one more later after editors found new sourcing during the last AFD that might not have been added to the article yet. But this AFD can be closed if another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a draft, if others find sources that I didn't consider or see them differently than I do, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy: My first deletion vote attributed that the subject may be notable in the future. After much thought and the relist comment by Liz, I thought of giving a chance too. Dratification should work well here.
• Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Reyada School

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty Hospital, Jordan

Specialty Hospital, Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted and salted at Specialty Hospital. The only sources here are press releases, the hospital's self-written description, and some kind of advertorial. I can't find much online for this case. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb

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

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

Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him. The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [8], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it has come to my attention that the user here was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).

Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Rahme

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

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Any WP:SIGCOV? JTtheOG (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Mamary

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

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Though he his semi pro with international caps, references given don't appear to suggest his career is notable, thus finding refs is unlikely. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Abdelnour (financier)

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

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

Previously deleted and salted at Ziad Abdelnour/Ziad K. Abdelnour * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Talking about President Trump or giving your opinions to the NYT on a war doesn't get you notability here. I don't find coverage about this person, only him talking about other things. Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, Politics, Lebanon, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, due to the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad K Abdelnour, Soft deletion is not an option. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt We'll whack-a-mole another page title probably, but nothing new here since the last nominations. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We could title blacklist, I guess. It's absurd that the same stuff has been going on since 2006. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The sources are articles written by Ziad Abdelnour or quotes from Ziad Abdelnour, but nothing about Ziad Abdelnour, other than some YouTube videos and some blogs. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated above. Ben Azura (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletions

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

Gharqad

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

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

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%AF?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia treats Gharqad as a synonym for the genus Nitraria, and includes some references that could be added to the English article. The Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ר'רקד also has some references that might be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion, here is why

Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

• I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia

• This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.

• I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

• Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.

• This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

• So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.

• If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

• The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.

• It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

• Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?

• This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

• I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?

• What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

• How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow contributor,

Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.

Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:

• Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.

• As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?

• In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

• The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.

• As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.

• Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.

• Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.

Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.

I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.

"Warm regards,

Sajid (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, @Oaktree b ,

  Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:

  • Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  • Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  • No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research

  Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.

  Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.

  Regards,

  Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello @Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant concept. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Phase Operation

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

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

This article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Zero^talk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED; sources in the article only regurgitate the UNRWA press release.

Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider, but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment. Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is:

  At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter.

  Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added.

  And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones. The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic.

  The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record. The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well. I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources. nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable. It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED. Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article. nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable). I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We had an article within hours of the initial attack. Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable. Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be. nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards. Seems WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war as a premature SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Gidonb. Galamore (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes. Unlikely this will receive sustained coverage given it doesn't even have IRS SIGCOV now. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Insignificant on its own, covered almost only around the event. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete Hi, So I think Billedmammal has a point but I can also understand merging so both options are good I think. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

</noinclude>

Stephen Tedja

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

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a footballer that only ever played one game. In my Arabic searches, I found Al-Sharq, a trivial mention, Kooora, which is no better, and this transfer announcement, which contains no significant detail. No sign of any WP:SIGCOV or even a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Nigeria, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO. Minimal fail! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it not only fails WP:SIGCOV, but it is just a simple stub that has nothing notable about it. It also has just a single sentence that describes this player, with no other info to add. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Waleed

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

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

Did have a brief professional career but can't find any clear evidence of meeting WP:GNG, which is what is required. He is not to be confused with the handball player Hassan Walid, about whom plenty of content can be found. My Arabic searches didn't yield any significant coverage about this footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV in a league that gets decent coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I cannot find any sources that can make this person notable. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – After 7 years of having a page, it's all of 1 line.. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al-Kuhaili

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

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

We have Soccerway and Football Database to confirm that he exists but his career only lasted a few minutes. I can find Arriyadiyah but it's only a trivial mention. No evidence of WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV in a league that gets decent coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article about an unverifiable content drawn to a footballer who doesn't meet our general entry guidelines. Per WP:BEFORE, as usual, were databases soccer way, transfer..., etc. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Malki

