Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

Purge page cache

watch

Operations attributed to Israel in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable article with very biased language such as: "Israel has rarely been held accountable for its destructive actions."

Nothing more than a list of incidents/operations.

Contains information from other articles such as Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mentions a 2007 explosion at Parchin while information is included on Parchin's article, so why do we need it here? And attribution to Israel to attacks or incidents in Iran is reported all the time by the Iranian government. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an article on actual Israeli operations in Iran in the wider Iran-Israel proxy conflict?

Was copied from the Farsi Wikipedia. Creator has a long history of copying articles from this Wikipedia and creating the English version. I suspect the Farsi Wikipedia of having NPOV issues with the articles related to Iran and Israel that this creator. Not to mention that this article is under the category of Zionist political violence which is not supported by information in this article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, and Israel. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a FORK — both POV and REDUNDANT — of Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage. As nom mentioned, the tone is highly non-encyclopedic. More importantly, the relevant content is adequately covered in Iran–Israel proxy conflict.

Note that the AfDd list is considerably broader and includes, for example, a terrorism incident in Iran where Iranian authorities blamed Israel, Israel denied involvement, and ISIS claimed responsibility. Such cases do not belong in a table about Iran–Israel operations. Such an accusation can be mentioned in the body of the relevant article. gidonb (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in another Afd of a similar matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran-Israel non-political relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look there as well. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is important because When something bad happens, Iran blames Israel Like: Kerman Bombings Farcazo (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote doesn't address the issues with the article nor explain any necessity. Any information like this can be just on the respective articles like the one linked for some reason externally, which is already mentioned on that article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant fork. There are already enough articles covering the same subject. Azuredivay (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage, mentioned in the discussion, a suitable redirect target? Or are we better with outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant fork and merge any usable content to related articles. MaggieT19 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cairo Higher Institute of Cinema people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redundant to Category:Cairo Higher Institute of Cinema alumni Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It has different information because some of the people are different professions (e.g., directors, actors, writers), and it is easier to look up alumni/faculty by profession from the list. Also some people are on the list who are not in the category. Also some people in the list are faculty members and would not be included in the alumni category. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 21:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to see the expansion of the category to include those people. I think a category is a better fit here unless there is secondary information about each person in the list that is necessary to understanding the group as a whole. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are a ton of lists that can be found through categories, like List of California Institute of Technology people. I don't see why this one would be an exception. User01938 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was nominated for deletion by Bearcat, part of their rationale was, "WP:BLP of a media entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for media figures. As always, founders of television channels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other things, with no evidence shown at all of any GNG-worthy coverage with him as its subject." Although re-written, this still applies. The second part of Bearcat's rationale dealt with COI editing, which has only been exacerbated by the most recent edits of a blatant COI/UPE editor. I also agree with Bearian's assessment in the prior AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Egypt, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Youssef El Deeb is not simply a "founder"; he is a significant media figure in the Arab world. His creation of Fatafeat TV — later acquired by Discovery — is a landmark event in Arab media, widely covered in **independent** and **reliable** sources such as *Deadline*, *The Hollywood Reporter*, and *BroadcastPro ME* (not primary or promotional outlets).
• He also held senior executive roles at MBC and Rotana, and his creative work in film and TV has been recognized with awards — further reinforcing his notability under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT.
• The current version of the article uses multiple **independent** and **significant** sources that focus on El Deeb himself, not just passing mentions. This satisfies the sourcing standard under GNG.
• The deletion rationale cites past versions, but the article has been substantially rewritten and resourced. The presence of COI/UPE concerns is not, in itself, grounds for deletion — per WP:NOTCLEAN, what matters is whether the article **now** meets policy. It does.
• Editors are welcome to continue improving neutrality or trimming promotional tone, but deletion would discard verifiable coverage of a genuinely notable figure in Arab media.

~~~~ Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the above editor is either a COI or UPE editor.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't an accusation you should make without evidence, and goes against good-faith discussion. Ike Lek (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. While this is a reliable source, I had to scroll through all 7 paragraphs and multiple ads to find the producer mentioned as a literal afterthought. The rest of the sources are less than reliable or more passing mentions. There's a myth about producers that they are rare, creative performers of some kind. They're business people; some are notable, most are not. I feel I have to repeat myself that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Only passing mentions from press releases. Highly promotional. WP is not LinkedIn. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 16:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:* Keep – The deletion arguments rely on outdated or incorrect information. Youssef El Deeb is a notable figure in Arab media, having founded Fatafeat TV, sold to Discovery, and produced award-winning films. Multiple independent, reliable sources focus specifically on him.Preceding !vote struck as duplicate !vote. Leaving the rest as comments.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Claims of promotional tone or COI editing do not justify deletion. If there are issues, they should be fixed by neutral editing, not removal.
  • The this is not Linkedin argument ignores real-world impact and reliable coverage. Deletion would erase a notable media personality with clear public recognition.
  • Please evaluate the article based on verifiable facts and reliable sources, not on assumptions or editor speculation.

  Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hafez El-Sayed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging our Egyptian Olympians expert, @Canadian Paul:. Is there anything to find here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been a bit busy, but I will take a look later today to see what I can find on the three I was pinged on. Canadian Paul 17:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now, perhaps to Weightlifting at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 52 kg. There is a lot of coverage of him as part of various sporting teams in the mid-1980s, but the commonality of his name (he usually goes by just El-Sayed Hafez) makes it difficult to pinpoint articles with a specific focus on him with just a brief search. I'm confident that I could find appropriate coverage given more time, but until that coverage is located, a redirect seems fine. Canadian Paul 03:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Basically per Canadian Paul who can actually speak Arabic unlike me. I also failed to find anything, with the commonality of the name being the biggest barrier here. FOARP (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. The sources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they have brought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would be WP:UNDUE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [1]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the sources used in the article, I believe [2][3][4][5][6] satisfy requirements. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is not independent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.

  None of these sources satisfy the requirements of the GNG or NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe that WP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR does Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. No SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, did not medal and no WP:SIGCOV. (Edit: Redirect is okay too.) GoldRomean (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging @Canadian Paul:, who usually is able to find sources for Egyptian Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I also find some results for Mediterranean Games and World Weightlifting Championships, so there may be GNG sources about these events, too, if Paul is looking. Kingsif (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we get a relist here? I haven't had the chance to do a proper search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist due to editor request but do not be surprised if this is closed before next Monday.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now to Weightlifting at the 2001 Mediterranean Games. There are mentions of his Mediterranean and Olympic participation, but his name is common enough to make appropriate coverage difficult to find. I think that such coverage exists, but it would take more than a basic search to be found, so redirect to his medalling achievement seems the best option until someone has the time to find that coverage. Canadian Paul 03:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm open to a redirect, but I would go for Egypt at the 2004 Summer Olympics as a better target. Let'srun (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage. Would support a redirect to Egypt at the 2004 Summer Olympics as an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Arab American Vehicles (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• East Mediterranean Gas Company (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Egyptalum (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• eSpace (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Herrawi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Ibrachy & Dermarkar (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Mo'men (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Olympic Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Seoudi Group (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Shotmed Paper Industries (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Corona (confectioner) (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Starworld (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
• Bahgat Group (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)

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

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

He is not notable. I couldn't even find him in news, Google (actually was mentioned in some posts about being in prison but not enough) or other search engines. Esteghlal Tehran Fans (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Esteghlal Tehran Fans (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Google search also shows nothing in news or other reliable sources. Edard Socceryg (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify - a good segment of the article seems uncited and I could not find more citations as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvinnen (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: Found a few Persian sources [7][8][9][10][11], but not convinced they're WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if you're searching for sources, his Persian name (شادمهر عقیلی) will yield better results than the English. GoldRomean (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If this article is deleted, then the article about one of his albums Tarafdaar should be AFD-nominated as well since it was previously PRODded but then de-PRODded. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All of the sourced information was copied over to Psychological torture. This article is now riddled with [citation needed]s and content that can be found elsewhere. It doesn't serve an encyclopaedic purpose, any new information regarding this topic can be added to Psychological torture#White torture. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Terrorism, Iran, Venezuela, and United States of America. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back and Pigsonthewing: Since the former took part in the discussion about the article and the latter because they edited the article recently. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't really understand the nom - White torture is a type of Psychological torture but not the only type. Hence there is plenty to say there outwith of this topic. And there are lots of reliable sources directly discussing White torture so it's not unreasonable to have more detail on this page than on the other. Looking at the sources it doesn't look like it would be particularly difficult to properly reference the section that currently needs more citations. JMWt (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. It is well sourced by reliable and independent references and widely used term. Fade258 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of coverage on Google Scholars and Books. The argument made by the nominator verges on WP:TNT, but there are no strong signs of a need for a clean restart. Aintabli (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This doesn't seem like it exists. AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Iran. AlexBobCharles (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Haydaryoon maybe is more accurate. Persian: "نیروی حیدریون".

