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

IGN Convention

IGN Convention (  | 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:NEVENTS, only lists 10 sources, half of them are YouTube. The notability tag was put in 10 years ago, no fix till now. MK at your service. 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions


Egypt

Mostafa Makhlouf

Mostafa Makhlouf (  | 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 indication the subject meets the general notability guideline. Only source indicates he is the fifth-choice goalkeeper for his club and he has not played at senior level. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

He was in the first team in the past 2 years
And entered the African list for Al Ahly this year so he must have a Wikipedia page Mohamedmokhtar22 ( talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Draft According to soccerway he hasn't played any games. So those trophies? Are they really earned? If the article was improved with better sourcing I might send to draft, in it's current state I would delete. Also @ Mohamedmokhtar22 Why do you have two accounts? Govvy ( talk) 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough coverage for this individual. All I can find [1], a few brief words about him. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    First, I have only One account but I changed the username.
    Second, In African Championships if he entered the saquad in any match the whole championship it will be earnd for him Mohamedmokhtar22 ( talk) 17:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    https://www.yallakora.com/egyptian-league/2795/news/447474/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B3-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85-%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%88%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A-%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3-
    This link from Yallakora the famous site about Mostafa Makhlouf Mohamedmokhtar22 ( talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Egypt Proposed deletions


Iran

Esmaeil Gholizadeh

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG (which says that these must meet GNG) Of the sources, 2 are just database listings and the other is about a game where he is mentioned. North8000 ( talk) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump

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

Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray ( talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, Yeah I was just about to do this. There's basically no information about it right now, it does not warrant an article. Not news. Personisinsterest ( talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We should keep it because the secret service might use Iran as a scape goat for bad protection LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical ( talk) 21:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.
In the future, if this becomes notable enough as a standalone topic, we can revisit it then. JMM12345 ( talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We should keep it incase more information comes out and if any statements from the Iranian Government come out as well LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical ( talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
None of us can predict the future. If that happens, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. JMM12345 ( talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I object to this deletion as I think the user is biased to both the secret service and trump and is attempting to censor something LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical ( talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record. TNstingray ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Background of Assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Clearly there isn't the content to support a standalone article at this point, so would be better merged with existing article on Trump assassination attempt. CNC ( talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I now see this is already referenced in the Background section, so can simply be Deleted CNC ( talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [2]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per MVBW, and the fact that we don't have any details anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile ( talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, that sounds reasonable. I am not opposed to "keep" as my second choice. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.
In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.
If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.
That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 ( talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete or Draftify as it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mehran Tebyani

Mehran Tebyani (  | 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)

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 ( talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Mehran Tebyani
is a notable figure in the field of music, particularly recognized for being the first Iranian conductor to hold a doctoral degree. His contributions to the music industry are significant and well-documented. Here are key points highlighting his notability and accomplishments:
  • Academic Achievements: Mehran Tebyani holds a doctoral degree, making him the first Iranian conductor to achieve this level of academic success in the field.
  • Publications: He has published a book in Iran, which contributes to his recognition as a scholar and expert in music.
  • Media Coverage: Tebyani has been interviewed by numerous newspapers in Iran, demonstrating his influence and prominence in the Iranian music scene.
  • Radio Sessions: During his time in Los Angeles, he hosted a radio session dedicated to the history of music for one year, further showcasing his expertise and commitment to educating the public about music.
  • Concerts and Performances: He has conducted several concerts at UCLA in Los Angeles, adding to his international recognition and illustrating his active involvement in the music community.
Dr.Hana jalili ( talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Move back to Draft -- as it is written, there aren't enough sources that establish notability beyond a doubt (the Lede has an interesting fact and cool accomplishment but probably is not enough on its own to get past GNG or a Music notability guideline). The author should continue to work on getting sources that point directly to notability (translated quotations from Iranian publications would help). On the WP:PROF side, it's a case of TOOSOON (often composers and conductors who are also academics pass the GNG or NMUSIC bar before they pass the WP:PROF criteria. -- any one of them is, however, enough to be a keep vote).
  • Draftify based on the discussion and argument, I see draftifying as the best option. LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

AfDs for this article:
2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (  | 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, no significant coverage Mdann52 ( talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):
Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA
Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 ( talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy ( talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
    let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
    Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
    Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 ( talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Iran Proposed deletions


Iraq

Al-Rashid, Baghdad

Al-Rashid, Baghdad (  | 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 couldn't find reliable sources to confirm any of this information. Boleyn ( talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: The nomination was regarding failure of WP:V. Do you have a rebuttal to that? Geschichte ( talk) 08:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It can clearly be verified that it exists. Anything else is cleanup, and AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Israel

Archaeological Seminars Institute

Archaeological Seminars Institute (  | 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)

Tour agency that fails WP:NCORP. Extensive history of WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. –  Joe ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Any.do

Any.do (  | 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)

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb ( talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: despite what @ Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. In the sense of "not delete" - there is no consensus as to whether to merge or keep as a separate article or otherwise rework the content. This discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism (  | 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)