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

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

Poorly sourced BLP. Transfermarkt and Soccerway confirm existence but not notability. I found Alyaum but it's a basic Q&A with the footballer and with no analysis. This doesn't count towards WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing here. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hussain Abdul Rahman

Sheikh Hussain Abdul Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Previously deleted. Regarding real world notability the strongest two things are that he was the father of the President of the Maldives and he won a "National Award of Honor" for" for "contribution in the area of religious awareness and religious education". Of the references, two are short obit descriptions, one lists the award recipients (with no other text) and the rest don't cover him. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman)

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

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

Fails GNG or relevant specefic criteia. Not enough independent significant coverage.

• Source 1: Petrol Ofisi reached a market share of 23.09 percent (translated), Reliable? Unknown (likely), Independent? Yes, Significant coverage? No
• Source 2:Petrol Ofisi CEO Abbasoğlu: Our only bottleneck is our roads (translated) Reliable? Not likely, Significant coverage? No (Routine coverage of a conference, only quotes the CEO's statement)
• 3:Petrol Ofisi Group accelerates investments in line with Turkey's national energy strategy, Reliable? Not likely (State-run), Significant coverage? No (About company announcements, not the subject of the article)
• 4:Vitol-owned Petrol Ofisi agrees to purchase BP’s Turkish fuel operations, Reliable? Unknown, Independent? No (Publisher owns the company), Significant coverage? No (One-line mention)
• 5:404-error
• 6:Turkey’s Petrol Ofisi announces new chief executive officer, Reliable? No (Likely an advertisement), Independent? No (Likely an advertisement, no bylines, promotional tone, likely WP:RSNOI applies), Significant coverage? No (Mainly discusses company position changes, not the subject)
• 7:Change of general manager at Petrol Ofisi, Press release citing company statement
• 8:How A Gritty Market Leader Transformed Out Of A ‘Doomed’ Industry, Forbes contributor promo, not reliable by itself, further it's mostly an interview so primary source
• 9:Mehmet Abbasoğlu became the General Manager of Petrol Ofisi, similar to source 7, Press release citing a company statement
• Sources 10-16, more of the same. Waste of time and energy detailing here.

X (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Excluding the material from Forbes and sources where the person is an employee or director, the references seem fine. These are all valid references for a corporate executive. Newspaper articles aren't press releases; while a company announcement may be the starting point for a newspaper story about an executive appointment, the newspaper makes its own decisions about whether the announcement is newsworthy and what to include. Anadolu Agency is a legitimate news agency despite being state-run, although some caution is needed when considering its coverage of politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my view, appointment news (yes technically may not be Press releases, but the specific references I mentioned as PR merely report anything independent but relay/quote the company statement) fo-shizzle falls under routine coverage. X (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dou Kalender

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

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

I stumbled across this article. It wasn't very big, but I made it even smaller as it is unsourced. Originally, the only source was the band's website, but that no longer exists (I've removed it). It's an orphan. The image is on no other language project, including the Turkish one. Although it was created over 10 years ago, only one person has it on their watchlist. That said, I know nothing about band singers, especially foreign ones and have not done WP:BEFORE. If editors think it should be kept, this AfD will hopefully serve to improve the facial notability of the subject and the quality of the article itself. Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I won't spend as much time rewriting my comment, because the WP:XFDVOTE tool did not save my comment. Simply put, I couldn't find reliable independent sources on him. There is possible COI as the creator's sole contribution was this biography for more than a decade. The band could be luckier in terms of notability, but it interestingly lacks an article, and after a quick search, I am unsure if there is sufficient coverage out there. I would, however, support redirecting this to an article about the band if it ever gets created during this discussion. Aintabli (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaşınhan railway station

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. Fails WP:BUILDING/WP:NTRAINSTATION, not seeing significant coverage outside of routine non-independent service announcements from Turkish State Railways and passing mentions which confirm this train station exists, but not that it's notable. The only source in the article doesn't even namecheck the subject. Possible redirect target: Konya–Yenice railway. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Pilaz (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why has this specific article been tagged after years? I find these requests very puzzling, as there are numerous articles like this, not just for Turkish railways, but around the world. While editing Turkish railway articles, my goal is to add and bring them up to the standard of American railway articles, hence the article on individual railway stations. If this article will be deleted, does that mean every station in Turkey, except the large one, will follow suite? Of course additions can be made, given time (I work full-time). The history can be added regarding the Baghdad railway, hosting the famous Taurus express along with its rebuilding to accommodate HSTs. In any case, this article should be kept and NOT deleted. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

New page patrollers check whether new articles conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. I found this article through the New pages feed, and, despite its age, it was yet to be reviewed. As far as community guidelines go, articles may be deleted if they don't meet the general notability guideline or one of many specific notability guidelines. In this case, a cursory search of sources turned up little to show that this two-platform station is notable, hence why it is brought here for broader community review. Pilaz (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely they will be deleted, unless you can find significant sourcing for each building. We don't have much of anything here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then as a patroller, please tell me the difference between this article and, for example, Alderson station. Both have more or less the same amount of info provided. I am asking, so I can update Kasinhani station to keep the article. And if we are going to firesale and begin to destroy the whole Turkish railway community on wikipedia, why has Kasinhani been singled out? Why not go on to delete all the others, except the large notable ones? My point being, this seems to be an act of prejudicial(?) selection, not following any consistent form of wider article selection other than singling out a random article and nominating it for deletion. Yes, I am frustrated in this situation, because it is very random, and without logic, unless ALL other similar articles would follow suite. (Not just in Turkey, but all over the world) (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

All buildings require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability per WP:NBUILDING. The fact that that article hasn't been nominated doesn't mean it's necessarily notable or abiding by Wikipedia notability guidelines. And no, you article wasn't singled out: railway station articles are routinely brought to AfD, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puksinhyon station. So, unless anyone can find significant coverage for this building (basically: has anyone ever written about this train station in detail?), this article does not meet our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. Pilaz (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is some sort of heritage designation for the building, there likely isn't much on it. This is all I could find [9], which is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pdf you have shared is a great resource for stations in Turkey actually, thank you for finding it. (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep without prejudice to a discussion about all the stations on the line as a group. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from singing out random examples from a set of similar articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish exonyms

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

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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

List of Turkish exonyms in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Turkish exonyms in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk)
• Comment I’m not sure if this should be kept or not, but if kept it should be drastically culled. It is arguably useful for an English speaker to learn that Arnavutluk means Albania, but most of the items in this gigantic and largely pointless list are not exonyms at all, they’re just Turkish spellings or minor pronunciation changes from the local name. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here. PepperBeast (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once. PepperBeast (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names. PepperBeast (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Mccapra, Tamfang, Aintabli, and Chidgk1: I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land. [10] [11], and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see @Ushuaia1: has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As indicated in the project's title, this text had been taken down after a brief discussion in 2009. Why it has been allowed to re-surface without anything of substance added to it will remain a mystery, which is probably best preserved. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a useful article. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you use it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  this article provides information to the reader. Lionel Cristiano^? 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep. PepperBeast (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Every junk article "provides information to the reader," at least in the eyes of its creator. How do you use the information? —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Or we can combine it with the Turkish language article. Lionel Cristiano^? 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's clearly sources we can use that can be used to source the list, it's been discussed as a set, as I've shown. So in that sense, yes, it is "useful." SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ağa hamamı

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

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [12]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([13]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.

  As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.

So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, Iraq, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vanderwaalforces, please don't make assumptions about what I might know. [14], [15], [16], [17] are a few examples that go to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971. You should read comments properly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD. Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know." I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources. I'm done with this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Michael Lahyani

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

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

Contested draftification (essentially copy/pasted back from Draft:Michael Lahyani). Borderline A7/G11 IMO, no real coverage beyond the standard SPIP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing

2008 Bin Salman mosque bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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