  Edard Socceryg (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No any WP:RS. Not meet WP:GNG. HumanRight 19:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. HumanRight 19:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could someone assess the reliability of the sources? Are they mainstream newspapers? There’s no requirement that references be in English. Is it a fork of Persian Wikipedia? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one of the sources says that it was set up in opposition to “Zionist Wikipedia”. I can’t find any additional coverage in reliable sources and what is in the article isn’t sufficient to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Abbasi Caravansarai, Bisotun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page is mostly made up of obvious AI-generated content that cannot be verified, as several of the links are broken and the rest are in Arabic. One section, "Analyzing Spatial and Social Dynamics of Caravanserais Using Space Syntax", is clearly made up. It is written in the format of a list, and is highly repetitive, containing very little useful information and talking at length about minor details. Buzzwords such as "vibrant", "cultural", and "enhance" compromise its encyclopedic tone. Since these features have ben present since the first version, this article cannot be reverted to a previous version to fix these issues, and a copyedit would require replacement of almost every section in the article.

• Comment: Sources being in Arabic is no problem, see WP:NONENG. Stockhausenfan (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Update: It looks like it's Persian, not Arabic. Somepinkdude (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it somehow does pass notability, it would still be better to restart from a redlink than to sift through what was accurate in the AI text and what was hallucinated. Bremps... 14:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and revert. Clearly notable after a simple scholar search. We should not delete this on AI grounds, we can simply revert to the 7 May version of the page if it is indeed notable. The page was started in 2017 so we're not in TNT land, and the "every version of the article" is clearly wrong: see [12]. I'd revert myself but don't want to disrupt the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and revert per SportingFlyer. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Iran–Israel war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of content that already exists at Iran-Israel war and on the other articles related to this conflict, but in a lower quality and with some degree of WP:TRIVIA. Perhaps at some point a more standard WP:TIMELINE consisting in bulleted lists or tables can be drafted, but this requires having the consensus to delete this current article first. JBchrch talk 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and Israel. JBchrch talk 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Took some time to think about this one. For context, this article was WP:SPLIT from the main section and was subsequently trimmed to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (by myself), taking out thousands of words in a series of edits. So in fairness, this is not just a duplicate, but instead includes extensive WP:DETAIL. However, while trivia isn't the best word to describe the content, based on it's meaning, the topic does include content that is of little use or value to the WP project. I'm referring to ages of victims, severity of injuries, specific non-notable buildings that were destroyed, results of individual missiles, unconfirmed reports, unverified accounts, and more. There is otherwise no expectation of further content to be added here (without invoking WP:CRYSTAL), thus it also serves little purpose to retain this topic. I also agree with the idea of a bullet point or table-based format for readers, as this is really not that helpful at present. Otherwise, should the conflict extend and thus the main topic expand further, the Timeline section could effectively be split out again (a cleaner version) if WP:ARTICLESIZE becomes an issue again. CNC (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Duplicating the main article. killer bee  16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE this does not need to be kept as is separate to the other article already mentioned by others above. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need to have duplicate articles, the "Timeline" section of Iran–Israel war already states the same information. If anything needs to be cleaned up, it should be done on the main article. Nickpunk (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. The sources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they have brought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would be WP:UNDUE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [13]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the sources used in the article, I believe [14][15][16][17][18] satisfy requirements. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is not independent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.

  None of these sources satisfy the requirements of the GNG or NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe that WP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR does Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Everything here that mentions the government is a primary source from the transitional government itself, or a related Iranian diaspora organization. There are no secondary sources for things besides statements from Pahlavi.

Source analysis:

• 1 is a Twitter link.
• 2 is a diaspora Iranian organization, primary source.
• 3 is the closest thing here to a secondary source, but also fails to establish this as a clear new government, if anything it provides notability for an article called "Munich Convergence Meeting" rather than the government. The article itself states that the meeting did not intend to "launch a new organization."
• 4 talks about the conference but doesn't mention the government.
• 5 to 19 are all either Twitter links, or reliable sources that discuss Reza Pahlavi's statements, but do not actually discuss the transitional government.
• 20 to 27 are primary sources from the government themselves.
• 28 to 34 again, are news articles discussing Pahlavi and the prospect of regime change.

In short, there are no secondary sources that establish the transitional government is notable, and no news articles that even mention it existing. As such I don't think it meets notability guidelines. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note that a single news article (from a secondary source) that elaborates on what the transition government actually is would likely at least establish it exists, its just that everything listed so far either is a primary source or a news article of Pahlavi saying that he has a "transition plan" which is distinct from the fully fledged organization described in this article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 17:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete* as premature and not noteworthy as evidenced by the lack of RS on the subject.65.229.28.177 (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is fairly common for Wikipedia to have articles about governments in exile, (such as Ukraine Salvation Committee, Free Joseon and Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam) and for self-proclaimed alternative governments, (such as Government of Peace and Unity and Government of National Stability and the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia). Therefore I see no reason why a government in exile / alternative government being formed for Iran by a prominent member of the Iranian royal house should not warrant such an article.Dn9ahx (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I wouldn't reject notability entirely as it is quite often discussed among opposition groups especially with recent events. I do though have some hesitancy about a full article since it's mostly proposals at this time and not any institutional government right now (PM, cabinet, etc). Because of this, I think the material in the article should be transferred over to the Iranian opposition page, and it can separate out as an article in the future if an actual transitional government is formed. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep (note that I wrote the article): The topic is very notable and naturally governments in exile of non Anglo-Saxon countries tend to be covered mainly by diaspora newspapers in their native languages. That’s why many of the sources are non English and come from diaspora based outlets. This particular government in exile is in formation since February and has grown particularly relevant following the Iran Israel war. Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Dn9ahx KiltedKangaroo (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of sourcing raised by MaggieT19: the sources include several prominent outlets such as AP News, the BBC, and Bloomberg. I’ve also added Politico and DW. It appears an editor mistakenly included Twitter as a source. I’ve since removed it. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all twitter sources added by editors. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article topic is notable, it just needs better sources and perhaps a rewrite. MaggieT19 (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: After looking through the sources again, I've decided to support deletion—there just isn't enough substantial coverage to justify a standalone article. MaggieT19 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Dn9ahx Mahan (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If the threshold for notability is coverage by diaspora groups and media, then any opposition or separatist movement could have a "transition government" article for some hypothetical future. Should there be a Chinese transitional government article or US dictatorship article just because some authors in reliable sources have speculated on these topics? No, of course not, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. A claimed exile government is different in that it at least exists, but having an article dedicated to a transitional government that is merely speculative seems WP:TOOSOON. Yue🌙 18:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This topic is notable and is oftentimes discussed amongst Iranian opposition groups and individual figures. Even if it is not notable here, it may be notable elsewhere. ISRO4883 (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole Idea behind making this article is nonsense to me. When no transitional government of Iran "exists" (not in exile or anything else), what is the use of making an article about a proposed one (who proposes what?). A government is made of ministers, their deputies etc, not just a single/multiple claimants.The.shahab (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What do these have to do with deletion of the article? Edard Socceryg (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I can say that it is one of the most important and significant issues in the Middle East in the last hundred years. The topic of the article is well covered in Arabic and Persian sources. Edard Socceryg (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on USA and Israel supported sources. They want put pressure on Iranian leaders using this! 89.199.191.80 (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a propaganda against Ali Khamenei. 5.106.188.125 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this topic is already being covered in a similar article. MaggieT19 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whole lot of speculation being used here; nothing's happened to make the government change. People talk about this happening, but it's all speculation at this point. TOOSOON or CRYSTALBALL. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b Whether the regime changes or not is irrelevant to this article. Even the fact that such an idea is being raised at this time by the Iranian regime’s opposition is very significant. The Iranian regime is threatening their lives, and yet, at this critical time, they have taken action. Please do not comment without considering the situation in the Middle East. Nothing needs to happen. The idea (and timing) itself is important enough. Edard Socceryg (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but this particular attempt isn't more notable than the one before it. You could lump them together into one article perhaps, but this version isn't special. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a great article, it will be a great pity if its deleted. Why would you delete an article about an Iranian government in exile? If we were in WW2 would you delete the article on the French government in exile? 152.207.224.227 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We aren't in a World War. If it was WW2, they'd still need sourcing anyway. Not a bunch of Twitter links and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I didn't want to write this but I see there are some Iranian regime apologists who voted so I feel compelled to counter them. 80.191.253.162 (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Focus on the sourcing, not the ideaology. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Make Iran Great Again 185.115.78.239 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm happy I was reading the article Azerbaijanis in Iran and noticed the article. This article could be seriously developed and extended (In a better way). The topic of the article has been covered by BBC Persian, Iran International, most of the mainstream Persian and non-Persian international media. How do some users allow themselves to consider themselves experts on the subject of politics and determining the fate of the people of the region? We Wiki users can not saying that because the Iranian government is not falling, then this article should be deleted! That is not logical! What matters are the sources. In all the important and mainstream sources, this has been an important and ongoing subject. Sixtytwoally (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:SOAP: as far as I can tell, this "transition[al?] government" consists of exactly one person, Reza Pahlavi, who already has a Wikipedia page. At most, his page could be updated with his newest claims. However, claiming that Iran even has a "transitional government" is not just misleading and politically motivated; it is simply false. Iran's government is clearly not in the process of a "transition". Note also that one man from a deposed monarchy living in exile does not constitute a government. Therefore, neither "transitional" nor "government" are correct. Moreover, the term "transitional government" redirects to "provisional government" on Wikipedia, and refers to an entity that has actually taken power in-country and is overseeing a period of crisis or instability. For example, the Irish Provisional Government of 1922 formed after Great Britain signed the treaty granting Irish independence; it wasn't competing with an existing, recognized government as Pahlavi is doing. The Irish Provisional Government had ministers, organized elections, maintained law and order, managed national utilities (etc.) from the government seat in Dublin. This bears zero resemblance to Reza Pahlavi, who is literally just a pretender in exile. 2003:102:6F03:73C5:AE77:9B1C:D300:F111 (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This page will disrespect Iranian Leader, Seyed Ali Khamenei. Disrespecting people is against Wikipedia rules. 89.199.91.189 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources don't support the assertion made in this article, i.e. that there is a "transition government." Most of it can be covered elsewhere, including at Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page semi-protected to stop drive-by IPs from turning this into a political arena. Legitimate non-autoconfirmed users are welcome to leave comments on this AfD's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 21:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operations attributed to Israel in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable article with very biased language such as: "Israel has rarely been held accountable for its destructive actions."

Nothing more than a list of incidents/operations.

Contains information from other articles such as Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mentions a 2007 explosion at Parchin while information is included on Parchin's article, so why do we need it here? And attribution to Israel to attacks or incidents in Iran is reported all the time by the Iranian government. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an article on actual Israeli operations in Iran in the wider Iran-Israel proxy conflict?

Was copied from the Farsi Wikipedia. Creator has a long history of copying articles from this Wikipedia and creating the English version. I suspect the Farsi Wikipedia of having NPOV issues with the articles related to Iran and Israel that this creator. Not to mention that this article is under the category of Zionist political violence which is not supported by information in this article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, and Israel. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a FORK — both POV and REDUNDANT — of Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage. As nom mentioned, the tone is highly non-encyclopedic. More importantly, the relevant content is adequately covered in Iran–Israel proxy conflict.

Note that the AfDd list is considerably broader and includes, for example, a terrorism incident in Iran where Iranian authorities blamed Israel, Israel denied involvement, and ISIS claimed responsibility. Such cases do not belong in a table about Iran–Israel operations. Such an accusation can be mentioned in the body of the relevant article. gidonb (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in another Afd of a similar matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran-Israel non-political relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look there as well. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is important because When something bad happens, Iran blames Israel Like: Kerman Bombings Farcazo (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote doesn't address the issues with the article nor explain any necessity. Any information like this can be just on the respective articles like the one linked for some reason externally, which is already mentioned on that article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant fork. There are already enough articles covering the same subject. Azuredivay (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage, mentioned in the discussion, a suitable redirect target? Or are we better with outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant fork and merge any usable content to related articles. MaggieT19 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Isfahan explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Iran. XYZ1233212 (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was internationally reported including by non-typical sources such as MTV. There are multiple stories here which contribute to broad coverage and GNG. One is the industrial disaster, but also the profile of the related corporations and players responsible. Also sources have connected this explosion to the military manufacturing of weaponized drones, and that weapons manufacturing is of international concern beyond typical stories of industrial disaster. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. Only secondary sources contribute to GNG. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Iraq. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A search of the Eastmain MENA database turned up this brief story, but other than telling you that Mukhtar was in the 1st Division of the Iraqi army, it provides no other details and doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. Someone with better knowledge of Arabic might do better than I did, but I wasn't able to find any hits searching for Mukhtar's Arabic name as provided on Olympedia (which appears to have been transcribed as Qassim Mukhtar). (EDIT: that’s a Delete then). FOARP (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: We don't have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG, either here or through a WP:BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Babil governorate council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no sources and there have not been any since 2009, nor could I locate any after various google searches and going through all the links on the no-sources template. Fails WP:N and could probably be redirected to 2005 Iraqi governorate elections. Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 17:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I highly doubt an election to a second tier authority in any English speaking country would get deleted (e.g. a State Assembly election), so this does look a bit like systematic bias. Have you carried out searches in Arabic? I would also imagine a lot of news coverage at the time in Iraq was in the printed press? Number 57 20:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Restarting a deletion discussion for this article, will aim to detail in a reply Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Organizations, Politics, and Iraq. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I originally nominated this article for deletion back in March of this year. Following a larger search for sources, I only found five worth noting:

• Constitution of the party
• Iraq Country Assessment by the UK, on page 66
• Leftist Parties of Iraq (now dead website), mentions year of establishment, founder, and ideology
• Europa World Year, mentions opposition to Kurdish region
• Journal article by Vahram Petrosian, on page 25

Even within these sources, the subject is only given small mentions that are one or a few sentences in length. A commenter on the previous AfD mentioned that there would've been print media discussions of the party, though I couldn't find any such sources archived (even by searching the name of the party in Arabic, no results come up). Having not found more than these five sources with more or similar discussion, it's safe to assume that the articles fails Wikipedia:SIGCOV beyond trivial mentions and, although noting that reliable sources exist mentioning the party, that WP:ORGSIG applies as other similar parties exist that advocate for the same things. I argue for deletion based on these merits. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This was the party of Saddam Hussein, who was executed in 2006. Nothing found that indicates this party still exists. — Maile (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Notability is not temporary. Just because it is no longer exists does not itself mean it isn't notable. Curbon7 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "This was the party of Saddam Hussein"? What? Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this already passed a AfD very recently. Nothing has changed since, and my argument remains: "whilst contemporary internet coverage is very scarse, it is worth noting that it would have received media attention in print media in Iraq at the time (esp. as being propped up by the govt at the time). The stance on national question is also interesting, as contrast to other groups. Here is an English version of its program [19]." --Soman (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allblessed (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question to @Soman - I stated above that I couldn't find any print media discussions of the party anywhere online, much less archived. What exactly is your rationale for keeping the article if these sources can't be found, and the existing sources do not indicate sufficient notability? Surayeproject3 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Coverage in Iraqi media, being propped up by the government" would also be very far from WP:Reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the sources can't be found is very different from saying you couldn't find them. It is also possible they are not on the internet. A deeper dive into the additional sources on the more expansive Catalan Wikipedia article on the subject could be a good starting point. Ike Lek (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ike Lek I'm referring to Soman's mentioning of "print media in Iraq", which I couldn't find anywhere. I looked at the Catalan Wikipedia, some of the sources I linked in my first comment were cited there, and my point still stands. That of course doesn't preclude that the article can be expanded if extra sources are rediscovered, but it's been nearly 18 years with very little additions since then so I doubt they exist. The topic is simply not notable and any available discussion is incredibly light to justify the article as it is. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recently nominated for deletion by Scientelensia, who's rationale still holds true: "is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page." Currently only primary sources. My searches turned up the same thing as Oaktree's during the prior AfD: "I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: why was this recreated? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was closed as a "soft delete" which equates as a "prod", which was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a notable political commentator fitting the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. All of the sources are secondary, not primary, sources. Among other things, none of the references are written by the subject of the article. While work can be done to improve the article, deleting it is not the appropriate remedy for any concerns. Coining (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see plenty of secondary sources. HitchensT (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Judaism, and Israel. Coining (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Iran–Israel war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of content that already exists at Iran-Israel war and on the other articles related to this conflict, but in a lower quality and with some degree of WP:TRIVIA. Perhaps at some point a more standard WP:TIMELINE consisting in bulleted lists or tables can be drafted, but this requires having the consensus to delete this current article first. JBchrch talk 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, and Israel. JBchrch talk 12:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Took some time to think about this one. For context, this article was WP:SPLIT from the main section and was subsequently trimmed to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (by myself), taking out thousands of words in a series of edits. So in fairness, this is not just a duplicate, but instead includes extensive WP:DETAIL. However, while trivia isn't the best word to describe the content, based on it's meaning, the topic does include content that is of little use or value to the WP project. I'm referring to ages of victims, severity of injuries, specific non-notable buildings that were destroyed, results of individual missiles, unconfirmed reports, unverified accounts, and more. There is otherwise no expectation of further content to be added here (without invoking WP:CRYSTAL), thus it also serves little purpose to retain this topic. I also agree with the idea of a bullet point or table-based format for readers, as this is really not that helpful at present. Otherwise, should the conflict extend and thus the main topic expand further, the Timeline section could effectively be split out again (a cleaner version) if WP:ARTICLESIZE becomes an issue again. CNC (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Duplicating the main article. killer bee  16:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE this does not need to be kept as is separate to the other article already mentioned by others above. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No need to have duplicate articles, the "Timeline" section of Iran–Israel war already states the same information. If anything needs to be cleaned up, it should be done on the main article. Nickpunk (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm not convinced this band meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND . Most of the sources are in Hebrew and offer only passing coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Israel. Chronos.Zx (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has coverage from Times of Israel, Israel's state-run media, The Jerusalem Post, The Haaretz, highly reliable and English-language media. Lobogamio (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The nominator already acknowledged that is has coverage, namely passing coverage, so are you able to reply about the quality/nature of the coverage? Geschichte (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other articles from Israeli bands Hamakor (band) prove that The Jerusalem Post is a highly reliable journalistic source Lobogamio (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm a fluent Hebrew speaker, and I can confirm that Jane Bordeaux is a very prominent and widely recognized band in Israel. While English-language sources may be limited, there are still notable and reliable ones such as:

1. The Jerusalem Post
2. The Forward
3. Israel21c

These provide more than just passing coverage and confirm international recognition.

In Hebrew-language media, the band receives extensive, in-depth coverage across leading outlets, including interviews, reviews, and TV appearances. Their songs have millions of views and streams, for example:

1. "Ma Shekarah" – 19M views
2. "Ech Efshar She'Lo" – 6.4M views
3. "Einav" – 5.1M views
4. "Tslilim" – 2.7M views
5. "Song 5" – 1.7M views
6. "Song 6" – 1.2M views

This level of public engagement and cultural presence strongly supports notability under both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Given their national prominence, significant online following, and multiple independent media features, deletion would disregard the global diversity of cultural notability. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources indicated. Well-known Israeli band. gidonb (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and passes GNG and does so with reliable sources even in the RS/P list. Should not have been nominated and nomination should be withdrawn. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why would it be a problem or surprising that sources are in Hebrew? Isn't this an Israeli band? Where did nominator find these sources? Do they know Hebrew? And since when is being unsure a reason to nominate an article? Don't we have tons of AfDs already, without opening such procedures based on hesitation? gidonb (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not pass NEVENT, coverage is not sustained. Not even sure if this happened as described? Only sources are primary "war updates" that don't frame it this way or maps from dubious sources or news articles that don't mention this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Palestine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NEVENT. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that describe this as a "siege" or frame the event as notable in itself. Most of the references are either war updates without analytical framing, unverifiable maps, or news articles that do not support the narrative described in the article. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Also, the article is baised. It claims Palestinian victory whilst source 2 claims the town was successfully conquered so if we keep it we need a major fact-check effort. DGtal (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change name: Definitely keep. Multiple sources treat the events in al-Qarara as their own independent campaign. These include:

Iran Update, March 21, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War. Institue for the Study of War classified the events in al-Qarara as their own independent operation, writing: "The IDF 7th Brigade (36th Division) killed Palestinian fighters in the area and destroyed military infrastructure, including rocket launch shafts.[37] Israeli forces conducted waves of airstrikes on Qarara as part of the operation.[38] Israeli forces have been operating in Qarara since March 3.[39] PIJ fighters targeted Israeli infantrymen breaching a tunnel in Qarara on March 21 by rigging the tunnel entrance to explode.[40] Hamas fighters targeted two Israeli tanks with rocket-propelled grenades west of Qarara."

It then repeated its reports on the al-Qarara clashes in March 24th: "The IDF 7th Brigade and Kfir Brigade continued clearing operations in Qarara, northern Khan Younis, on March 24.[19] The brigades killed Palestinian fighters near the Israel-Gaza Strip border and targeted a meeting site for Hamas fighters in Qarara.[20] Israeli forces seized weapons caches and an IDF helicopter struck a tunnel shaft in Qarara.[21] Palestinian militias did not claim attacks targeting Israeli forces in Qarara on March 24."

Then again on March 29, it continued to claim that there was a campaign in al-Qarara saying: "Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in al Amal and al Qarara neighborhoods of Khan Younis on March 29."

Then there is The Latest Situation In The South Of The Gaza Strip And Khan Yunis (Map) - Islamic World News which details Israeli efforts to surround al-Qarara specificaly.

The same source also returns to al-Qarara as it neared the battle's end. Latest Updates Gaza Strip, 16 March 2024 - Islamic World News: "According to the latest information, the Israeli regime’s army has retreated from some conflict zones in Khan Yunis city and concentrated its armored units in Al-Qarara town and its surroundings. In the past 48 hours, after Israeli artillery and aerial attacks on Al-Qarara, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of several Palestinians, the military personnel of the occupying regime made slight progress in this axis."

Another maariv article https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1090909 also mentions Israeli plans to find POWs and Hamas leaders/officials in al-Qarara that had failed, which also is another statement of an independent campaign with its own goals.

However, few if any of these sources call the events in al-Qarara a siege. So there is definitely reason to keep it but perhaps the name of a siege is undue. Genabab (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are secondary, they're all primary "news updates" from when it happened with no continued coverage to pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA That isn't true. The maariv source is secondary for one. Secondly, several agricultural journals have also focused on the effects of the campaign by noting its impact on Gazan ecology as it lead to the destruction of the only baladi seed bank in Gaza. These reports emerged after the campaign had ended, which thus satisfies the duration of covereage in WP:NEVENT. Please note the part that says:

"If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." Their focus on specifically al-Qarara makes it fit as a case study. It also fits diversity of sources since an agricultural journal remarking the notability of the events in al-Qarara is certainly very different to ISW. Genabab (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was from the week this happened, it is neither sustained nor secondary. These aren't case studies, they're news updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA

The agricultural report I mentioned was published in October of 2024. The battle in al-Qarara ended in *april*. That's a 6 month gap. Not a week. The other one was from September of 2024. Not April.

And they are case studies, not news updates. When I say journal I do mean journal, not a news site.

Hell reporting on the effects of the attacks in al-Qarara are going on this year too. Take for instance:

Al-Qarara Museum: A Testament to Palestinian Resilience Amid Israeli Destruction | Safa News Agency - English Edition. It even refers to an invasion of al-Qarara by Israeli forces. Genabab (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the agricultural report? All the sources you have linked are primary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whats-next-for-Gazas-foodsystems.pdf

and

Success-Reslience-Story-Seed-Bank_-English-1.pdf Genabab (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First mentions this for a single sentence. not sigcov. Second one does not appear to be reliable and even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> First mentions this for a single sentence.

Irrelevant. It still estabilishes the events at al-Qarara as notable, hence why it states "Gaza’s only baladi seed bank in Al Qarara".

> Second one does not appear to be reliable

@PARAKANYAA What is this judgement being based on? How have you determined that this journal "appears" to be unreliable. What is this based on? A hunch? Smh.

> even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this

How? Genabab (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An event that received 0 significant secondary coverage does not pass WP:NEVENT. The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event, and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either. What would make the second source reliable? It isn't anything with established trust. The website appears fo be a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event,

Why?

> and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either.

For one, what makes it notable is that it is the only such bank in Gaza + this also ignores an entire journal issue dedicated toward the effects of the events in al-Qarara.

> What would make the second source reliable?

You asserted that it was unreliable, I assumed you had some evidence for it.

> he website appears to be a blog.

How does it appear to be a blog exactly? Genabab (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, for the same reason that if a notable person dies, their death does not warrant a separate article automatically. The war in Gaza is obviously notable, but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable. The second source is a local group blog [21] that describes itself as "a collection of stories". Almost all stories appear to be written by a single person. Not an RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable

There's a lot to say here. For one, it isn't a building. It is the only seed bank in Gaza. Secondly, it isn't a single sentence when multiple sources explain this.

> he second source is a local group blog [1]

Ok that's objectivally false. The pdf is hosted there, but that isn't the source. Did you even click on the source to check? Its clear that it was published by the Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform. Like it literally says this when you click on the link in the reference??? It takes you to a UN website^[1] which lists the publisher as Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform and as an article, not a blog. How did you not see this???? Genabab (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the single sentence is in multiple sources that does not combine to make it sigcov. And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event. Why would it? And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.

I saw that it was not from there, but I thought you were insinuating that because it was republished there it took its reliability from there. Why would the original source be reliable either? It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> If the single sentence is in multiple sources [...] And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.

The second source isn't a single sentence is it? Its literally an entire article about it lmao.

> And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event.

How? And it does if multiple sources talk about the event specifically because of it. This also applies to culture (see the destruction of one of Gaza's only museums)

> It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever.

It being short doesn't make it unreliable, it isn't a primary source its an independent organisation writing an article about an event, it being a pdf document is also completely irrelevant (no clue why you want to bring that up) and just because the org is from Gaza does not mean WP:Local applies... And how have you determined there was no review?

Besides, the UN-FAO hosting it certainly suggests this is not just some random article, rather something note-worthy... Genabab (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is not about it, no. WP:NOTINHERITED, they are not talking about the event specifically. I brought up it being a PDF document because there is no indication that this publication underwent any sort of fact checking or anything that would make this a reliable source. It is a primary source because it's sourced from interviews and personal experiences. Per WP:NEVENT local sourcing is not enough to evidence notability. A document being published online doesn't make it reliable! There is a lot of garbage on the websites of UN affiliates, so that doesn't help, there is no evidence this is reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:LASTING with flying colours – there's ongoing coverage of the destruction of the Al Qarara Cultural Museum as well as the seed bank from a variety of academic, journalistic, and NGO sources. (Some of which are already on the page, some of which I'll go ahead and add.) Also agree with @Genabab's comments regarding the sigcov of the events of the siege in question. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. The article relies heavily on primary and niche fan sources. There is very little significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that give any in-depth discussions of the band. They have never been signed to a major record label, their music has never seen any chart success, and there is no clear historical significance of the band, therefore they do not meet the standard of substantial, independent coverage required to establish notability. Magatta (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the Hebrew Wikipedia article, סולסטיס קויל, cites two Ynet articles.^[22][23] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operations attributed to Israel in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable article with very biased language such as: "Israel has rarely been held accountable for its destructive actions."

Nothing more than a list of incidents/operations.

Contains information from other articles such as Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mentions a 2007 explosion at Parchin while information is included on Parchin's article, so why do we need it here? And attribution to Israel to attacks or incidents in Iran is reported all the time by the Iranian government. Wouldn't it make more sense to have an article on actual Israeli operations in Iran in the wider Iran-Israel proxy conflict?

Was copied from the Farsi Wikipedia. Creator has a long history of copying articles from this Wikipedia and creating the English version. I suspect the Farsi Wikipedia of having NPOV issues with the articles related to Iran and Israel that this creator. Not to mention that this article is under the category of Zionist political violence which is not supported by information in this article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, and Israel. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a FORK — both POV and REDUNDANT — of Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage. As nom mentioned, the tone is highly non-encyclopedic. More importantly, the relevant content is adequately covered in Iran–Israel proxy conflict.

Note that the AfDd list is considerably broader and includes, for example, a terrorism incident in Iran where Iranian authorities blamed Israel, Israel denied involvement, and ISIS claimed responsibility. Such cases do not belong in a table about Iran–Israel operations. Such an accusation can be mentioned in the body of the relevant article. gidonb (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in another Afd of a similar matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran-Israel non-political relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look there as well. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is important because When something bad happens, Iran blames Israel Like: Kerman Bombings Farcazo (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote doesn't address the issues with the article nor explain any necessity. Any information like this can be just on the respective articles like the one linked for some reason externally, which is already mentioned on that article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant fork. There are already enough articles covering the same subject. Azuredivay (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is Iran–Israel proxy conflict#Assassinations, cyberwarfare and sabotage, mentioned in the discussion, a suitable redirect target? Or are we better with outright deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant fork and merge any usable content to related articles. MaggieT19 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

promotional article. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Jordan. فيصل (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Given that an administrator of Arabic Wikipedia believes that notability outside of promotional material has not been established, I am inclined to agree. I cannot validate sourcing in English to any degree that shows notability, and it would require a lot of cleanup to get this page in working order. Nonetheless, I think it could Return to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this guy is notable. The article itself definitely needs some work, but the subject himself meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing in the article and elsewhere. [24] [25] [26]. Cremastra (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cremastra: Citation 2 and 3 are both to middleeastarchitect.com, and therefore not independent of each other. Is there a third independent source to establish notability? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Femke: It was my understanding that WP:GNG requires multiple, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject. Since the magazine seems to be independent of the subject, I don't see a problem with citing two different articles in it. If you're making reference to WP:NBASIC, which requires sources to be intellectually independent of each other, I don't see a problem there either, since the two articles are not derivatives of each other and are about different subjects. This footnote on NBASIC makes it clear what "intellectually independent of each other" means, and I don't see a problem here with that. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm.. In WP:SIRS (WP:MULTSOURCES) that is explained differently, possibly because the notability criteria are stricter for organisations. I may have applied this too broadly in the past? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever happens, it's currently written like a CV, and needs considerable cleanup. The sources don't look bad, though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No reason to delete what can be reasonably improved. There is a reasonable presumption that sources that establish his notability exist. - Ike Lek (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of the Philippines to Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A short article that fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG. Its sources are derived from primary entities. Hauskasic (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Philippines, and Jordan. Hauskasic (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your claim seems to ignore the second paragraph.

  "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

  Ike Lek (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - These lists are routine in coverage of all country's diplomatic relations. Ike Lek (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please indicate how this meets a notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The original nomination does not indicate how the article fails any notability guideline, as the current sourcing of the page is irrelevant to notability as per WP:NEXIST and length is irrelevant as per WP:CONTN. Moreover, WP:NLIST acknowledges potential exceptions to WP:GNG for certain types of lists. Additionally, the list likely does meet general notability guidelines, as the role of Philippine Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is notable, thus a list of people in that would also likely be. I would also argue the an ambassadorship qualifies as an international or national political office in regards to WP:NPOL, if notability of list subjects is being called into question. Ike Lek (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not addressing the issue that there is a complete lack of in-depth coverage, nor are you explaining how the article is notable. Hauskasic (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am saying the list is inherently notable because the position and anyone holding it is inherently notable under WP:NPOL. The list also serves a clear informational and developmental purpose under WP:NLIST. Why anyone would possibly want to delete it is beyond me. It is an example of a cross-sectional list of two notable topics, specifically: ambassadors from the Philippines, and ambassadors to Jordan. Having a cross-sectional list serves a clear navigational purpose as well. I'm not trying to be rude. I'm genuinely a bit baffled and trying to figure out what benefits deleting it could have for anyone. Would this still be a problem if more of the entries had their own articles? Ike Lek (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This applies to politicians who have held international or national positions and members of the legislature. This does not include diplomats. Even so, this does not justify a standalone article on the subject unless it meets the general notability guideline. Hauskasic (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is ambassador not a national position? Also, the whole point of subject specific guidelines is for things that might not meet general guidelines but are still notable. I would like to once again refer you to the second paragraph of WP:NLIST for the specific topic of this kind of list. Also, how does deleting it benefit Wikipedia? Ike Lek (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Also, how does deleting it benefit Wikipedia?" This is not an argument for notability. Many articles are deleted everyday from Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of those statements are factually correct, but I fail to see their point. Articles are deleted for reasons, which in theory are about improving the quality of Wikipedia. Ike Lek (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we still have no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It generally requires secondary, significant and independent references about the chain of ambassadors. Fade258 (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis do you say this? Ike Lek (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am aware about the WP:NLIST and it said that entries in the list donot need to be independently notable. On my assumptions, for a valid article, entries needed to be notable and some of the ambassadors isn't notable in itself as well. Fade258 (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait This one needs more time because that is such an incredibly common name. There's a Kuwaiti Olympic coach (different person) of the same name, even, so dissecting the abundance of sources to work out which relate to this guy needs a bit longer. Kingsif (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct Arabic for his name would be خالد حسين, per the full text of this contemporary news article that confirms the time of his Olympics race, and Arabic Wikipedia has his full name as خالد حسين محمود. Kingsif (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lebanon at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Swimming – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lebanon at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Swimming: Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a small mention including a quote and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on pictures being accessible and his accomplishments, it feels very likely that coverage will exist. We should actually look in newspaper archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV and a clear redirection target. Svartner (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is very difficult to use As-Safir's archives, but they allow you to search his name (that's stories including "Dany Hadad" in the title, but he may be covered under other names such as "Daniel" as well). There's about 10-15 stories with him in the title, some of which I've listed below:

Danny Haddad, Electricity Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 12/30/1979 Dany Haddad Represents Lebanon in Fencing at the Mediterranean Games Al-Safir Source Date: 1979/8/3 Dany Haddad, Lebanese Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 1982/1/4 Dany Haddad, Independence Fencing Champion Al-Safir Source Date: 1986/12/5 Dany Haddad Wins the Expatriates Fencing Cup Al-Safir Source Date: 1980/2/15 Dany Haddad Wins the Christmas Cup in Fencing Al-Safir Source Date: 1980/12/29 Dany Haddad places 37th in the Canada Fencing Championship Source: As-Safir Date: May 2, 1987

Lebanese Fencing Championship: 22 competitors, Danny Haddad first Source: As-Safir Date: March 30, 1980

• I haven't looked at all of them – only a few have worked for me, but there looks to be enough to write something decent here, and remember, all these stories were found only by looking at one paper. Lebanon has many papers, and the odds that those other papers wouldn't have covered him further, given what we know, is very small. The Newsday has some bits that could be used to expand as well. If kept, I'll expand this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically, we need at least one other source since these results come from the same paper, but this is a very promising start. I've tried some searching with his Arabic name but haven't found anything else so far. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, the Newsday article appears to be more about the subjects father. Let'srun (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Let'srun, I noticed you have participated in this AfD but not yet cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As of now, I'm neutral on this discussion. We only have WP:GNG source right now, but it suggests that there is likely more WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above source review. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a more thorough review and input from other editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The9Man ^Talk 18:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oman Aviation Services De Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter Accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Point 4 of WP:EVENTCRITERIA - Routine kinds of news events (including most .. accidents ..) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. XYZ1233212 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Oman. XYZ1233212 (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Oman aviation services: Being the company's first accident is worth keeping mention of it. Rather routine otherwise, not enough info for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not only does this routine incident fail WP:EVENT, it also fails the WP:AIRCRASH criteria for inclusion on airline/airport/aircraft pages. In the (hopefully unlikely) event that consensus is to keep the article, it would need to be moved to a more appropriate title in line with WP:AVINAME, and a Full Review of the Text would be needed to correct Incorrect Capitalisation :-) Rosbif73 (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself with the only mentions of this accident appearing in databases, hence The event does not have any in-depth nor sustained continued coverage. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not pass NEVENT, coverage is not sustained. Not even sure if this happened as described? Only sources are primary "war updates" that don't frame it this way or maps from dubious sources or news articles that don't mention this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Palestine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails WP:NEVENT. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that describe this as a "siege" or frame the event as notable in itself. Most of the references are either war updates without analytical framing, unverifiable maps, or news articles that do not support the narrative described in the article. Eliezer1987 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Also, the article is baised. It claims Palestinian victory whilst source 2 claims the town was successfully conquered so if we keep it we need a major fact-check effort. DGtal (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change name: Definitely keep. Multiple sources treat the events in al-Qarara as their own independent campaign. These include:

Iran Update, March 21, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War. Institue for the Study of War classified the events in al-Qarara as their own independent operation, writing: "The IDF 7th Brigade (36th Division) killed Palestinian fighters in the area and destroyed military infrastructure, including rocket launch shafts.[37] Israeli forces conducted waves of airstrikes on Qarara as part of the operation.[38] Israeli forces have been operating in Qarara since March 3.[39] PIJ fighters targeted Israeli infantrymen breaching a tunnel in Qarara on March 21 by rigging the tunnel entrance to explode.[40] Hamas fighters targeted two Israeli tanks with rocket-propelled grenades west of Qarara."

It then repeated its reports on the al-Qarara clashes in March 24th: "The IDF 7th Brigade and Kfir Brigade continued clearing operations in Qarara, northern Khan Younis, on March 24.[19] The brigades killed Palestinian fighters near the Israel-Gaza Strip border and targeted a meeting site for Hamas fighters in Qarara.[20] Israeli forces seized weapons caches and an IDF helicopter struck a tunnel shaft in Qarara.[21] Palestinian militias did not claim attacks targeting Israeli forces in Qarara on March 24."

Then again on March 29, it continued to claim that there was a campaign in al-Qarara saying: "Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in al Amal and al Qarara neighborhoods of Khan Younis on March 29."

Then there is The Latest Situation In The South Of The Gaza Strip And Khan Yunis (Map) - Islamic World News which details Israeli efforts to surround al-Qarara specificaly.

The same source also returns to al-Qarara as it neared the battle's end. Latest Updates Gaza Strip, 16 March 2024 - Islamic World News: "According to the latest information, the Israeli regime’s army has retreated from some conflict zones in Khan Yunis city and concentrated its armored units in Al-Qarara town and its surroundings. In the past 48 hours, after Israeli artillery and aerial attacks on Al-Qarara, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of several Palestinians, the military personnel of the occupying regime made slight progress in this axis."

Another maariv article https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1090909 also mentions Israeli plans to find POWs and Hamas leaders/officials in al-Qarara that had failed, which also is another statement of an independent campaign with its own goals.

However, few if any of these sources call the events in al-Qarara a siege. So there is definitely reason to keep it but perhaps the name of a siege is undue. Genabab (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are secondary, they're all primary "news updates" from when it happened with no continued coverage to pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA That isn't true. The maariv source is secondary for one. Secondly, several agricultural journals have also focused on the effects of the campaign by noting its impact on Gazan ecology as it lead to the destruction of the only baladi seed bank in Gaza. These reports emerged after the campaign had ended, which thus satisfies the duration of covereage in WP:NEVENT. Please note the part that says:

"If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." Their focus on specifically al-Qarara makes it fit as a case study. It also fits diversity of sources since an agricultural journal remarking the notability of the events in al-Qarara is certainly very different to ISW. Genabab (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was from the week this happened, it is neither sustained nor secondary. These aren't case studies, they're news updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA

The agricultural report I mentioned was published in October of 2024. The battle in al-Qarara ended in *april*. That's a 6 month gap. Not a week. The other one was from September of 2024. Not April.

And they are case studies, not news updates. When I say journal I do mean journal, not a news site.

Hell reporting on the effects of the attacks in al-Qarara are going on this year too. Take for instance:

Al-Qarara Museum: A Testament to Palestinian Resilience Amid Israeli Destruction | Safa News Agency - English Edition. It even refers to an invasion of al-Qarara by Israeli forces. Genabab (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link the agricultural report? All the sources you have linked are primary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whats-next-for-Gazas-foodsystems.pdf

and

Success-Reslience-Story-Seed-Bank_-English-1.pdf Genabab (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First mentions this for a single sentence. not sigcov. Second one does not appear to be reliable and even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> First mentions this for a single sentence.

Irrelevant. It still estabilishes the events at al-Qarara as notable, hence why it states "Gaza’s only baladi seed bank in Al Qarara".

> Second one does not appear to be reliable

@PARAKANYAA What is this judgement being based on? How have you determined that this journal "appears" to be unreliable. What is this based on? A hunch? Smh.

> even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this

How? Genabab (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An event that received 0 significant secondary coverage does not pass WP:NEVENT. The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event, and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either. What would make the second source reliable? It isn't anything with established trust. The website appears fo be a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event,

Why?

> and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either.

For one, what makes it notable is that it is the only such bank in Gaza + this also ignores an entire journal issue dedicated toward the effects of the events in al-Qarara.

> What would make the second source reliable?

You asserted that it was unreliable, I assumed you had some evidence for it.

> he website appears to be a blog.

How does it appear to be a blog exactly? Genabab (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, for the same reason that if a notable person dies, their death does not warrant a separate article automatically. The war in Gaza is obviously notable, but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable. The second source is a local group blog [27] that describes itself as "a collection of stories". Almost all stories appear to be written by a single person. Not an RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable

There's a lot to say here. For one, it isn't a building. It is the only seed bank in Gaza. Secondly, it isn't a single sentence when multiple sources explain this.

> he second source is a local group blog [1]

Ok that's objectivally false. The pdf is hosted there, but that isn't the source. Did you even click on the source to check? Its clear that it was published by the Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform. Like it literally says this when you click on the link in the reference??? It takes you to a UN website^[1] which lists the publisher as Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform and as an article, not a blog. How did you not see this???? Genabab (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the single sentence is in multiple sources that does not combine to make it sigcov. And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event. Why would it? And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.

I saw that it was not from there, but I thought you were insinuating that because it was republished there it took its reliability from there. Why would the original source be reliable either? It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

> If the single sentence is in multiple sources [...] And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.

The second source isn't a single sentence is it? Its literally an entire article about it lmao.

> And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event.

How? And it does if multiple sources talk about the event specifically because of it. This also applies to culture (see the destruction of one of Gaza's only museums)

> It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever.

It being short doesn't make it unreliable, it isn't a primary source its an independent organisation writing an article about an event, it being a pdf document is also completely irrelevant (no clue why you want to bring that up) and just because the org is from Gaza does not mean WP:Local applies... And how have you determined there was no review?

Besides, the UN-FAO hosting it certainly suggests this is not just some random article, rather something note-worthy... Genabab (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is not about it, no. WP:NOTINHERITED, they are not talking about the event specifically. I brought up it being a PDF document because there is no indication that this publication underwent any sort of fact checking or anything that would make this a reliable source. It is a primary source because it's sourced from interviews and personal experiences. Per WP:NEVENT local sourcing is not enough to evidence notability. A document being published online doesn't make it reliable! There is a lot of garbage on the websites of UN affiliates, so that doesn't help, there is no evidence this is reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - passes WP:LASTING with flying colours – there's ongoing coverage of the destruction of the Al Qarara Cultural Museum as well as the seed bank from a variety of academic, journalistic, and NGO sources. (Some of which are already on the page, some of which I'll go ahead and add.) Also agree with @Genabab's comments regarding the sigcov of the events of the siege in question. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As a disambiguation page, it is not appropriate because it does not clearly indicate which articles it is meant to disambiguate. Does it refer to West Bank areas in the Oslo II Accord, Palestine (region), West Bank, Palestine, or United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine? None of these articles are titled "Palestinian territories."

As a broad-concept article, it contains many dubious statements for which I have not been able to find reliable sources. Hassan697 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hassan697 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONEOTHER (I use this so often, somebody should make a redirect.). All three non-primary topic entries are invalid. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Clarityfiend So what policy were you trying to link to? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Darned if I know, but it's in here somewhere! WP:WHAAOE is holy writ. WP:ASS's nutshell? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ONEOTHER or WP:TWOOTHER? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 13:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that would give the page creator too much credit. Abominations like this must be properly scorned. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from others would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - To put it bluntly, it kinda sucks, especially since Palestine (disambiguation) exists, but most of the reasons given for deleting it are also laughable. Of course that topic is vague. That is the point of a disambiguation page. – Ike Lek (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

</noinclude>

Index of Hungary-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This discussion aims to continue the idea behind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, but to avoid trainwrecks in the process.

To give a short background: there was some level of consensus found in 2021-22 AfD discussions that the typical Index of X country article is inadequate. This is due to their obsolescence, poor maintenance, and lacking comprehension.

However, the failure of the Abkhazia et al AfD put a stop to this, as it was a trainwreck. Too many articles were nominated.

In the meantime, a few indices of this type were merged into outlines, or deleted, but the rest remain unaffected. Three years later, the situation is more or less the same.

The selection process for indices in this nomination took into account every content, and activity-based objection raised so far (of course, aside from those who want to keep all of them as is, hence the point of the discussion) in general, or in specific. This was the formula:

1. Abhkazia et al indices of countries with more than 100 000 citizens; so that the low activity cannot ever hope to provide even something approaching a wide preview.

2. out of that set, a further subset was determined based on the paucity of the content, quantiatively, and qualitatively (empty sections for letters other than Q, W, X, Y); this shows an unacceptably low level of care, and it's unlikely this will ever change, as this type of index has generally stagnated in the last 15+ years

To put it simply, these are the worst of the worst. I believe there is nothing salvageable to be found in the 24 nominated articles for deletion.

N.b. I haven't put up an AfD notice on the 23 other articles, at the time of nomination. I am going to do that now. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Asia, Syria, Yemen, Europe, Hungary, Oceania, Latin America, South America, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary collection. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geogarphy, Liberia, and Senegal. Dege31 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Eh, they look like valid navigational pages that just need work - if these are the "worst of the worst" they're not that bad, really, even if they do need some work. The Index of X-related articles goes back to the early days of Wikipedia as a navigational link, so I'd prefer an RfC to try to figure out if these are still useful and how to make them useful, and then we can delete them after that if they're not, but at the moment these do look like they pass NLIST as valid navigational pages. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've needed 'some work' for 15+ years. They may be valid navigational pages, but the nominated ones are almost totally unmaintained. LISTPURP gives three main purposes: information, navigation, development. How do indices that have received minimal maintenance at best for 15+ years fulfill these purposes? Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds exactly like navigational content to me. Once they're finished, they need limited maintenance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They're far from finished, is what I'm saying. Dege31 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's no reason for deletion, that's a reason for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am claiming the required cleanup is (at the moment) realistically impossible! Dege31 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles. I do not believe alphabetical indexes like these are valid or useful navigational pages. They are typically incomplete, poorly maintained, and duplicate other pages, categories, and navboxes. Outlines like Outline of the Dominican Republic and navboxes like Template:Hungary topics are substantially more useful than alphabetical listings like this. We have a search bar, so I've always been confused what the point of pages like this was when there is no organization or context, just an alphabetical list of links. Any that are actually maintained or more comprehensive may be better off in relevant wikiprojects. Any that are organized by topic should be combined with the relevant outline. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced biography by unseasoned contributor. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing in reliable sources. I was at first inclined to tag A7, but the community might want to weigh in here. Happy to see it properly sourced, but there's no real claim to notability presented. The page may have been created by LLMs. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Social science, Syria, and Sweden. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing about him in news. I found this through the deletion sorting list for academics but I could find no scholarly publications by him. No reliable in-depth coverage of him, even in other scripts, is provided in the article, and the existence of this coverage needs to be demonstrated before we can have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROF (as per David Eppstein) and WP:GNG - he never did anything notable. Probably written by a former student or fan as a memorial to him. There are other websites for that, but not us. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Arab Airlines Flight 501 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. I tried searching beyond 2012, and the only thing I managed to find other than forums was a short passing mention in a list of A320 accidents. [28] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Syria. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Damascus International Airport#Accidents and incidents, where I've added a very brief mention, which is appropriate for insufficiently-notable-for-standalone incidents like this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per The Bushranger, as meeting WP:AIRCRASH criteria for inclusion in airport articles, but not notable enough for a dedicated page. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I think on the accident is notable itself with the plane managing to land after colliding with a helicopter but there is such a low amount of information that I have to vote redirect. I search around the internet searching for information and all I got was forums discussing it pass 2012. Zaptain United (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Bushranger; I can't find anything past 2012 either, and I agree that the airport article appears to be the best place to put what little information we have. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Damascus International Airport#Accidents and incidents as The Bushranger argued. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Perley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not really seeing much which shows that the subject meets the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being. I contribute to the topic area and can say there are reliable sources that exist on the subject to meet notability standards. If need be, I can expand the article soon with the available sources. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you have some sources please share them here so we can assess them against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See bullet list below:

  • Encyclopedia entry for subject from Syriac studies website [29]
  • Entry on subject from Assyrian website, linked in article [30]
  • Memorial fund dedicated to subject from Harvard University [31]
  • Article dedicated to subject, also sourced in article though not sure if the current link works [32]
  • Book dedicated to the subject featuring his writings [33] and articles about its publishing [34] [35]
  • Written article from an Assyrian Cultural Foundation, dedicated to the subject [36]
  • Four academic papers that mention the subject [37] [38] [39] [40]
  • Please see other articles that mention the subject [41] [42]

  Given the above list, there are enough sources that will suit the notability requirements necessary for the subject's article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The cited sources are not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Azerbaijan, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sources about it

• https://nlevshits.com/dokument-centralnogo-ispolnitelnogo-komiteta-sssr-i-bjuro-nkvd-1936-goda-o-pereimenovanii-v-transkripciju-togo-vremeni-gruzinskih-gorodov/ Документ Центрального исполнительного комитета СССР и бюро НКВД 1936 года о переименовании в транскрипцию того времени грузинских городов
• Абастумани // Большая российская энциклопедия. 1. М: Большая Российская энциклопедия. С. Л. Кравец. 2005. 10. ISBN 5-85270-329-X.
• Дманиси // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IIIҹилд: Гајыбов—Елдаров. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1979. С. 488
• Borçalı toponimləri. Müəlliflər: Mədəd Çobanov və Müşfiq Çobanlı; Elmi redaktorlar: f. e. d. Tofiq Əhmədov, f. e. d. Buludxan Xəlilov, f. e. d. Şurəddin Məmmədli. Əlavələr olunmuş və yenidən işlənmiş dördüncü nəşr. Bakı: "Borçalı" nəşriyyatı, 2012
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
• https://az.wikisource.org/wiki/Qarabağnamə/Yeddinci_fəsil
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
• Ағбулаг // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IXҹилд: Спутник—Фронтон. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1986. С. 216.

Sebirkhan (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Since this article was created in 2011, it has been based almost entirely on citations to sources either from the ICOR itself or from its affiliate members. Attempts to find coverage in reliable secondary source turned up very little. Neither of the cited secondary sources in this article provide significant coverage, only giving the ICOR a passing reference in the wider context of another subject. A cursory Google Scholar search brought up a few self-published Marxist word documents, and one book about German political parties that only mentions the ICOR in passing.

As I have been unable to find significant coverage of this international organisation in reliable sources, and as notability is not inherited from any of its affiliated organisations, I do not think this meets the notability criteria for organisations and am nominating it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Morocco, South Africa, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Iran, India, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe there may be a language / coverage issue, as this is English Wikipedia, and there are two or three English-speaking organizations within ICOR. I will look into it this week. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most online sources I found were either non-independent or were not in-depth. The one book cited in the article was written by Stefan Engel, former chairman of the MLPD, a member organization of ICOR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. The sources cited by Castroonthemoon are not in-depth (and the last one doesn't seem reliable), and I don't see why we should make an exception here; they have brought up the possibility of a merge with the MLPD, but firstly I don't think they're really related that much, and secondly half of the ICOR article is based on primary sources and the other half is based on passing mentions, so it would be WP:UNDUE. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not looking good for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have looked into international reports on the organization. There's a surprising amount of information surrounding the group's involvement in Syria, and the hospital that the group built. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm leaning towards Keep Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless Castroonthemoon can cite specific sources with significant coverage, I'm leaning delete. The only mention in Swiss media is [43]. Toadspike [Talk] 08:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the sources used in the article, I believe [44][45][46][47][48] satisfy requirements. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one is a single-sentence passing mention: "Finally, anarchist volunteers organized another unit at the end of March 2017, the International Revolutionary People's Guerrilla Forces (IRPGF), declared as an "informal anarchist armed organization" whose purpose of armed struggle was placed beyond Kurdish issues, in a global perspective." (via Google Translate). The second link is exactly the same page as the first. The third is another single-sentence passing mention ("Hinter dem Projekt steht das linke Bündnis "Internationale Koordinierung revolutionärer Parteien und Organisationen" (ICOR), das um die marxistisch-leninistische Partei Deutschlands (MLPD) gebildet wurde.") The fourth consists entirely of quotes from someone who has been "supported" by ICOR, which is not independent coverage. The fifth isn't independent either – it has no byline and is basically a call for donations by the head of ICOR, ending with their bank info.

  None of these sources satisfy the requirements of the GNG or NCORP. Toadspike [Talk] 05:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, I believe that the fact that they receive coverage satisfies notability requirements. It's a niche, political topic that isn't going to receive much coverage, especially by Western press, thus I believe that WP:IAR applies in this scenario. I don't think we will find a point of agreement on this, but I think that merging this article into the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article is worth considering, per my POC below. Castroonthemoon (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Consideration. I believe the article should be kept, but to those in-favor of deletion, I think there's a solid case to be made that the page should be merged with the Marxist–Leninist Party of Germany article, given that they seem to be the driving force behind most of the organizations actions and statements, as well as the fact that Stefan Engel (or his wife), the former chairman of MLPD, comes up almost everywhere ICOR does Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Liberal Thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Last AfD was 2006. The only sources provided are its own website (same with the Turkish version of the article). Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article editor Qwertyx~enwiki changed their ID years ago. I am not aware if they are an active user. The only two references are from the home page of Association for Liberal Thinking. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If they have "~enwiki" in their name, I think that means their account was WP:USURPNAME which started in 2008. – The Grid (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Turkish think tanks; the subject fails WP:ORG for its own article but a search yields enough references that it could be included elsewhere. Surayeproject3 (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merger or should this article just be Deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability, General notability guideline. Knox490 (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. This is a UAE government program created in 2021. There is no independent reliable news coverage of this program. The coverage is solely by news outlets that are propaganda outlets for the UAE government or are prohibited from reporting in any critical or nuanced way on this government program. Thenightaway (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and improve - Based on global reach and influence as well as participation by notable individuals. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • What about this program that has existed since 2021 indicates that it has "global reach" and "influence"? There is certainly nothing in this article, which is written like an advertisement, that suggests any such thing. If it's so influential and has such global reach, where is the RS coverage on this organization? Paying notable people to give a speech at a conference does not make the conference notable. Thenightaway (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough sources to meet GNG and SIGCOV. Many might not be traditional big name western "reliable sources", but that has never been a requirement. A global encyclopedia benefits from this type of article and these types of sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multiple reliable, independent sources cover Investopia beyond the organization’s site such as (WAM), (Ministry of Economy), and (Deutsche Bank). Meets GNG and SIGCOV. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those sources are neither reliable nor independent of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with Nominator that I don't see independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. The online sources I found read more like press releases than independent coverage: Economy Middle East, One Arabia, Aletihad. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article reads somewhat like a resume mixed with a blog, possibly because the subject, per the article, "keeps a low public profile". The references, though 30, are not predominantly about the subject; many are ammouncements about his company, and several others are general articles that mention him in passing. The few sources that are actually about him profile him for having a lot of money, either locally or in Forbes, and are not generally in depth. He does not appear to be personally notable. This is also a problematic WP:BLP, devoting a lot of space to his personal health. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Kingdom. FalconK (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, United Arab Emirates, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of enduring (or even basic) notability. His brief time in a UAE school didn't really leave any footprints here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC. Check 1, 2, 3, 4. Mysecretgarden (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not in agreement. This is a lot of by-the-numbers reporting that is mostly not about the subject. The most that can be said about him from all 4 sources is that he sold a company. FalconK (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of significant coverage - and if he keeps a low profile, then maybe he doesn't want to be a public figure. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough coverage for this to be made into an article that doesn't need to be deleted.

GalStar (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is reasonable to assume someone reading the Forbes 30 Under 30 Europe list might want to read more about those named in the list. User01938 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs more reliable sources (and some of these links are broken) but there are at least 3 reliable sources that provide significant coverage: Manchester Evening News, BBC, Bloomberg via Yahoo, Australian Financial Review. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many reliable sources talk about him, which in my opinion is enough to show his notability. [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]

Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reading some of the !votes here, I get a sense of off-wiki canvassing. It'll be useful to get the view of some of our more experienced AfD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems the problematic edit was this one. If you go to the diff before that, the article isn't that bad. We could just revert back to that version and let the article develop naturally from there... It seems like the sources are available, it just got turned into a brochure. MediaKyle (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Hungary-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This discussion aims to continue the idea behind Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Abkhazia-related articles, but to avoid trainwrecks in the process.

To give a short background: there was some level of consensus found in 2021-22 AfD discussions that the typical Index of X country article is inadequate. This is due to their obsolescence, poor maintenance, and lacking comprehension.

However, the failure of the Abkhazia et al AfD put a stop to this, as it was a trainwreck. Too many articles were nominated.

In the meantime, a few indices of this type were merged into outlines, or deleted, but the rest remain unaffected. Three years later, the situation is more or less the same.

The selection process for indices in this nomination took into account every content, and activity-based objection raised so far (of course, aside from those who want to keep all of them as is, hence the point of the discussion) in general, or in specific. This was the formula:

1. Abhkazia et al indices of countries with more than 100 000 citizens; so that the low activity cannot ever hope to provide even something approaching a wide preview.

2. out of that set, a further subset was determined based on the paucity of the content, quantiatively, and qualitatively (empty sections for letters other than Q, W, X, Y); this shows an unacceptably low level of care, and it's unlikely this will ever change, as this type of index has generally stagnated in the last 15+ years

To put it simply, these are the worst of the worst. I believe there is nothing salvageable to be found in the 24 nominated articles for deletion.

N.b. I haven't put up an AfD notice on the 23 other articles, at the time of nomination. I am going to do that now. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Comoros, Ivory Coast, Somalia, Asia, Syria, Yemen, Europe, Hungary, Oceania, Latin America, South America, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Dege31 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary collection. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geogarphy, Liberia, and Senegal. Dege31 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Eh, they look like valid navigational pages that just need work - if these are the "worst of the worst" they're not that bad, really, even if they do need some work. The Index of X-related articles goes back to the early days of Wikipedia as a navigational link, so I'd prefer an RfC to try to figure out if these are still useful and how to make them useful, and then we can delete them after that if they're not, but at the moment these do look like they pass NLIST as valid navigational pages. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've needed 'some work' for 15+ years. They may be valid navigational pages, but the nominated ones are almost totally unmaintained. LISTPURP gives three main purposes: information, navigation, development. How do indices that have received minimal maintenance at best for 15+ years fulfill these purposes? Dege31 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds exactly like navigational content to me. Once they're finished, they need limited maintenance. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They're far from finished, is what I'm saying. Dege31 (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's no reason for deletion, that's a reason for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am claiming the required cleanup is (at the moment) realistically impossible! Dege31 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of India-related articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Sri Lanka–related articles. I do not believe alphabetical indexes like these are valid or useful navigational pages. They are typically incomplete, poorly maintained, and duplicate other pages, categories, and navboxes. Outlines like Outline of the Dominican Republic and navboxes like Template:Hungary topics are substantially more useful than alphabetical listings like this. We have a search bar, so I've always been confused what the point of pages like this was when there is no organization or context, just an alphabetical list of links. Any that are actually maintained or more comprehensive may be better off in relevant wikiprojects. Any that are organized by topic should be combined with the relevant outline. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]