Does not fulfill the WP:Notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage that would justify a standalone article outside of Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss ( talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I really don't understand the deletion rationale here. Sectorally-specific articles are obvious and common sub-articles within the economic topic tree. There are three other country-olive-specific articles already: Olive production in India, Olive cultivation in Palestine, and Olive production in Switzerland. There is already some coverage of this topic at Olive#Judaism and Christianity, and a quick WP:BEFORE finds a huge number of sources covering various aspects of the quite broad topic at hand, including those touching upon aspects not yet included in this underdeveloped article [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. If I was to articulate a potential issue with the current article, it is that the subject may be too broad, covering a few different topics that might be better separated. However, that would result in more articles, not fewer, and the current scope is broad in a way that exceeds the scope of Agriculture in Israel. CMD ( talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The problem here is not that it is country-specific, but that, as you mentioned, merges a country-specific topic with a religion; a merge that has not received significant coverage in RS. I would support the split into two articles, but I don’t think the Judaism part has received any more significant coverage, therefore, I would eventually support moving current article into an Israel-only scope instead. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Links between Judaism and Israel have been explored in RS, including specifically with olives [10] [11]. There is also research into the broader question of the intersection of Judaism with agricultural practices in Israel and the practical impacts that has [12] [13] [14] (and for fun here is a really odd paper tangentially stretching from that topic). If those links were less explicit, an article could still be built as a WP:BROADCONCEPT, which the current one appears to be doing. As stated, I don't believe the article should be doing this, but fixing that is not something that involves deletion. CMD ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Aside from the first link [15], a paper by an Israeli university, there doesn't seem to be specific coverage of the topic, aside from passing mentions; that is how I have been interpreting significant coverage anyway, to require at least a dedicated chapter or topic. I can't seem to open the second link however. Makeandtoss ( talk) 18:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I took a look at a few of the sources, and I'm not convinced that Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism is itself a thing. Much of the content is suitable for the encyclopedia, but some of it belongs in History of agriculture in Israel and some of it might do well as "Olives in Judaism" or part of Jewish symbolism but I'm not seeing that the physical value of olives as an agricultural product and the symbolic value of olives in Judaism are established to be the same thing in the article in its current form. Also—and maybe I just have too much current events on my mind—the authors may take an interest in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel or in drafting an article compiling all the arguments for and against the existence of Israel as a state because maybe this isn't really about olives. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I must respectfully disagree. The article only deals with the historical and religious perspective. I don't think Israel's legitimacy depends on Olives. I made sure that nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned here to avoid further problems. AhmedHijaziElSultani ( talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being respectfully disagreed with is so refreshing. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Just trying to be polite AhmedHijaziElSultani ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not sarcasm. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The olive tree and its fruits hold profound significance in Jewish history. It's one of the most important trees in Judaism and holds the designation of the national tree of the State of Israel. Its historical and cultural relevance extends from biblical times through the periods of the Israelite Kingdoms, continuing into the era of the new Yishuv. This article specifically covers the topic from both the historical and religious perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedHijaziElSultani ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article by the GNG yet limit the scope. Anything with "in Israel and Judaism" in the title will be problematic. If we examine the Olive article, it will become clear that Judaism is already well covered there and this article is a legitimate SPINOFF. Israel is not well-covered. For example, the article should mention that the olive tree is the national tree of Israel. So no need to spin anything Israeli off. Same with Agriculture in Israel. That article should have more information on different fruits, including olives. gidonb ( talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    There seem to be three overlapping but identifiable topics clustered together here: Olive production in Israel (modern), Olive production in ancient Israel, and Olives and olive trees in Judaism. Would you say your comment is to limit this current article to the third of these topics, and direct other information elsewhere? CMD ( talk) 09:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
More or less. Olives and olive trees in Judaism should be the title and content. Olive production in ancient Israel is really included in this topic as the reality in ancient Israel is eternalized through Judaism (books that have been copied, rules that have been made based on that reality). Thus an article Olive production in ancient Israel would have a too large overlap ("CONTENTFORK"). The Israel content should be distributed between Agriculture in Israel and Olive, with some content relevant to both, as legitimate parents/siblings in this respect. Olive production in Israel would be a legitimate SPINOFF of both if there were enough content at the level above. There isn't. To the extent ancient Israel is purely based on historic production/cultivation (not the derivative of laws based thereon), also based in archeology, this is legitimate background/history for both articles. So theoretically that could be legitimate SPINOFF if it grew organically. I just don't see that happen. gidonb ( talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yet there is enough content on Olives and olive trees in Judaism. In fact, if we would merge that to the parent we'd create a situation of UNDUE. Hence, for this part of the article, it is a justified SPINOFF. Also, Judaism is not limited to the "Bible". That's a projection of Christianity. gidonb ( talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, which is why I argue for either merging this content or narrowing its scope. It is really not robust if you brake the sections down and should be mentioned in these relevant kind of "parent articles" in the first place because some of these olives are scarcely talked about at the moment, maybe indicating that the information just be merged. Right now, I'm unsure if there is actually enough content on Olives in Judaism and I believe it would have to continue to be expanded because it continues to collapse: 1) the practices and history of Ancient Israelites, contemporary Jewish practices, and Jewish religious texts. Of course, these are all related (and sometimes these points are connected well within the article), however, at this point, the often scope seems too broad and the topics disjointed. Perhaps it is better to expand on first as a draft in order to justify SPINOFF with a proper scope. I am unsure.
And I am aware of the fact that Judaism does not adhere to the Christian Bible per se and has other associated texts; this is simply for the purpose of congruence with similar articles such as Animals in the Bible, List of Hebrew Bible events, and so on, you could very well name it something else that is really just semantics, in addition to the fact that the use of "(Hebrew) Bible" (or "Tanakh") could include various texts outside of the Torah that remain relevant religiously and could expand on what is already written. digiulio8 ( talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (  | 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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 ( talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Of which article? gidonb ( talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp× g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [16] & [17]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
- StellarHalo ( talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb ( talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile ( talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Jordan

Abdali Hospital

Abdali Hospital (  | 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)

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. 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. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing ++ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Kuwait


Lebanon

Hiba Farès

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

non notable, written by an undisclosed paid editor, sources are terrible Polygnotus ( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Rabih Bou Rached

Rabih Bou Rached (  | 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)

Promotional BLP of a successful businessman with no real claim of notability. Various non notable awards and ROTM coverage in the form of interviews and PR profiles. Mccapra ( talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Oman


Palestine

Archaeological Seminars Institute

Archaeological Seminars Institute (  | 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)

Tour agency that fails WP:NCORP. Extensive history of WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. –  Joe ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

University of Texas at Austin stabbing

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A non-fatal stabbing where a single non-notable person was injured, no deaths. The citations in the background section do not mention this incident as they predate it. There was a brief burst of coverage that it happened and the perpetrator was indicted without hate crime charges (covered only by local media) and there has been no coverage since, failing WP:SUSTAINED.

Additionally, there was a fatal mass stabbing at this same school in 2017 that is substantially closer to passing NEVENT that we do not have an article on (imo it still doesn't pass NEVENT but this is to make a point): the reason this article exists appears to be the Palestine connection.

Due to the circumstances it can probably be merged somewhere if anyone wants that but I have no ideas. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: The topic is notable as a prominent and specific example of Anti-Palestinian racism, which is precisely what made it stand out as an event against the background noise in the US. It does also have sustained coverage, with the event continuing to fuel the discussion on hate crime in the US some six two and a half months later. Yes, the only reason this topic is notable is the hate crime element ... because that – the context of the violence, not its form – is what is notable. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Who has declared it "prominent"? It made the news for three days and then dropped off the map. It does not have sustained coverage, and there has been no proof of that presented. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I got the dates muddled: it's two and a half months later with the update, which you know about, do clearly not three days. More generally, one might just say: wait! There's hardly even time for it to be discussed in other mediums than news yet, so it's hard to know what else is expected. Iskandar323 ( talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
A two month update saying it wasn't a hate crime from a local news outlet with no further analysis or retrospection? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 04:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Talk:Khaled Mashal/Third intifada

Talk:Khaled Mashal/Third intifada ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

The content of this page was merged here in 2007 after an AfD was closed with disposition to merge the content into Khaled Mashal (mentioned on the talk page here). Unless it was later removed (I haven't checked super thoroughly), that doesn't seem to have ever actually happened. But especially looking at this 17 years later, I'm not sure there's anything worth merging in here. The arguments for this were basically already made in the AfD. And if no one's actually ever going to merge this content, this page has no reason to exist. Kinsio ( talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (  | 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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 ( talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Of which article? gidonb ( talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp× g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [20] & [21]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
- StellarHalo ( talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb ( talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile ( talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Redirects

</noinclude>


Qatar


Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Articles with proposed deletion tags


Syria

Franco Pillarella

Franco Pillarella (  | 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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Turkey

Didem (belly dancer)

Didem (belly dancer) (  | 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:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل ( talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bosphorus Development

Bosphorus Development (  | 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)

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom ~ Politicdude ( About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yabani

Yabani (  | 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 but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk ( talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You need to provide the reviews. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, redirect is better. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Others

United Arab Emirates


Yemen

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Middle_East&oldid=1235034671"
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

IGN Convention

IGN Convention (  | 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:NEVENTS, only lists 10 sources, half of them are YouTube. The notability tag was put in 10 years ago, no fix till now. MK at your service. 11:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Country deletion sorting

Bahrain

Bahrain Proposed deletions


Egypt

Mostafa Makhlouf

Mostafa Makhlouf (  | 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 indication the subject meets the general notability guideline. Only source indicates he is the fifth-choice goalkeeper for his club and he has not played at senior level. C 679 11:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

He was in the first team in the past 2 years
And entered the African list for Al Ahly this year so he must have a Wikipedia page Mohamedmokhtar22 ( talk) 11:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Draft According to soccerway he hasn't played any games. So those trophies? Are they really earned? If the article was improved with better sourcing I might send to draft, in it's current state I would delete. Also @ Mohamedmokhtar22 Why do you have two accounts? Govvy ( talk) 13:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough coverage for this individual. All I can find [1], a few brief words about him. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    First, I have only One account but I changed the username.
    Second, In African Championships if he entered the saquad in any match the whole championship it will be earnd for him Mohamedmokhtar22 ( talk) 17:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    https://www.yallakora.com/egyptian-league/2795/news/447474/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B3-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85-%D9%86-%D9%87%D9%88-%D9%85%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%88%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%8A-%D8%B8%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A8-%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B3-
    This link from Yallakora the famous site about Mostafa Makhlouf Mohamedmokhtar22 ( talk) 22:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Egypt Proposed deletions


Iran

Esmaeil Gholizadeh

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG (which says that these must meet GNG) Of the sources, 2 are just database listings and the other is about a game where he is mentioned. North8000 ( talk) 20:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Iranian plot to assassinate Donald Trump

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

Was this article made in haste? I think it would be much more prudent to discuss this subject matter within the context of existing articles first before further muddying the waters. TNstingray ( talk) 20:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete, Yeah I was just about to do this. There's basically no information about it right now, it does not warrant an article. Not news. Personisinsterest ( talk) 20:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We should keep it because the secret service might use Iran as a scape goat for bad protection LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical ( talk) 21:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. I don't really see the need for this as a standalone article now because there isn't much information about it from RS, just mentions of it. If I had to pick a side, I would lean toward deletion. This can be mentioned in other articles as it is relevant.
In the future, if this becomes notable enough as a standalone topic, we can revisit it then. JMM12345 ( talk) 21:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We should keep it incase more information comes out and if any statements from the Iranian Government come out as well LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical ( talk) 21:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
None of us can predict the future. If that happens, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. JMM12345 ( talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I object to this deletion as I think the user is biased to both the secret service and trump and is attempting to censor something LuisYT-FB-TM-Insta-TickTokOffical ( talk) 21:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
See WP:FUTURE, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:DEADLINE. There is no rush to create these articles just to speculate on unconfirmed possibilities for the future. Also, please don't accuse people of random conspiracy theories. They're not helping anyone and are disruptive. TheWikiToby ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Speaking of bias, you literally created your account today to stir up non-encyclopedic discourse, including the repeated violation of WP:FORUM, one instance of which I have already reverted and another which I am leaving on this article's talk page for now as public record. TNstingray ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge to Background of Assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Clearly there isn't the content to support a standalone article at this point, so would be better merged with existing article on Trump assassination attempt. CNC ( talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I now see this is already referenced in the Background section, so can simply be Deleted CNC ( talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The retaliation by the Iranian government is planned in response to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani ordered by Trump's National Security Council. It therefore targets not only Donald Trump, but also other former US officials [2]. This is important info, but it does not seem to qualify for a separate page yet. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although the article is currently poorly written, the references to significant coverage in reliable sources are strong. CNN also published a lengthy article about this topic. This AfD should run a full week, and we can see how coverage of this develops. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per MVBW, and the fact that we don't have any details anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:NOTNEWS By the time this election is over, there will have been a whole lot of so-called plots directed at both candidates, maybe even on a daily basis sometimes. — Maile ( talk) 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Comment There is literally nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says this article is inappropriate. That policy language says Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. The policy forbids original reporting by Wikipedia editors, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, Who's Who type coverage and celebrity gossip. Nothing else. None of that is present in this article. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge it is too s, oon for a stand-alone article here. Other than the recent reporting that there are rumors, we have no information. I have no specific opinion on what the merge target should be yet; hopefully in the next few days there will be sufficient follow-on reporting to determine that. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- per Cullen328, this is essentially guaranteed to have enough information to merit a standalone article in the next few days (even a short one); and we can always merge it back to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or some related article if for some reason that doesn't happen. The news on this just broke 4 hours ago, it's patently unhelpful to be pouncing on AfD's that quickly before this has even had time to marinate. WP:CONFUSESTUB applies; as does WP:ITSINTHENEWS (especially the cautionary part saying The NOTNEWS guideline is not intended to be overused to favor deletion. There are a variety of reasons an article may be written about a particular event, and this must be taken into consideration when a news event is sent to AfD.) ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, that sounds reasonable. I am not opposed to "keep" as my second choice. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Merge. Unless there is evidence they actually tried to assassinate him, this is just an - albeit very delayed - reaction to Qasem Soleimani's murder, and in my opinion not notable on it's own. As noted by the NYTIMES article, Iran has been wanting to get revenge for a while.
In the very unlikely event this turned out to be related to Thomas Matthew Crooks' attack, then it should be merged with that article. If Iran actually does something, then it should be put into it's own article.
If none of that happens, most of this should be merged into Qasem Soleimani, and the details around the Secret Service's increased security should be added to the Trump Assassination article.
That said, I believe we should wait before making a decision, and allow more time for discussion and new evidence to arise. 174.61.187.77 ( talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete or Draftify as it seems a bit WP:TOOSOON - AquilaFasciata ( talk | contribs) 13:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Mehran Tebyani

Mehran Tebyani (  | 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)

Moved from draft by conflicted editor, no evidence of passing WP:GNG primary sources and interviews don't help with notability. Theroadislong ( talk) 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Redraftify until notability issues fixed. Procyon117 ( talk) 14:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Mehran Tebyani
is a notable figure in the field of music, particularly recognized for being the first Iranian conductor to hold a doctoral degree. His contributions to the music industry are significant and well-documented. Here are key points highlighting his notability and accomplishments:
  • Academic Achievements: Mehran Tebyani holds a doctoral degree, making him the first Iranian conductor to achieve this level of academic success in the field.
  • Publications: He has published a book in Iran, which contributes to his recognition as a scholar and expert in music.
  • Media Coverage: Tebyani has been interviewed by numerous newspapers in Iran, demonstrating his influence and prominence in the Iranian music scene.
  • Radio Sessions: During his time in Los Angeles, he hosted a radio session dedicated to the history of music for one year, further showcasing his expertise and commitment to educating the public about music.
  • Concerts and Performances: He has conducted several concerts at UCLA in Los Angeles, adding to his international recognition and illustrating his active involvement in the music community.
Dr.Hana jalili ( talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 18:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Move back to Draft -- as it is written, there aren't enough sources that establish notability beyond a doubt (the Lede has an interesting fact and cool accomplishment but probably is not enough on its own to get past GNG or a Music notability guideline). The author should continue to work on getting sources that point directly to notability (translated quotations from Iranian publications would help). On the WP:PROF side, it's a case of TOOSOON (often composers and conductors who are also academics pass the GNG or NMUSIC bar before they pass the WP:PROF criteria. -- any one of them is, however, enough to be a keep vote).
  • Draftify based on the discussion and argument, I see draftifying as the best option. LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2019 CAFA U-16 Championship

AfDs for this article:
2019 CAFA U-16 Championship (  | 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, no significant coverage Mdann52 ( talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

1. the initial delete nomination (lack independent sourcing):
Link 1 by Khovar.tj National Information Agency of Tajikistan/ not related to CAFA
Link 2 Tasnim News Agency an Iranian new agency Independent from CAFA
Link 3 Turkmen news agency which is also Independent from CAFA
Link 4 Sport.kg an Information Agency; Sport.kg is the only specialized portal in Kyrgyzstan
and many more; that i will add to the article to enhance it sourcing
2. The tournament is organized by the Central Asian Football Association (CAFA), which oversees football in Central Asia. CAFA is a member of the AFC and, therefore, FIFA. As an international competition between member nations, the tournament holds significant notability. This is particularly relevant now, as some footballers who participated in the tournament are becoming prominent figures in Central Asian football and across Asia. The tournament shall be cited as the beginning of their international careers, further emphasizing its importance. Lunar Spectrum96 ( talk) 09:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment International level competition and there are sources, however they are very young. So I am not sure at what level wikipedia should be keeping these. Govvy ( talk) 10:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep
    let us remember that The Central Asian Football Association (CAFA) was only formed in 2015, and with the tournament being the 8th tournament organised, CAFA has shown significant progress in promoting and developing football in the region. Over the years, CAFA has developed its media coverage and reporting capabilities, making the tournaments more accessible and notable. While the first editions may have had limited coverage due to CAFA's emerging stage and limited experience, the organization's growth and increased attention highlight the importance of these early stages articles being there.
    Furthermore, for Central Asia, where international sports events are relatively scarce, CAFA's tournaments hold notable significance. The early editions of the tournament are crucial for understanding the development of football in the region and providing a better statistical context. As CAFA continues to grow and attract more attention, the historical records of all editions, including the first ones, will be valuable for researchers, fans, and anyone interested in the football in Central Asia.
    Therefore, despite its relatively young age, CAFA's tournaments are notable and deserving of coverage on Wikipedia, as they contribute to the broader narrative of international sports in Central Asia. Lunar Spectrum96 ( talk) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Iran Proposed deletions


Iraq

Al-Rashid, Baghdad

Al-Rashid, Baghdad (  | 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 couldn't find reliable sources to confirm any of this information. Boleyn ( talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: The nomination was regarding failure of WP:V. Do you have a rebuttal to that? Geschichte ( talk) 08:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It can clearly be verified that it exists. Anything else is cleanup, and AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Israel

Archaeological Seminars Institute

Archaeological Seminars Institute (  | 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)

Tour agency that fails WP:NCORP. Extensive history of WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. –  Joe ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Any.do

Any.do (  | 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)

It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources? LusikSnusik ( talk) 10:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep by the GNG and also procedural keep, as no valid reason for deletion was brought forward. The intro says It does not fall under NORG guidelines. Any reliable sources?, however this is an article about a TECHNOLOGY not about a company. So NORG does not apply. "Any reliable sources?" is a slap in the face of the BEFORE requirements. That's to the procedural keep. To the keep, this is an easy keep because of the large number of reviews of the technology in prime publications. Such reviews are almost by definition in depth and original as the journalist RESEARCHES the tool. gidonb ( talk) 15:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: despite what @ Gidonb: says, this was "co-founded" and is explicitly designated in the article as "the company", so you can hardly say WP:NORG doesn't apply here. As to the "procedural keep", Any reliable sources? can also be a way of formulating the often-made query of "I haven't found any reliable sources. If anyone finds some, please ping me". Refs 1, 2 and 8 (techcrunch) are promotional ("beautifully designed", etc.) or very short, 3 (linkedin) is not independent, 4 (the next web)'s reliability is disputed, 5 (interview of co-founder) is not independent, 7 is a name-drop. This leaves 6 (the verge) as the only independent, reliable, and significant source, but notability guidelines do say sources, plural, so a single source isn't enough for notability. Also to Gidonb: you say you've found large number of reviews. I would appreciate if you could give some links to these, per WP:SOURCESEXIST. — Alien333 ( what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    A source is promotional because it is a positive review? I think the TechCrunch sources, at least the review by Perez, should count, as it's done by their reporting side and doesn't seem to be based on any press release. Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. In the sense of "not delete" - there is no consensus as to whether to merge or keep as a separate article or otherwise rework the content. This discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 10:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism

Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism (  | 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)

Does not fulfill the WP:Notability guideline as it lacks significant coverage that would justify a standalone article outside of Agriculture in Israel. Makeandtoss ( talk) 08:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, I really don't understand the deletion rationale here. Sectorally-specific articles are obvious and common sub-articles within the economic topic tree. There are three other country-olive-specific articles already: Olive production in India, Olive cultivation in Palestine, and Olive production in Switzerland. There is already some coverage of this topic at Olive#Judaism and Christianity, and a quick WP:BEFORE finds a huge number of sources covering various aspects of the quite broad topic at hand, including those touching upon aspects not yet included in this underdeveloped article [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. If I was to articulate a potential issue with the current article, it is that the subject may be too broad, covering a few different topics that might be better separated. However, that would result in more articles, not fewer, and the current scope is broad in a way that exceeds the scope of Agriculture in Israel. CMD ( talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    The problem here is not that it is country-specific, but that, as you mentioned, merges a country-specific topic with a religion; a merge that has not received significant coverage in RS. I would support the split into two articles, but I don’t think the Judaism part has received any more significant coverage, therefore, I would eventually support moving current article into an Israel-only scope instead. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Links between Judaism and Israel have been explored in RS, including specifically with olives [10] [11]. There is also research into the broader question of the intersection of Judaism with agricultural practices in Israel and the practical impacts that has [12] [13] [14] (and for fun here is a really odd paper tangentially stretching from that topic). If those links were less explicit, an article could still be built as a WP:BROADCONCEPT, which the current one appears to be doing. As stated, I don't believe the article should be doing this, but fixing that is not something that involves deletion. CMD ( talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Aside from the first link [15], a paper by an Israeli university, there doesn't seem to be specific coverage of the topic, aside from passing mentions; that is how I have been interpreting significant coverage anyway, to require at least a dedicated chapter or topic. I can't seem to open the second link however. Makeandtoss ( talk) 18:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I took a look at a few of the sources, and I'm not convinced that Olives and olive trees in Israel and Judaism is itself a thing. Much of the content is suitable for the encyclopedia, but some of it belongs in History of agriculture in Israel and some of it might do well as "Olives in Judaism" or part of Jewish symbolism but I'm not seeing that the physical value of olives as an agricultural product and the symbolic value of olives in Judaism are established to be the same thing in the article in its current form. Also—and maybe I just have too much current events on my mind—the authors may take an interest in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel or in drafting an article compiling all the arguments for and against the existence of Israel as a state because maybe this isn't really about olives. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 18:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I must respectfully disagree. The article only deals with the historical and religious perspective. I don't think Israel's legitimacy depends on Olives. I made sure that nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict is mentioned here to avoid further problems. AhmedHijaziElSultani ( talk) 20:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Being respectfully disagreed with is so refreshing. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Just trying to be polite AhmedHijaziElSultani ( talk) 00:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not sarcasm. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 23:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The olive tree and its fruits hold profound significance in Jewish history. It's one of the most important trees in Judaism and holds the designation of the national tree of the State of Israel. Its historical and cultural relevance extends from biblical times through the periods of the Israelite Kingdoms, continuing into the era of the new Yishuv. This article specifically covers the topic from both the historical and religious perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhmedHijaziElSultani ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article by the GNG yet limit the scope. Anything with "in Israel and Judaism" in the title will be problematic. If we examine the Olive article, it will become clear that Judaism is already well covered there and this article is a legitimate SPINOFF. Israel is not well-covered. For example, the article should mention that the olive tree is the national tree of Israel. So no need to spin anything Israeli off. Same with Agriculture in Israel. That article should have more information on different fruits, including olives. gidonb ( talk) 03:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    There seem to be three overlapping but identifiable topics clustered together here: Olive production in Israel (modern), Olive production in ancient Israel, and Olives and olive trees in Judaism. Would you say your comment is to limit this current article to the third of these topics, and direct other information elsewhere? CMD ( talk) 09:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
More or less. Olives and olive trees in Judaism should be the title and content. Olive production in ancient Israel is really included in this topic as the reality in ancient Israel is eternalized through Judaism (books that have been copied, rules that have been made based on that reality). Thus an article Olive production in ancient Israel would have a too large overlap ("CONTENTFORK"). The Israel content should be distributed between Agriculture in Israel and Olive, with some content relevant to both, as legitimate parents/siblings in this respect. Olive production in Israel would be a legitimate SPINOFF of both if there were enough content at the level above. There isn't. To the extent ancient Israel is purely based on historic production/cultivation (not the derivative of laws based thereon), also based in archeology, this is legitimate background/history for both articles. So theoretically that could be legitimate SPINOFF if it grew organically. I just don't see that happen. gidonb ( talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yet there is enough content on Olives and olive trees in Judaism. In fact, if we would merge that to the parent we'd create a situation of UNDUE. Hence, for this part of the article, it is a justified SPINOFF. Also, Judaism is not limited to the "Bible". That's a projection of Christianity. gidonb ( talk) 02:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Right, which is why I argue for either merging this content or narrowing its scope. It is really not robust if you brake the sections down and should be mentioned in these relevant kind of "parent articles" in the first place because some of these olives are scarcely talked about at the moment, maybe indicating that the information just be merged. Right now, I'm unsure if there is actually enough content on Olives in Judaism and I believe it would have to continue to be expanded because it continues to collapse: 1) the practices and history of Ancient Israelites, contemporary Jewish practices, and Jewish religious texts. Of course, these are all related (and sometimes these points are connected well within the article), however, at this point, the often scope seems too broad and the topics disjointed. Perhaps it is better to expand on first as a draft in order to justify SPINOFF with a proper scope. I am unsure.
And I am aware of the fact that Judaism does not adhere to the Christian Bible per se and has other associated texts; this is simply for the purpose of congruence with similar articles such as Animals in the Bible, List of Hebrew Bible events, and so on, you could very well name it something else that is really just semantics, in addition to the fact that the use of "(Hebrew) Bible" (or "Tanakh") could include various texts outside of the Torah that remain relevant religiously and could expand on what is already written. digiulio8 ( talk) 05:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (  | 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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 ( talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Of which article? gidonb ( talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp× g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [16] & [17]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
- StellarHalo ( talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb ( talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile ( talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Jordan

Abdali Hospital

Abdali Hospital (  | 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)

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. 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. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing ++ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Kuwait


Lebanon

Hiba Farès

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

non notable, written by an undisclosed paid editor, sources are terrible Polygnotus ( talk) 21:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Rabih Bou Rached

Rabih Bou Rached (  | 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)

Promotional BLP of a successful businessman with no real claim of notability. Various non notable awards and ROTM coverage in the form of interviews and PR profiles. Mccapra ( talk) 19:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Proposed deletions

Oman


Palestine

Archaeological Seminars Institute

Archaeological Seminars Institute (  | 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)

Tour agency that fails WP:NCORP. Extensive history of WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues. –  Joe ( talk) 18:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

University of Texas at Austin stabbing

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A non-fatal stabbing where a single non-notable person was injured, no deaths. The citations in the background section do not mention this incident as they predate it. There was a brief burst of coverage that it happened and the perpetrator was indicted without hate crime charges (covered only by local media) and there has been no coverage since, failing WP:SUSTAINED.

Additionally, there was a fatal mass stabbing at this same school in 2017 that is substantially closer to passing NEVENT that we do not have an article on (imo it still doesn't pass NEVENT but this is to make a point): the reason this article exists appears to be the Palestine connection.

Due to the circumstances it can probably be merged somewhere if anyone wants that but I have no ideas. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 23:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: The topic is notable as a prominent and specific example of Anti-Palestinian racism, which is precisely what made it stand out as an event against the background noise in the US. It does also have sustained coverage, with the event continuing to fuel the discussion on hate crime in the US some six two and a half months later. Yes, the only reason this topic is notable is the hate crime element ... because that – the context of the violence, not its form – is what is notable. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Who has declared it "prominent"? It made the news for three days and then dropped off the map. It does not have sustained coverage, and there has been no proof of that presented. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 20:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I got the dates muddled: it's two and a half months later with the update, which you know about, do clearly not three days. More generally, one might just say: wait! There's hardly even time for it to be discussed in other mediums than news yet, so it's hard to know what else is expected. Iskandar323 ( talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
A two month update saying it wasn't a hate crime from a local news outlet with no further analysis or retrospection? PARAKANYAA ( talk) 04:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Talk:Khaled Mashal/Third intifada

Talk:Khaled Mashal/Third intifada ( | subject | history | links | watch | logs) – ( View MfD)​

The content of this page was merged here in 2007 after an AfD was closed with disposition to merge the content into Khaled Mashal (mentioned on the talk page here). Unless it was later removed (I haven't checked super thoroughly), that doesn't seem to have ever actually happened. But especially looking at this 17 years later, I'm not sure there's anything worth merging in here. The arguments for this were basically already made in the AfD. And if no one's actually ever going to merge this content, this page has no reason to exist. Kinsio ( talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel

Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (  | 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)

For similar reasons as the previous nomination. The page still does not address a notable subject and therefore fails WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd ( talk | contrib.) 00:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

keep but balance - It's currently skewed and opinionated, but it's a widely discussed topic that might warrant inclusion. It should possibly be expanded to include famine denial in the other direction. Denialism (and accusations of it) are closely related to misinformation, but not quite the same concept, so it doesn't fit as a section of that article to merge. MWQs ( talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Walsh90210 ( talk) 01:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I keep hearing about people denying that Hamas really did this or that Hamas really did that, mostly rumor-level, so my knee-jerk is that reliable sourcing for an article on this subject probably exists, either under its current subject or refocused to conspiracy theories about the 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflict more generally. Per MWQ, I'd be willing to vote keep if we have even one Wikipedian who volunteers to do the considerable work of making the necessary improvements. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge. Seems reliable enough sourcing. Needs some rework, its hard to read in some places in its current form. The background section should probably just be an excerpt from the original article. A lot more quotes than necessary too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete - POV fork. Carrite ( talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Of which article? gidonb ( talk) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I would say "merge", but the content of the article is somewhat indiscriminately written, and I don't think it really belongs anywhere. It is citing all kinds of silly stuff like "some people on Reddit said something dumb" -- #wow #whoa. In March 2024 the Israeli firm CyberWell, which uses artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor, analyze and combat antisemitism on social media sounds like it fell off the back of a press kit -- frankly, half the stuff in here sounds like that. We should not just be directly regurgitating stuff we find in PDFs on think tanks' websites about the malnarrative playbook or whatever. jp× g 🗯️ 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per GNG. Not sure why this was nominated again. There are about 50 references in Hewiki. This means that the subject has been well-covered. There is also legislation to mitigate this denial. The Enwiki article relies heavily on one reference but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Objecting also to the proposed content drift, suggested above. gidonb ( talk) 01:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a strong enough consensus yet. There are editors who believe the subject can be notable but the current article is problematic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll go through them all in order:
  1. The Jerusalem Post – while the reliability of the Jerusalem Post has not been properly assessed at WP:RS/P, I've seen it used enough that I would say it's probably a mostly fine source, but biased with regard to the Arab-Israeli / Israel-Palestine conflict. The publication may or may not be fine, but the article is just an op-ed.
  2. Calcalist CTech – Not assessed and I haven't heard of this one before, so no comment on the publication. But the article itself says next to nothing on the topic, it just happens to contain the keyword "denial."
  3. The ADL – Not an acceptable source on this subject.
  4. Haaretz – Haaretz is in fact a generally reliable source, though some editors expressed concern that it has a slant with regard to the Arab-Israeli and Israel-Palestine conflict. Opinion pieces should be handled appropriately. The source you've linked to is in fact an opinion piece.
  5. The Sydney Morning Herald – The SMH is in fact a generally reliable source, and this is actually a good article. This is the best one on your list, one of the only ones I'd support being in the article at all. Another point of praise for this article is that its author is the chief reporter for The Age, another generally reliable source.
  6. The Washington Post – WaPo is a generally reliable source, and the one article from them is already the basis of the vast majority of this Wikipedia article. Much of the problematic content in the article cites this WaPo article, such as the sections that give undue weight to random nobodies on the internet and fringe commentators. The outlet is good. The article itself, not so much.
  7. Newsweek – Newsweek is not a reliable source, and hasn't been one since 2013.
  8. The Forward – Not assessed, but this looks like a decent op-ed. It could be used to improve the article, but only for statements of opinion, not for statements of fact.
  9. The Irish Times – Not assessed, but I'll assume it to be reliable. However, the article is simply about a statement that was made by an Israeli ambassador, so it can't really be much help for this article.
  10. Jewish Insider – Not assessed, but this article says essentially nothing about denial or deniers. It just happens to contain the keyword.
  11. The New York Sun – Not assessed, but I am very skeptical considering it's a "conservative outlet" and the author of that article notes in his bio that he proudly worked under Rush Limbaugh for 25 years. Probably not something we'd want to use for Wikivoice statements.
TL;DR: while that long list of sources may look impressive, this does very little to help establish notability.
A lot of the sources on that list are from the same outlet (2 from the ADL, 3 from the Jerusalem Post; multiple articles from the same publication does not increase notability), some of the publications are bad, almost all of them cannot be used for statements of fact, and a few of them have nothing to do with the topic. I don't think very many of these sources are worthy of being in the article. I'll grant that there was actually a good one in there, I think the Sydney Morning Herald article is pretty good. But there's just not enough quality sources on the subject to form an article on it. Op-eds are insufficient for making statements of fact in Wikivoice, and an encyclopedia article on a sensitive subject like denial of a tragedy deserves better quality sources.
I appreciate that you took the time to search for all those articles, it did give me pause, but upon closer examination it made me more comfortable with my delete !vote.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep A notable subject, plenty of coverage even a legislative action. - Altenmann >talk 21:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Pass WP:GNG as a notable subject covered by RS. First, the article is not good but, per WP:ARTN, very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Second, there is no policy stating that op-eds from reliable outlets cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. Besides the sources Zanahary has provided above, there are more:
  1. Haaretz, unlike the one provided by Zanahary, this one is not an op-ed
  2. Tagesspiegel
  3. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
  4. Il Foglio
  5. Libération: [20] & [21]
  6. The New Statesman
  7. The Australian
  8. Le Figaro
  9. Il Giornale
  10. La Repubblica
  11. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  12. academic article in Journal of Genocide Research
  13. academic article in Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
  14. American Jewish Comittee
  15. Jewish Insider
  16. ynet news
  17. i24 News
  18. The Guardian
  19. Jewish News Syndicate
  20. The New York Times
  21. The Atlantic
  22. MSNBC
  23. Die Welt
  24. Star Tribune
- StellarHalo ( talk) 11:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – As an alternative to deletion, can I suggest redirecting to Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war? The title is a plausible search term and it certainly has potential to become a standalone article in future. That is, if consensus to delete does form – it looks to me like the discussion is headed towards keeping the article or another "no consensus" result. 5225C ( talk •  contributions) 19:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC), expanded 19:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Redirect would be a very bad solution as notability has been established beyond doubt and NOT or FORK does not apply. One might consider merger, however, this would create a situation of UNDUE. In other words, the article is a legitimate SPINOFF and should be kept. gidonb ( talk) 23:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm open to redirecting or merging as an alternative to deletion. Regardless of independent notability, which I still think is very debatable, another concern we have to take into consideration when discussing if a standalone article is warranted is whether or not the sources used to determine notability can actually be used to develop an article (hence the concern over how >90% of sources on the subject are opinion pieces that cannot be used to make any statement of fact in WikiVoice). Most of the sources on the subject just aren't good enough to develop the article into something better than the miserable one we have now. This page can either exist as a bad article or a good stub. Take the few good sources we have to write 1 good paragraph on the subject, and put it in the Misinformation article. That'd be better for readers than what we have here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fine for me also. Onceinawhile ( talk) 02:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oppose redirect or merging: I provided 24 new sources above and only the last 6 of those are opinion pieces. There are enough contents to make a standalone article. StellarHalo ( talk) 23:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is valid sub-page of Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war - based on the sourcing provided and discussed above on this page. "Opinion pieces" or not, but they are multiple publications in mainstream sources and sufficient to establish notability. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Express Reservations I haven't checked all of Zanahary and StellarHalo's links, but I checked about 10 of them, and the only one that was actually about the topic (rather than general dissatisfaction with Israel, self-inflicted concern that somebody might deny the attacks, or a few fringe opinions from marginal celebrities) was the SMH piece. The article is barebones as well, trying to make something out of (almost) nothing. Frankly, there is not enough content distinct from Misinformation in the Israel–Hamas war for a separate article. But, this will probably be kept as-is anyway. Walsh90210 ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources listed above, the article clearly meets the requirements for being independently notable. However, the article does require significant improvements. FortunateSons ( talk) 08:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Deletion Review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Redirects

</noinclude>


Qatar


Saudi Arabia

AfD debates

Articles with proposed deletion tags


Syria

Franco Pillarella

Franco Pillarella (  | 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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Turkey

Didem (belly dancer)

Didem (belly dancer) (  | 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:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل ( talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bosphorus Development

Bosphorus Development (  | 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)

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom ~ Politicdude ( About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yabani

Yabani (  | 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 but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.

On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The target if redirect is chosen could be NOW_(Turkish_TV_channel)#Weekly_series.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk ( talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You need to provide the reviews. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, redirect is better. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 05:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply


Others

United Arab Emirates


Yemen

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Middle_East&oldid=1235034671"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE