Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Middle East|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Middle East

Al Noor City

Al Noor City (  | 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)

Similar/linked to Bridge of the Horns, this article is a crystal ball with minimal references, all of which are non-substanial and/or routine coverage of a proposal that has gone nowhere and never will. Even their website is defunct, I see it unlikely to ever reach proper notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (  | 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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh ( talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this " AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (  | 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:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like " a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217 ( talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile ( talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? —  Saqib ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions


Egypt

Opay

Opay (  | 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:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC). reply
Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

::@ Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
48JCL, What made you say this? —  Saqib ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Courtesy ping to @ CNMall41, @ Saqib, @ Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggested Parwiz ahmadi ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/supervision/fi.asp?name=OPAY%20DIGITAL%20SERVICES%20LIMITED%20(FORMERLY%20PAYCOM%20NIGERIA%20LIMITED)&institutetype=Mobile%20Money%20Operator Yes Talks about Opay and it's former name Yes Official publication of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Yes It values the companies existence in Nigeria. Yes Because it isn't from the company, it is therefore a secondary source.
https://www.theafricareport.com/346765/nigeria-opay-palmpay-face-scrutiny-amid-rising-appeal/ Yes Listing Opay among other fintech in Nigeria and a problem Yes Per RS. Yes Fintechs in Nigeria received a significant report based on the scrutiny. Yes Wasn't biased from a routine view. A news report. https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/
https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ Yes Reporting a press conference of Opay Yes Punch news is reliable per WP:NGRS. Yes A press reportage. – Much more of a primary coverage since it was a press conference or thereso. —
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ Yes Only about Opay and the CEO's withdrawal Yes Per WP:NGRS Yes Received massive reportage of a stepping CEO means the company is notable. Yes A secondary news report
https://thenationonlineng.net/fact-check-video-of-opay-agents-protest-in-ikeja-falsely-shared-as-recent/ Yes A problem with the company's service Yes The Nation is reliable Yes Such rallies dress the media attention. Yes A secondary report. Why will a company drags it's name down.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/04/08/kano-court-sentences-opay-agent-to-nine-months-in-jail-for-stealing/ Yes Problem again. Yes Per WP:NGRS. Yes Man's court case over Opay Yes A court case and arrest of an Opay agent is a secondary report
https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ Yes Only about the subject Yes Ditto Yes Partnership to such a firm is usually taken to the media in Nigeria as it benefits the mass. Yes A secondary report thigh we can't tell if the report was called. I wonder term this primary because it came from a secondary source.
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ Yes Ditto Yes Daily News Egypt is a newspaper with editorial policy. Yes Approval by the nations bank is a significant coverage Yes From a secondary source.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/africa-focused-payment-firm-opay-040352184.html Yes Ditto – I don't know about Yahoo finance but it's mostly reliable – – —
https://leadership.ng/opay-wins-in-fintech-category-at-nitdas-digital-nigeria-2023-awards/ Yes An award ceremony Yes Per NGRS Yes Award ceremony are often significant especially when it's from NITDA Yes From a non primary coverage
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/opay-wins-advan-consumer-choice-award-for-best-fintech-2023/ Yes Ditto Yes Ditto – An ward ceremony that covers only one company is likely questionable. Yes From a secondary source. —
https://punchng.com/opay-gets-wef-recognition-on-financial-inclusion/ Yes Yes Per NGRS Yes Received SIGCOV from an international organisation. Yes From a secondary source.
https://leadership.ng/opay-earns-cnbc-and-statista-global-ranking-in-digital-payment-category/ About a championship award won by Opay Yes Ditto Yes Why not Yes Non primary coverage.

Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That was an error. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [ source1] [ source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Egypt Proposed deletions


Iran

Khar-polis

AfDs for this article:
Khar-polis (  | 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 sources found. Zero citations for 16 years. External link is a YouTube video called "KHARPOLICE 2" purporting to show "Iranian men playing Kharpolis" at Cachuma Lake, California, in 2010. (And the only comment on the video is "CHINCHE AL AGUA" which I guess is supposed to verify that the Mexican game is the same as the Iranian game.) Either this is WP:OR or possibly even WP:HOAX. Cielquiparle ( talk) 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Previous AfD in 2008 addressed only WP:NOTGUIDE accusations and did not address the lack of sourcing. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, the only edits by the creator were to create and crosslink this article at 17:25, 29 September 2008. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Temürtas

Temürtas (  | 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 could not find any coverage in WP:RS to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad (  | 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 first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Hamed Ameli

Hamed Ameli (  | 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 first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Saeed Reza Khoshshans

AfDs for this article:
Saeed Reza Khoshshans (  | 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)

Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Soft deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Still no sources found. This is about all I can find [1], which does not help notability. Even what's in the article now isn't enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Zahedan Stadium

Zahedan Stadium (  | 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)

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in /info/en/?search=Zahedan#Sports Wikilover3509 ( talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep AfD is not for merge requests, and I think both of the sources in the article demonstrate notability when translated. I just don't know how to do a WP:BEFORE search for this one, but stadiums of this capacity are generally notable. SportingFlyer T· C 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect to Zahedan#Sports no coverage for its own article. Giant Snowman 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I added translations of both reference titles. I think the article is notable because it has good multiple references, even though it is a stub. I also moved the coordinates into the infobox. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Iran Proposed deletions


Iraq

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean) (  | 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:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sons of the Covenant Monastery

Sons of the Covenant Monastery (  | 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, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Israel

Operation Kahuta

Operation Kahuta (  | 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)

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed ( talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [2] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hayley Anne Sacks

AfDs for this article:
Hayley Anne Sacks (  | 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arnon Zamora

Arnon Zamora (  | 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:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for. Should be redirected to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, but this was opposed by the article creator, so it's up to AfD to decide. Fram ( talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am said article creator, and this is my argument to keep this article:
WP:BIO1E says:
"if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation made world news and will be remembered an important event within the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Since it's creation, six days ago, it has received 84,000 pageviews!
In comparison, for example, the Occupation of Veracuz has only had 116 views in the last year, and yet, there are 56 individual Wikipedia pages for each recipient of the medal of honor from that war! Essentially, every one of those individuals is a WP:BIO1E exception who rises to the level of fame allowing a WP:BIO1E exception to be made (for an event of large enough magnitude).
How could one possibly argue that the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation does not rise to "rare importance," and Arnon Zamora does not play an important role in this event!?
If we are to remove Arnon Zamora, it would only make sense to remove the other 56 medal of honor winners, as the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation has 724 times more views than the Occupation of Veracruz has over the last year.
Based on this pretext, I would argue that Arnon Zamora undoubtedly rises to the level of notability and fame to be a WP:BIO1E exception. Afdshah ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comparing something in the news now with something historical is not really convincing. The exampe of an exception in BIO1E is the assassination of JFK: this event here is way, way less important in the long run, and his role in it was run-of-the-mill, but he died and gets glorified by some media, the military and politics, as if dying is an achievement. Fram ( talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Why not? The Occupation of Veracruz has 1124 views, EVER.
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation will be remembered as a historical event, and a major point in the Israel-Hamas War.
Zamora's role in it was certainly more important than Howard Brennan's role in the JFK Assassination. Unlike Brennan's role as a witness, Zamora actually commanded the operation and was the first person into the building in this historic event! I wouldn't say his role was "run-of-the-mill."
Even if we compare the JFK Assassination to the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, we can find that the rescue operation has twice as many views in the last six days. Of course, I'm not arguing that this rescue operation was as important as the JFK Assassination, however, the sheer notability and fame that this event has garnished, in my mind, makes it worthwhile of a WP:BIO1E exception.
And why can't one compare this event, which will be remembered in history, to an event like the Occupation of Veracruz? Afdshah ( talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day [3], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off [4]... Fram ( talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am so sorry- you're right I was way off in what I said - I accidentally used the Pageview tool to search for the Occupation of Vera Cruz which is a redirect to the actual page.
I apologize - I should have checked more carefully before making that claim.
However, my comparison of notability and fame still stands as the United States Occupation of Veracruz only has 1,700 pageviews in the same amount of time as it took the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation to reach 84,000 (since 6/8). There is still a difference of 50x.
While it is true that things in the news get more views, my argument is that the rescue operation is a major historical event just like the Occupation of Veracruz.
There are 56 medal of honor winners with their own Wikipedia page for the Occupation of Veracruz, each one a WP:BIO1E exception.
If the Occupation of Veracuz rises to the level of historical importance that this exemption applies for 56 people, this historical hostage rescue operation certainly rises to the level of importance that one exception can be made.
And the article at AfD is brand new - I haven't even linked it on the 2024 Nuseirat Operation page yet and it has 104 views. That's more than twice the 43 views that Berrie H. Jarrett has in the last year. I'll link at now and we can see its views in the next 24 hours. Afdshah ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, as suggested by nominator, per WP:BIO1E, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. Zomara is repeatedly mentioned at the target, is only known for this event, and the operation was posthumously named by Israel after Zomara, so a strong bidirectional relationship exists. gidonb ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not significant enough for Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The page received 313 pageviews today and is about an important figure in the rescue operation and in the broader Israel-Hamas war.
    Many of the pages of the medal of honor Veracruz winners receive fewer than 313 views per year, but are exceptions to WP:BIO1E because the Occupation of Veracuz was a sufficiently significant event.
    Clearly, the Arnon Zamora page generates more views than these pages, and he played a very similar role to the medal of honor winners. Are you arguing then, that the Israel-Hamas War isn't a sufficiently significant event?
    What exactly is your metric for significance? Afdshah ( talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: His death is referenced in the article for the massacre at Nuseirat. Much of the article and paragraph surrounding his death comes off as Israeli propaganda and POV-pushing, while the rest is just minor coverage. Jebiguess ( talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What's Israeli propaganda/POV-pushing? The only points about his death are that he was the first into the building holding 3 hostages, he was injured, and that he was evacuated and died in the hospital. Where is the Israeli propaganda?
Are you disputing one of these claims? Afdshah ( talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Knowing Israeli dynamics, it's a short matter of time before we start seeing streets, schools and so on named after him, just like nobody knew who Yonatan Netanyahu was before the Entebbe operation. He will probably also get a posthumous medal. DGtal ( talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

DemoCrisis

DemoCrisis (  | 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 as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib ( talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz ( https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.—  Saqib ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      !!!!!!!!! - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib ( talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    ?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....) reply
    Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [5] or [6] and Mexico for good measure [7]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. —  Saqib ( talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. —  Saqib ( talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib ( talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [8] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    ???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. —  Saqib ( talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).
    Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib ( talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dan Sobovitz

Dan Sobovitz (  | 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)

Created by UPE user (subject admitted in IRC), a LOT of the references are the subjects own work, therefore nothing for notability. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Because they're written by Sobovitz; you can't use articles by the subject, those are primary sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nomination, can confirm that this is un-disclosed COI as dislosed on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help, and the sourcing is insufficient to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If it's a paid job, I won't even bother delving into whether it meets the GNG or not. I've also nominated for deletion an article closely related to Dan Sobovitz, which was also created by the same author as this one. -- Saqib ( talk) 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment can this not be speedy deleted, as it was created by/for UPE? Oaktree b ( talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If not speedy deleted, I'd delete for lack of sourcing. The Brussels Post and one Haretz article are written by the subject. Others are trivial coverage. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (  | 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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh ( talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this " AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Jordan

Ahmed Hisham

Ahmed Hisham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure this individual meets the General notability guideline. The main claim to notability is that he played for his country in 2016. This claim is not supported by reliable sources. I did some searching and found sources such as ESPN [1] and Global Sports Archive, [2] which mention the lineups without this individual's name in them. Even if if we can establish that this person made a substitute appearance in a single non-competitive match, I feel this is still not enough for notability. C 679 09:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia (  | 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)

Satellite TV channel based in Jordan that fails WP:NCORP. No independent secondary sourcing at all that I can find; the sources in the article are either database sources (Lyngsat, Jordanian government databases) excluded for notability by WP:ORGCRIT or fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment. The editor who created this article has declared a conflict of interest with this subject so we must be especially vigilant to validate notability here. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Kuwait


Lebanon

Liam Ayoub

Liam Ayoub (  | 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, a Lebanese rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Another Australian second tier player who's article needs actually writing. Looks like it can be expanded upon but of not delete. Mn1548 ( talk) 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. As a minimum we would expect league players to have played first grade rugby league which this player hasn't. LibStar ( talk) 18:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are you arguing then to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gabriel & Co.

Gabriel & Co. (  | 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:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng -- Welcome to Pandora ( talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne ( talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/ WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing ++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing ++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.- KH-1 ( talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Oman


Palestine

Arnon Zamora

Arnon Zamora (  | 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:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for. Should be redirected to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, but this was opposed by the article creator, so it's up to AfD to decide. Fram ( talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am said article creator, and this is my argument to keep this article:
WP:BIO1E says:
"if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation made world news and will be remembered an important event within the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Since it's creation, six days ago, it has received 84,000 pageviews!
In comparison, for example, the Occupation of Veracuz has only had 116 views in the last year, and yet, there are 56 individual Wikipedia pages for each recipient of the medal of honor from that war! Essentially, every one of those individuals is a WP:BIO1E exception who rises to the level of fame allowing a WP:BIO1E exception to be made (for an event of large enough magnitude).
How could one possibly argue that the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation does not rise to "rare importance," and Arnon Zamora does not play an important role in this event!?
If we are to remove Arnon Zamora, it would only make sense to remove the other 56 medal of honor winners, as the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation has 724 times more views than the Occupation of Veracruz has over the last year.
Based on this pretext, I would argue that Arnon Zamora undoubtedly rises to the level of notability and fame to be a WP:BIO1E exception. Afdshah ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comparing something in the news now with something historical is not really convincing. The exampe of an exception in BIO1E is the assassination of JFK: this event here is way, way less important in the long run, and his role in it was run-of-the-mill, but he died and gets glorified by some media, the military and politics, as if dying is an achievement. Fram ( talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Why not? The Occupation of Veracruz has 1124 views, EVER.
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation will be remembered as a historical event, and a major point in the Israel-Hamas War.
Zamora's role in it was certainly more important than Howard Brennan's role in the JFK Assassination. Unlike Brennan's role as a witness, Zamora actually commanded the operation and was the first person into the building in this historic event! I wouldn't say his role was "run-of-the-mill."
Even if we compare the JFK Assassination to the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, we can find that the rescue operation has twice as many views in the last six days. Of course, I'm not arguing that this rescue operation was as important as the JFK Assassination, however, the sheer notability and fame that this event has garnished, in my mind, makes it worthwhile of a WP:BIO1E exception.
And why can't one compare this event, which will be remembered in history, to an event like the Occupation of Veracruz? Afdshah ( talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day [9], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off [10]... Fram ( talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am so sorry- you're right I was way off in what I said - I accidentally used the Pageview tool to search for the Occupation of Vera Cruz which is a redirect to the actual page.
I apologize - I should have checked more carefully before making that claim.
However, my comparison of notability and fame still stands as the United States Occupation of Veracruz only has 1,700 pageviews in the same amount of time as it took the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation to reach 84,000 (since 6/8). There is still a difference of 50x.
While it is true that things in the news get more views, my argument is that the rescue operation is a major historical event just like the Occupation of Veracruz.
There are 56 medal of honor winners with their own Wikipedia page for the Occupation of Veracruz, each one a WP:BIO1E exception.
If the Occupation of Veracuz rises to the level of historical importance that this exemption applies for 56 people, this historical hostage rescue operation certainly rises to the level of importance that one exception can be made.
And the article at AfD is brand new - I haven't even linked it on the 2024 Nuseirat Operation page yet and it has 104 views. That's more than twice the 43 views that Berrie H. Jarrett has in the last year. I'll link at now and we can see its views in the next 24 hours. Afdshah ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, as suggested by nominator, per WP:BIO1E, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. Zomara is repeatedly mentioned at the target, is only known for this event, and the operation was posthumously named by Israel after Zomara, so a strong bidirectional relationship exists. gidonb ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not significant enough for Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The page received 313 pageviews today and is about an important figure in the rescue operation and in the broader Israel-Hamas war.
    Many of the pages of the medal of honor Veracruz winners receive fewer than 313 views per year, but are exceptions to WP:BIO1E because the Occupation of Veracuz was a sufficiently significant event.
    Clearly, the Arnon Zamora page generates more views than these pages, and he played a very similar role to the medal of honor winners. Are you arguing then, that the Israel-Hamas War isn't a sufficiently significant event?
    What exactly is your metric for significance? Afdshah ( talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: His death is referenced in the article for the massacre at Nuseirat. Much of the article and paragraph surrounding his death comes off as Israeli propaganda and POV-pushing, while the rest is just minor coverage. Jebiguess ( talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What's Israeli propaganda/POV-pushing? The only points about his death are that he was the first into the building holding 3 hostages, he was injured, and that he was evacuated and died in the hospital. Where is the Israeli propaganda?
Are you disputing one of these claims? Afdshah ( talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Knowing Israeli dynamics, it's a short matter of time before we start seeing streets, schools and so on named after him, just like nobody knew who Yonatan Netanyahu was before the Entebbe operation. He will probably also get a posthumous medal. DGtal ( talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (  | 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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh ( talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this " AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Redirects

</noinclude>


Qatar

Hatim Kamal

Hatim Kamal (  | 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)

Played 51 mins at professional level but no significant coverage cited so no WP:GNG pass looks likely. I found a brief quote in Al-Sharq and an injury announcement in Kooora but neither of these are enough for GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Abduraouf Hussain

Abduraouf Hussain (  | 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)

He played 206 mins of professional football but I'm just not seeing enough for a WP:GNG pass. No significant coverage found in an Arabic search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, see WP:BLP1E 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think this article should be kept as articles for other record setting individuals still exist and arent being deleted
I refer you to this list: /info/en/?search=List_of_heaviest_people Most of those people still have articles that arent being deleted 192.0.146.27 ( talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
the fact khalid weighed as much as he did and lost all of that weight makes him notible since he did the impossible 192.0.146.27 ( talk) 01:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Zamil Steel

Zamil Steel (  | 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 Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Company actually seems notable to me, even though the article is terrible. This already can help for an introduction, and a section on their practices. Here is a case study, whose facts we can assume to be reliable. This is obviously not acceptable, yet its promotional claims indicate that the company is likely notable. Drmies ( talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood ( talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It would be worth considering the present article about this subsidiary company in the wider context of articles on the parent company Zamil Industrial (created around the same time by the same editor) and Zamil Group Holding (created more recently). Do each have sufficient specific notability to justify multiple article here? AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Articles with proposed deletion tags


Syria

Al Basil High School for Superiors

Al Basil High School for Superiors (  | 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 notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 ( talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Turkey

Philipp Haas

Philipp Haas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's not much significant coverage of Philipp Haas published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. There seem to be 2 interviews with him. He hasn't won any awards. He is just the CEO of a notable company. There is not much for a proper biography article. Ynsfial ( talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rojda Aykoç

AfDs for this article:
Rojda Aykoç (  | 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)

Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate. Kadı Message 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Others

United Arab Emirates

Signature Yashmagh

Signature Yashmagh (  | 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)

Small Emirati clothing brand with one retail location - coverage is low quality churnalism/promotional. No evidence of GNG. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Information Systems Associates FZE

Information Systems Associates FZE (  | 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)

Fairly sure this fails the notability guidelines for companies but I'd appreciate a once-over from editors more familiar with aviation software, Sri Lanka or the UAE to make sure this nomination isn't a howler. Its presence on Wikipedia (including list entries and other links, hence I don't favour a redirect) is entirely down to a single-purpose account, almost certainly with a conflict of interest. – Tera tix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

English Language School, Dubai

English Language School, Dubai (  | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school in Dubai, and cannot find references to add. The only existing reference in the article is to the school's website. The school's names make it difficult to search for, but if there is WP:SIGCOV it ought to be findable. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get another opinion about sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Yemen

Al Noor City

Al Noor City (  | 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)

Similar/linked to Bridge of the Horns, this article is a crystal ball with minimal references, all of which are non-substanial and/or routine coverage of a proposal that has gone nowhere and never will. Even their website is defunct, I see it unlikely to ever reach proper notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bridge of the Horns

Bridge of the Horns (  | 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)

CRYSTALBALL proposed infrastructure with marginal & routine coverage for a bridge project that was cancelled 15 years ago. Very few references none of which are anything more than routine coverage of a proposed project. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Yemen. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bab-el-Mandeb#History where this is mentioned. This was alwasy a pie-in-the-sky idea that never had realistic plans. Redirect Al Noor City as well. Even in the aughts, the idea of building bridge to nowhere or to a megacity built out of nothing in Yemen should have gotten you laughed out of the room. Reywas92 Talk 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Reywas. No evidence of long-term notability to justify a standalone article. – dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ https://www.espn.in/football/lineups/_/gameId/448871
  2. ^ https://globalsportsarchive.com/match/soccer/2016-06-03/united-arab-emirates-vs-jordan/607911/
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Middle_East&oldid=1228979657"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Middle East|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{ transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{ prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Middle East

Al Noor City

Al Noor City (  | 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)

Similar/linked to Bridge of the Horns, this article is a crystal ball with minimal references, all of which are non-substanial and/or routine coverage of a proposal that has gone nowhere and never will. Even their website is defunct, I see it unlikely to ever reach proper notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (  | 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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh ( talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this " AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (  | 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:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like " a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --— Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @ 223.123.5.217 ( talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile ( talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? —  Saqib ( talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions


Egypt

Opay

Opay (  | 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:NCORP. While on first glance there is significant coverage, all of it is press release, churnalism, routine announcements, or otherwise sources that fails WP:ORGCRIT. Even Forbes was generated by the company itself and the rest look like a well-run press campaign. Absent in-depth independent coverage, I do not see how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 ( talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC). reply
Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. —  Saqib ( talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

::@ Saqib, I think you should probably stop trying to delete Pakistani stubs and stuff like that. See it all the time, you declining and prodding. 48JCL TALK 02:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
48JCL, What made you say this? —  Saqib ( talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Courtesy ping to @ CNMall41, @ Saqib, @ Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?-- CNMall41 ( talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
@ CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggested Parwiz ahmadi ( talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Created with templates {{ ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/supervision/fi.asp?name=OPAY%20DIGITAL%20SERVICES%20LIMITED%20(FORMERLY%20PAYCOM%20NIGERIA%20LIMITED)&institutetype=Mobile%20Money%20Operator Yes Talks about Opay and it's former name Yes Official publication of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Yes It values the companies existence in Nigeria. Yes Because it isn't from the company, it is therefore a secondary source.
https://www.theafricareport.com/346765/nigeria-opay-palmpay-face-scrutiny-amid-rising-appeal/ Yes Listing Opay among other fintech in Nigeria and a problem Yes Per RS. Yes Fintechs in Nigeria received a significant report based on the scrutiny. Yes Wasn't biased from a routine view. A news report. https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/
https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ Yes Reporting a press conference of Opay Yes Punch news is reliable per WP:NGRS. Yes A press reportage. – Much more of a primary coverage since it was a press conference or thereso. —
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ Yes Only about Opay and the CEO's withdrawal Yes Per WP:NGRS Yes Received massive reportage of a stepping CEO means the company is notable. Yes A secondary news report
https://thenationonlineng.net/fact-check-video-of-opay-agents-protest-in-ikeja-falsely-shared-as-recent/ Yes A problem with the company's service Yes The Nation is reliable Yes Such rallies dress the media attention. Yes A secondary report. Why will a company drags it's name down.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/04/08/kano-court-sentences-opay-agent-to-nine-months-in-jail-for-stealing/ Yes Problem again. Yes Per WP:NGRS. Yes Man's court case over Opay Yes A court case and arrest of an Opay agent is a secondary report
https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ Yes Only about the subject Yes Ditto Yes Partnership to such a firm is usually taken to the media in Nigeria as it benefits the mass. Yes A secondary report thigh we can't tell if the report was called. I wonder term this primary because it came from a secondary source.
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ Yes Ditto Yes Daily News Egypt is a newspaper with editorial policy. Yes Approval by the nations bank is a significant coverage Yes From a secondary source.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/africa-focused-payment-firm-opay-040352184.html Yes Ditto – I don't know about Yahoo finance but it's mostly reliable – – —
https://leadership.ng/opay-wins-in-fintech-category-at-nitdas-digital-nigeria-2023-awards/ Yes An award ceremony Yes Per NGRS Yes Award ceremony are often significant especially when it's from NITDA Yes From a non primary coverage
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/opay-wins-advan-consumer-choice-award-for-best-fintech-2023/ Yes Ditto Yes Ditto – An ward ceremony that covers only one company is likely questionable. Yes From a secondary source. —
https://punchng.com/opay-gets-wef-recognition-on-financial-inclusion/ Yes Yes Per NGRS Yes Received SIGCOV from an international organisation. Yes From a secondary source.
https://leadership.ng/opay-earns-cnbc-and-statista-global-ranking-in-digital-payment-category/ About a championship award won by Opay Yes Ditto Yes Why not Yes Non primary coverage.

Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
That was an error. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing ++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.-- Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [ source1] [ source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Egypt Proposed deletions


Iran

Khar-polis

AfDs for this article:
Khar-polis (  | 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 sources found. Zero citations for 16 years. External link is a YouTube video called "KHARPOLICE 2" purporting to show "Iranian men playing Kharpolis" at Cachuma Lake, California, in 2010. (And the only comment on the video is "CHINCHE AL AGUA" which I guess is supposed to verify that the Mexican game is the same as the Iranian game.) Either this is WP:OR or possibly even WP:HOAX. Cielquiparle ( talk) 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Previous AfD in 2008 addressed only WP:NOTGUIDE accusations and did not address the lack of sourcing. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, the only edits by the creator were to create and crosslink this article at 17:25, 29 September 2008. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Temürtas

Temürtas (  | 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 could not find any coverage in WP:RS to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad (  | 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 first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Hamed Ameli

Hamed Ameli (  | 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 first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Saeed Reza Khoshshans

AfDs for this article:
Saeed Reza Khoshshans (  | 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)

Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Soft deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Still no sources found. This is about all I can find [1], which does not help notability. Even what's in the article now isn't enough. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Zahedan Stadium

Zahedan Stadium (  | 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)

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in /info/en/?search=Zahedan#Sports Wikilover3509 ( talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep AfD is not for merge requests, and I think both of the sources in the article demonstrate notability when translated. I just don't know how to do a WP:BEFORE search for this one, but stadiums of this capacity are generally notable. SportingFlyer T· C 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect to Zahedan#Sports no coverage for its own article. Giant Snowman 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. I added translations of both reference titles. I think the article is notable because it has good multiple references, even though it is a stub. I also moved the coordinates into the infobox. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Iran Proposed deletions


Iraq

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean) (  | 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:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt ( talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Sons of the Covenant Monastery

Sons of the Covenant Monastery (  | 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, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt ( talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Israel

Operation Kahuta

Operation Kahuta (  | 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)

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed ( talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin ( talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed ( talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [2] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Hayley Anne Sacks

AfDs for this article:
Hayley Anne Sacks (  | 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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Arnon Zamora

Arnon Zamora (  | 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:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for. Should be redirected to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, but this was opposed by the article creator, so it's up to AfD to decide. Fram ( talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am said article creator, and this is my argument to keep this article:
WP:BIO1E says:
"if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation made world news and will be remembered an important event within the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Since it's creation, six days ago, it has received 84,000 pageviews!
In comparison, for example, the Occupation of Veracuz has only had 116 views in the last year, and yet, there are 56 individual Wikipedia pages for each recipient of the medal of honor from that war! Essentially, every one of those individuals is a WP:BIO1E exception who rises to the level of fame allowing a WP:BIO1E exception to be made (for an event of large enough magnitude).
How could one possibly argue that the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation does not rise to "rare importance," and Arnon Zamora does not play an important role in this event!?
If we are to remove Arnon Zamora, it would only make sense to remove the other 56 medal of honor winners, as the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation has 724 times more views than the Occupation of Veracruz has over the last year.
Based on this pretext, I would argue that Arnon Zamora undoubtedly rises to the level of notability and fame to be a WP:BIO1E exception. Afdshah ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comparing something in the news now with something historical is not really convincing. The exampe of an exception in BIO1E is the assassination of JFK: this event here is way, way less important in the long run, and his role in it was run-of-the-mill, but he died and gets glorified by some media, the military and politics, as if dying is an achievement. Fram ( talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Why not? The Occupation of Veracruz has 1124 views, EVER.
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation will be remembered as a historical event, and a major point in the Israel-Hamas War.
Zamora's role in it was certainly more important than Howard Brennan's role in the JFK Assassination. Unlike Brennan's role as a witness, Zamora actually commanded the operation and was the first person into the building in this historic event! I wouldn't say his role was "run-of-the-mill."
Even if we compare the JFK Assassination to the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, we can find that the rescue operation has twice as many views in the last six days. Of course, I'm not arguing that this rescue operation was as important as the JFK Assassination, however, the sheer notability and fame that this event has garnished, in my mind, makes it worthwhile of a WP:BIO1E exception.
And why can't one compare this event, which will be remembered in history, to an event like the Occupation of Veracruz? Afdshah ( talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day [3], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off [4]... Fram ( talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am so sorry- you're right I was way off in what I said - I accidentally used the Pageview tool to search for the Occupation of Vera Cruz which is a redirect to the actual page.
I apologize - I should have checked more carefully before making that claim.
However, my comparison of notability and fame still stands as the United States Occupation of Veracruz only has 1,700 pageviews in the same amount of time as it took the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation to reach 84,000 (since 6/8). There is still a difference of 50x.
While it is true that things in the news get more views, my argument is that the rescue operation is a major historical event just like the Occupation of Veracruz.
There are 56 medal of honor winners with their own Wikipedia page for the Occupation of Veracruz, each one a WP:BIO1E exception.
If the Occupation of Veracuz rises to the level of historical importance that this exemption applies for 56 people, this historical hostage rescue operation certainly rises to the level of importance that one exception can be made.
And the article at AfD is brand new - I haven't even linked it on the 2024 Nuseirat Operation page yet and it has 104 views. That's more than twice the 43 views that Berrie H. Jarrett has in the last year. I'll link at now and we can see its views in the next 24 hours. Afdshah ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, as suggested by nominator, per WP:BIO1E, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. Zomara is repeatedly mentioned at the target, is only known for this event, and the operation was posthumously named by Israel after Zomara, so a strong bidirectional relationship exists. gidonb ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not significant enough for Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The page received 313 pageviews today and is about an important figure in the rescue operation and in the broader Israel-Hamas war.
    Many of the pages of the medal of honor Veracruz winners receive fewer than 313 views per year, but are exceptions to WP:BIO1E because the Occupation of Veracuz was a sufficiently significant event.
    Clearly, the Arnon Zamora page generates more views than these pages, and he played a very similar role to the medal of honor winners. Are you arguing then, that the Israel-Hamas War isn't a sufficiently significant event?
    What exactly is your metric for significance? Afdshah ( talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: His death is referenced in the article for the massacre at Nuseirat. Much of the article and paragraph surrounding his death comes off as Israeli propaganda and POV-pushing, while the rest is just minor coverage. Jebiguess ( talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What's Israeli propaganda/POV-pushing? The only points about his death are that he was the first into the building holding 3 hostages, he was injured, and that he was evacuated and died in the hospital. Where is the Israeli propaganda?
Are you disputing one of these claims? Afdshah ( talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Knowing Israeli dynamics, it's a short matter of time before we start seeing streets, schools and so on named after him, just like nobody knew who Yonatan Netanyahu was before the Entebbe operation. He will probably also get a posthumous medal. DGtal ( talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

DemoCrisis

DemoCrisis (  | 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 as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib ( talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz ( https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.—  Saqib ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. —  Saqib ( talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
      !!!!!!!!! - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib ( talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    ?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....) reply
    Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [5] or [6] and Mexico for good measure [7]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. —  Saqib ( talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. —  Saqib ( talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib ( talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [8] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b ( talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    ???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. —  Saqib ( talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).
    Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib ( talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Dan Sobovitz

Dan Sobovitz (  | 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)

Created by UPE user (subject admitted in IRC), a LOT of the references are the subjects own work, therefore nothing for notability. - Rich T| C| E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Because they're written by Sobovitz; you can't use articles by the subject, those are primary sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per nomination, can confirm that this is un-disclosed COI as dislosed on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help, and the sourcing is insufficient to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If it's a paid job, I won't even bother delving into whether it meets the GNG or not. I've also nominated for deletion an article closely related to Dan Sobovitz, which was also created by the same author as this one. -- Saqib ( talk) 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment can this not be speedy deleted, as it was created by/for UPE? Oaktree b ( talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: If not speedy deleted, I'd delete for lack of sourcing. The Brussels Post and one Haretz article are written by the subject. Others are trivial coverage. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (  | 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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh ( talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this " AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Jordan

Ahmed Hisham

Ahmed Hisham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not sure this individual meets the General notability guideline. The main claim to notability is that he played for his country in 2016. This claim is not supported by reliable sources. I did some searching and found sources such as ESPN [1] and Global Sports Archive, [2] which mention the lineups without this individual's name in them. Even if if we can establish that this person made a substitute appearance in a single non-competitive match, I feel this is still not enough for notability. C 679 09:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia (  | 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)

Satellite TV channel based in Jordan that fails WP:NCORP. No independent secondary sourcing at all that I can find; the sources in the article are either database sources (Lyngsat, Jordanian government databases) excluded for notability by WP:ORGCRIT or fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment. The editor who created this article has declared a conflict of interest with this subject so we must be especially vigilant to validate notability here. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Kuwait


Lebanon

Liam Ayoub

Liam Ayoub (  | 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, a Lebanese rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Another Australian second tier player who's article needs actually writing. Looks like it can be expanded upon but of not delete. Mn1548 ( talk) 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. As a minimum we would expect league players to have played first grade rugby league which this player hasn't. LibStar ( talk) 18:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are you arguing then to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Gabriel & Co.

Gabriel & Co. (  | 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:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne ( talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng -- Welcome to Pandora ( talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne ( talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/ WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing ++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/ WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing ++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.- KH-1 ( talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/ WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Oman


Palestine

Arnon Zamora

Arnon Zamora (  | 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:BIO1E, didn't receive any significant attention before his death, and didn't play a truly major role in the event he is remembered for. Should be redirected to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, but this was opposed by the article creator, so it's up to AfD to decide. Fram ( talk) 07:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I am said article creator, and this is my argument to keep this article:
WP:BIO1E says:
"if a significant event is of rare importance, even relatively minor participants may warrant their own articles. An example of this is Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation made world news and will be remembered an important event within the context of the Israel-Hamas War. Since it's creation, six days ago, it has received 84,000 pageviews!
In comparison, for example, the Occupation of Veracuz has only had 116 views in the last year, and yet, there are 56 individual Wikipedia pages for each recipient of the medal of honor from that war! Essentially, every one of those individuals is a WP:BIO1E exception who rises to the level of fame allowing a WP:BIO1E exception to be made (for an event of large enough magnitude).
How could one possibly argue that the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation does not rise to "rare importance," and Arnon Zamora does not play an important role in this event!?
If we are to remove Arnon Zamora, it would only make sense to remove the other 56 medal of honor winners, as the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation has 724 times more views than the Occupation of Veracruz has over the last year.
Based on this pretext, I would argue that Arnon Zamora undoubtedly rises to the level of notability and fame to be a WP:BIO1E exception. Afdshah ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comparing something in the news now with something historical is not really convincing. The exampe of an exception in BIO1E is the assassination of JFK: this event here is way, way less important in the long run, and his role in it was run-of-the-mill, but he died and gets glorified by some media, the military and politics, as if dying is an achievement. Fram ( talk) 09:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Why not? The Occupation of Veracruz has 1124 views, EVER.
The 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation will be remembered as a historical event, and a major point in the Israel-Hamas War.
Zamora's role in it was certainly more important than Howard Brennan's role in the JFK Assassination. Unlike Brennan's role as a witness, Zamora actually commanded the operation and was the first person into the building in this historic event! I wouldn't say his role was "run-of-the-mill."
Even if we compare the JFK Assassination to the 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, we can find that the rescue operation has twice as many views in the last six days. Of course, I'm not arguing that this rescue operation was as important as the JFK Assassination, however, the sheer notability and fame that this event has garnished, in my mind, makes it worthwhile of a WP:BIO1E exception.
And why can't one compare this event, which will be remembered in history, to an event like the Occupation of Veracruz? Afdshah ( talk) 10:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Just checking; the 84000 pageviews is for the target article, not for the article at AfD. And your numbers for the United States occupation of Veracruz are way off, it gets 300 pageviews per day [9], not your claimed "116 views in the last year". Even the redirect Occupation of Veracruz got 943 views last year, so no idea what you were looking at. The comparison is completely irrelevant, things in the news always get more views, but if you want to make such a comparison, at least make sure that your numbers are correct. You were nearly a factor 1,000 off [10]... Fram ( talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I am so sorry- you're right I was way off in what I said - I accidentally used the Pageview tool to search for the Occupation of Vera Cruz which is a redirect to the actual page.
I apologize - I should have checked more carefully before making that claim.
However, my comparison of notability and fame still stands as the United States Occupation of Veracruz only has 1,700 pageviews in the same amount of time as it took the 2024 Nuseirat Rescue Operation to reach 84,000 (since 6/8). There is still a difference of 50x.
While it is true that things in the news get more views, my argument is that the rescue operation is a major historical event just like the Occupation of Veracruz.
There are 56 medal of honor winners with their own Wikipedia page for the Occupation of Veracruz, each one a WP:BIO1E exception.
If the Occupation of Veracuz rises to the level of historical importance that this exemption applies for 56 people, this historical hostage rescue operation certainly rises to the level of importance that one exception can be made.
And the article at AfD is brand new - I haven't even linked it on the 2024 Nuseirat Operation page yet and it has 104 views. That's more than twice the 43 views that Berrie H. Jarrett has in the last year. I'll link at now and we can see its views in the next 24 hours. Afdshah ( talk) 16:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation, as suggested by nominator, per WP:BIO1E, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. Zomara is repeatedly mentioned at the target, is only known for this event, and the operation was posthumously named by Israel after Zomara, so a strong bidirectional relationship exists. gidonb ( talk) 18:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not significant enough for Wikipedia. EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk) 17:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    The page received 313 pageviews today and is about an important figure in the rescue operation and in the broader Israel-Hamas war.
    Many of the pages of the medal of honor Veracruz winners receive fewer than 313 views per year, but are exceptions to WP:BIO1E because the Occupation of Veracuz was a sufficiently significant event.
    Clearly, the Arnon Zamora page generates more views than these pages, and he played a very similar role to the medal of honor winners. Are you arguing then, that the Israel-Hamas War isn't a sufficiently significant event?
    What exactly is your metric for significance? Afdshah ( talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: His death is referenced in the article for the massacre at Nuseirat. Much of the article and paragraph surrounding his death comes off as Israeli propaganda and POV-pushing, while the rest is just minor coverage. Jebiguess ( talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
What's Israeli propaganda/POV-pushing? The only points about his death are that he was the first into the building holding 3 hostages, he was injured, and that he was evacuated and died in the hospital. Where is the Israeli propaganda?
Are you disputing one of these claims? Afdshah ( talk) 08:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Knowing Israeli dynamics, it's a short matter of time before we start seeing streets, schools and so on named after him, just like nobody knew who Yonatan Netanyahu was before the Entebbe operation. He will probably also get a posthumous medal. DGtal ( talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

All Eyes on Rafah

All Eyes on Rafah (  | 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 about a social media slogan, with the thumbnail - essentially its main bit - a social media AI generated image which was trending on Instagram on two days. The slogan gained traction as it was used by, among many others, many social media influencers. In accordance to WP:NOTDIARY, as well as WP:RECENT as a whole (because it is a small event belonging to the Rafah offensive), I believe this article should be deleted. A bit about this can be added to the "international reaction" header in the Rafah offensive article, but it should not exist standalone Pharaoh496 ( talk) 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.— cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it had a seismic impact, especially in allowing broader acceptance in having pro-Palestinian views. In the same way the black squares in the BLM movement swept across platforms in 2020, All Eyes of Rafah was a turning point for many in Instagram and beyond, and detailing its impact would be too long for a comfortable read in the Rafah offensive page. This page does just that, and to simplify it wouldn't do justice to the shockwaves they've presented. It may have a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics, but it sure swayed the limit of what's deemed acceptable across international communities and societies. Azurevanilla ash ( talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like you said, it has had a minute effect on the grand scheme of things in politics. If it turns out to be more significant in the future, it can be recreated. Not right not. Pharaoh496 ( talk) 06:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We aren't responsible for cataloguing every single viral phenomenon, ever. If this proves to have enough significance to be covered a year or two from now, then maybe we can re-create then. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 23:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOT. This topic is discussed in reliable sources but does not meet the additional criteria for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 05:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the interest in this topic as a new phenomenon in global conflict media has continued. See for example, a 25 minute TV program aired yesterday, and an AP explainer from last week. If organizations like these can create post-fact focused articles and programs on the topic, it is equally appropriate for Wikipedia. Onceinawhile ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Like I and other users have mentioned, it violated WP:NOT. A paragraph or even 2 can be included on the main rafah page instead Pharaoh496 ( talk) 07:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I concur that WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS are violated by this article. Garsh ( talk) 18:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOT, though maybe a few sentences could be salvaged into some other articles. FortunateSons ( talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this flavor of the day campaign per NOT and NOTNEWS. gidonb ( talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . Wikipedia is not a directory for every internet slogan. Hogo-2020 ( talk) 08:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep People voting delete perhaps have a case for the abstract "slogan", but that's not all this article represents.
The most notable aspect of this phrase is the viral AI-generated image that was shared over 50 million times on Instagram, generating worldwide headlines specifically focused on the image. The AI-generated image and associated online protest clearly meet GNG with massive coverage in every top newspaper. Multiple facets of the AI image are covered in reliable sources that bring it beyond WP:NOTNEWS:
  1. Comparisons with Blackout Tuesday and other "online protests". Image has already been held up as an example of performative activism and surely will continue to be referenced as such in the future.
  2. Early high-profile AI image. "All Eyes on Rafah" has been shared over 50 million times, making it one of the most seen / most shared AI images of all time right at the cusp of this " AI boom" that's currently happening. This image is going to forever have a place in the history of early Artificial intelligence art.
  3. Usage of AI in political/social movements, disinformation, deepfakes, Artificial intelligence in government, etc. This "All Eyes on Rafah" image has already spawned discussion about the ethics of the use of AI images in political movements, and is sure to continue to be referenced as such. Such as yesterday in the Washington Post: Deepfakes and AI-generated images have been around for several years, but as the technology improves and the tools to make them become widely available, they’ve become increasingly common on social media platforms. An AI-generated image of a sprawling refugee camp with the words “All Eyes on Rafah” went viral in late May as a way for people to show their support for Palestinians in Gaza. As major elections take place across the globe, some politicians have tried to use fake images to make their opponents look bad.
The image has cited "enduring notability" in reliable sources, passing the WP:NOTNEWS bar. The image has already prompted re-analysis on the above facets in the weeks since it went viral. PK-WIKI ( talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Each and every reason which you have given does not make sense for the given page:
  • The article, not the picture is being nominated here for deletion. The image may / may not exist on here or on commons - as it is the most notable aspect of the article. It does not warrant an entire article for itself.
  • Blackout Tuesday was an event. A phenomenon. It does not compare to a mere hashtag - version of an AI image which lasted for 24 hours on social media - without materialising. Thats exactly why part of this should be added to Rafah or sample AI pages and not have one of its own.
Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: per PK-WIKI. The image was specifically covered for being AI-generated, which will have a long-term impact. C F A 💬 14:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not a valid reason - thats the image you are talking about. That image can exist on commons or whatever. It does not warrant its own article, as per reasons I and other users have given above Pharaoh496 ( talk) 08:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Redirects

</noinclude>


Qatar

Hatim Kamal

Hatim Kamal (  | 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)

Played 51 mins at professional level but no significant coverage cited so no WP:GNG pass looks likely. I found a brief quote in Al-Sharq and an injury announcement in Kooora but neither of these are enough for GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Abduraouf Hussain

Abduraouf Hussain (  | 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)

He played 206 mins of professional football but I'm just not seeing enough for a WP:GNG pass. No significant coverage found in an Arabic search. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari

Khalid bin Mohsen Shaari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, see WP:BLP1E 48JCL TALK 16:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think this article should be kept as articles for other record setting individuals still exist and arent being deleted
I refer you to this list: /info/en/?search=List_of_heaviest_people Most of those people still have articles that arent being deleted 192.0.146.27 ( talk) 01:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
the fact khalid weighed as much as he did and lost all of that weight makes him notible since he did the impossible 192.0.146.27 ( talk) 01:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Zamil Steel

Zamil Steel (  | 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 Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 ( talk) 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Company actually seems notable to me, even though the article is terrible. This already can help for an introduction, and a section on their practices. Here is a case study, whose facts we can assume to be reliable. This is obviously not acceptable, yet its promotional claims indicate that the company is likely notable. Drmies ( talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood ( talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It would be worth considering the present article about this subsidiary company in the wider context of articles on the parent company Zamil Industrial (created around the same time by the same editor) and Zamil Group Holding (created more recently). Do each have sufficient specific notability to justify multiple article here? AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Articles with proposed deletion tags


Syria

Al Basil High School for Superiors

Al Basil High School for Superiors (  | 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 notability. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Bassel High School for Outstanding Students Quick-ease2020 ( talk) 18:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Turkey

Philipp Haas

Philipp Haas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's not much significant coverage of Philipp Haas published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. There seem to be 2 interviews with him. He hasn't won any awards. He is just the CEO of a notable company. There is not much for a proper biography article. Ynsfial ( talk) 07:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Rojda Aykoç

AfDs for this article:
Rojda Aykoç (  | 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)

Her notability cannot be proven by independent and reliable sources. Only IFEX source is good, but it is not adequate for passing GNG. As a result of the research conducted on the person, it was not possible to find independent and reliable sources. Considering there are not enough resources, deletion is appropriate. Kadı Message 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Others

United Arab Emirates

Signature Yashmagh

Signature Yashmagh (  | 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)

Small Emirati clothing brand with one retail location - coverage is low quality churnalism/promotional. No evidence of GNG. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Information Systems Associates FZE

Information Systems Associates FZE (  | 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)

Fairly sure this fails the notability guidelines for companies but I'd appreciate a once-over from editors more familiar with aviation software, Sri Lanka or the UAE to make sure this nomination isn't a howler. Its presence on Wikipedia (including list entries and other links, hence I don't favour a redirect) is entirely down to a single-purpose account, almost certainly with a conflict of interest. – Tera tix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

English Language School, Dubai

English Language School, Dubai (  | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school in Dubai, and cannot find references to add. The only existing reference in the article is to the school's website. The school's names make it difficult to search for, but if there is WP:SIGCOV it ought to be findable. I don't think it meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg ( talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get another opinion about sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply


Yemen

Al Noor City

Al Noor City (  | 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)

Similar/linked to Bridge of the Horns, this article is a crystal ball with minimal references, all of which are non-substanial and/or routine coverage of a proposal that has gone nowhere and never will. Even their website is defunct, I see it unlikely to ever reach proper notability. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 05:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Bridge of the Horns

Bridge of the Horns (  | 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)

CRYSTALBALL proposed infrastructure with marginal & routine coverage for a bridge project that was cancelled 15 years ago. Very few references none of which are anything more than routine coverage of a proposed project. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Yemen. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bab-el-Mandeb#History where this is mentioned. This was alwasy a pie-in-the-sky idea that never had realistic plans. Redirect Al Noor City as well. Even in the aughts, the idea of building bridge to nowhere or to a megacity built out of nothing in Yemen should have gotten you laughed out of the room. Reywas92 Talk 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Reywas. No evidence of long-term notability to justify a standalone article. – dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ https://www.espn.in/football/lineups/_/gameId/448871
  2. ^ https://globalsportsarchive.com/match/soccer/2016-06-03/united-arab-emirates-vs-jordan/607911/
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Middle_East&oldid=1228979657"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE