Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

Zadashm

Zadashm (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)

Page states nothing is known about his life and reign; he's only a name in a list of fictional kings. Proposing a merger with List of Turanian monarchs or Shahnameh. SenshiSun (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mythology, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge This paper has some more information beyond what the nomination states, but it is still only one secondary source. A merge to List of Turanian monarchs sounds good, but unfortunately is not feasible as that list does not yet exist, and we cannot do the second step before the first. So I suggest House of Viseh as the closest parent topic in the spirit of WP:ATD-M. Daranios (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Would you mind adding the information you found to the page? Your source is behind a log-in gate. SenshiSun (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @SenshiSun: Done. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Funnily enough, the article is fully available on Research Gate.

  I tried to make the List of Turanian monarchs, but it was bounced to drafts because Turan is a real place. SenshiSun (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020) (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)

POV fork of 2020 Azerbaijani protests / July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes / Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. This was previously nominated and the discussion was... unusual. Largely slanted towards deletion until a sudden influx of keep votes by Azerbaijani editors. The keep arguments were rather repetitive and highlighted the number of sources present without much regard for their quality. It was pointed out early on that many are of dubious reliability, if not blatant government propaganda. I'm sure that some content related to this would have a place on Wikipedia, but it would be nothing close to what's currently here. Even in this scenario, little if any of what actually exists here could be salvaged, and in any case, there's no clear reason it should exist as its own article. The protests discussed here stem from two separate events in 2020 and it's not clear that those that specifically happened in Iran are widely discussed as a group outside of the context of the conflicts themselves or at least the actions of Azerbaijanis / members of the Azerbaijani diaspora as a whole. The few decent sources that came up during the discussion mainly focused on how the two conflicts affected the overall relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan (which would seem to be a perfectly fine topic). Again, this is clearly a POV fork in that sense; it is framed in such a way as to maximize criticism of Iran and minimize discussion of Azerbaijan's conduct in the conflict. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, and Azerbaijan. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: What an unusual article. It's still got a POV issue template since the previous nomination for deletion, and I can see why. I honestly get the feeling that the entire article is synthesizing a notable event. It's an extensive article with a supposed 177 sources, which at a first glance gives the impression of notability, yet when you look at it a bit further it starts to come apart. I cannot find a single citation to an article in English by a reputable source focusing on this supposed notable popular movement. While I'm sure there has been some tensions between Azeris in Iran and the Iranian government, and that could perhaps be mentioned in one of the other articles, I don't see how this is a notable topic in and of itself. Considering all of this, and knowing the history of this topic area, I think it's a safe bet to say that this article is a heavily POV-driven endeavour. If this was actually notable the citations should be full of contemporary English news reports, but there isn't a single one. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 14:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a really bizarre page. I don't really have a strong opinion lol it's either a keep with a serious, serious rewrite (because the narrative flow is really poor) or just deletion. Not opposed to delete Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on what to do with the page as of this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with 2020 Azerbaijani protests - The merge target does not get too deep into the content, perhaps some content can be transferred. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well-referenced, 53 references are to Voice of America and 13 are to IranWire. I think both are reliable for this. The protests are not mentioned in passing. Here is, for example, an article from the BBC. Even if the article is a fork of something (of what exactly?), I think this is acceptable as this page is quite large. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Kelob2678, this article as it currently exists is clearly someone's personal soapbox. I think we can at least agree that very little if any of what's currently written here belongs on Wikipedia. What I'm not convinced by is that an article under this name should exist at all: the protests being discussed occurred in relation to two separate conflicts in 2020 and the title of this article does not make it clear who is supporting Azerbaijan or how (it makes it sound as though it's the Iranian government when it's clearly protestors). We could probably have something like Second Nagorno-Karabakh War protests in Iran (akin to Gaza war protests in Australia, for instance), but protests stemming from the July clashes seem to have received comparatively little coverage by RS (that section of this article is based especially heavily on blatantly unreliable sources). An article framed in terms of protests instead of a laundry list of "actions in support of Azerbaijan" would allow for nuance regarding the Iranian government's ambivalent stance in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (, , ) and even concerns about foreign influence damaging the historically friendly relationship between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Iran (, ). TLDR — there is a notable topic adjacent to this article, but it would require a near-total rewrite and most likely a move, which would be functionally about the same as deletion. Lastly, I'm not sure if IranWire is indeed reliable. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this is TNT-worthy, the issues can be resolved by trimming the background section ("History" and "July clashes") and removing references in the "During the Second Karabakh War" section that do not discuss protests. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement that the quality of the existing content is hard to understate. The main benefit of a keep + massive overhaul versus outright TNT that I see is that at least some of the sources are reliable and they will be readily available for anyone who wants to deal with this situation. I guess the question is whether anyone is actually going to step up and do so. My advice in the event that this does end up kept / no consensus is that there needs to be, at the bare minimum, a move to a less confusing title, a massive condensation of the "History" and "During July clashes in 2020" sections into just "Background", and the removal of all Azerbaijani and Turkish state-sponsored media as sources. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

If it does survive I'm in favour of at the very least trimming it down a lot. I'm slightly concerned that even if this article in theory might meet notability criteria and could be turned into something that doesn't mean it's actually realistic for that to happen. The topic is very niche, much of the current sourcing isn't in English and any editor who attempts to do it runs the risk of getting themselves bogged down fighting in a contentious topic area because someone comes around and feels they didn't do it the "right way". Sure, policy tells us to "just improve an article instead of deleting it", but how is that even done in a situation like this? The idea of someone being able to create a POV mess and then demand other editors put immense effort into cleaning it up if they want anything done about it because it's technically a salvageable topic doesn't sit right with me.
―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 16:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to clarify that I have somewhat walked back on my original stance: there probably are enough reliable sources to support a related article, but again, it would bear little resemblance to this one in terms of title, structure, and content. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. This is a POV fork, and the answer to @An anonymous username, not my real name's question is no, very little has been done to make this article NPOV and remove the state-sponsored subpar sources since the last AFD nomination. So at this point, the best option is to TNT this POV fork. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Cairo (1517)

Battle of Cairo (1517) (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)

Appears to be machine generated with hallucinated references, and also a copy/POV-fork of Capture of Cairo (1517).

The bulk of it is cited to History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1 (1976) by Stanford J. Shaw, which is previewable on google. The only passage that I've been able to find that mentions anything about the events in Cairo in January 1517 is on page 84, and it doesn't verify the vast majority of the text in the article. Pages 70-74 definitively don't discuss it. The two other refs aren't on preview but I have my doubts that it verifies the text as well. Regardless, we definitely don't need two articles discussing the same topic. Griboski (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Griboski (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Suspected AI-generated articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Capture of Cairo (1517) as WP:BADFORK. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Capture of Cairo (1517). D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Google Scholar favors Capture 43-5. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

KoralBlue Airlines

KoralBlue Airlines (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)

Nothing has changed since the last AfD from 2020. The first source is from the airline itself and the second one only briefly mentions the airline. For other arguments, see last AfD. Laura240406 (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Transportation, and Companies. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I found two solid analytical articles (Business Today Egypt, 2006; Jeune Afrique, 2007) that cover the airline's launch and strategy in depth. That should be enough for notability. Shiningr3ds (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Verification of existence is not notability. I cannot find anything that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibly merge what little information there is into one of the two partner airlines who launched it back in 2006. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Egypt, the first source above it too brief. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Harry Pettit

Harry Pettit (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 think this a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. Their citation record is pretty weak and there is no evidence of them passing any of the other PROF criteria, and essentially all news coverage of them is from mid 2025 onwards about them making controversial remarks and actions primarily about the Israel-Gaza conflict and then subsequently leaving their academic lecturing job as a result and then failing to get another job. Leaving a job as a result for making controversial remarks about the Israel-Gaza conflict seems pretty unremarkable and not something of long-term encyclopaedic significance, and there's not really any evidence in my view that Pettit is notable as an activist per se. While one might draw a comparison to David Miller (sociologist), Pettit has far less prominence for his academic work than Miller does. The article has been subject to a complaint apparently by the subject's mother on the BLPN noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harry_Pettit:_Attack_page, which has also questioned his notability, so I think this can reasonably be considered a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Geography, Egypt, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom - absent the political controversy, notability would be dicey at best, and BLP1E argues for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This subject appears to fail WP:PROF and the sources tend to indicate WP:BLP1E. The depth of biographical coverage regarding controversy is short of encyclopedic, and the subject is not particularly notable for the controversy. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning keep. He's now departed from one university and been barred from teaching at two others. The story travels across two countries and two years. Sources are available in English, including mainstream reporting from the Belgian news agency. --Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  He's been barred from teaching at just one uni. Sources are mainly internal university publications. Mainstream media adds little info ~2026-15754-93 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  (FYI: The above IP claims to be the subjects mother.Vlaemink (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Current sources include NOS Nieuws, National Post, De Telegraaf, and EJC. More have already been listed, which is what is actually relevant. Cortador (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-15754-93; Pettit has been effectively fired by both a Dutch university and a Belgian university within less than a year.Vlaemink (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  The sources are all either Dutch or Belgian, apart from one that does not relate to the subject (National Post) and the EJC which just confirms his contract with VUB was terminated because of complaints made by them. There is a Dutch/Flemish Wikipedia article on the subject which is not a direct translation of this one and feels more appropriate for the Dutch/Flemish speaking world. The first reference given on him was published just over a year ago (11.3.25), apart from confirmation of his publications which is no longer available to read anyway - the screen shot doesn't show it and Radbound no longer have it on their website of course. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-16688-54: The fact that these valid and trustworthy sources were published by Belgian or Dutch outlets; or the fact that they are in Dutch, doesn't diminish their accuracy or validity in any way, shape or form. All sources listed have been properly archived and are still accessible, so the fact that the Radboud (not Radbound) university doesn't have this information on its current website (again, this makes sense, this person was fired from this institution) is irrelevant.Vlaemink (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the most debated people in the Netherlands. Huge amounts of coverage. Easy pass of the GNG. Referencing here would come in long lists of articles per media channel, not in single articles as we see elsewhere. BLP1E does not apply to many events. Common mistake. gidonb (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... What you have to consider is, if you were looking back on this article from 5 to 10 years from now, and the current coverage was all that exists, would this person demonstrate long-term significance? As is, it seems like a fail of WP:SUSTAINED beyond the current controversy over his remarks. He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term, and I don't think BLPs of subjects who are only notable for relatively brief controversies is a good idea. I think the controversy would be better covered as a paragraph in the Radboud University Nijmegen and Academic_freedom#Netherlands articles rather than as a standalone BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh the coverage is absolutely WP:SUSTAINED. Over years already. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply by any standard or stretch of the imagination. The idea that former university teachers can only be notable if they also meet WP:PROF is extremely stiff. Former professors can be notable for anything: activists, politicians, criminals, authors, artists. Literally anything. Pettit is known for activism. He is not different from other activists on Wikipedia. Only better known. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Lists of sources by channel: Algmeen Dagblad list, De Gelderlander list, Het Laatste Nieuws list, NOS list, De Telegraaf list, Trouw list De Volkskrant list. Easy to expand this with magazines, more international. I have no clue if this is a BEFORE failure, IDONTLIKEITT, or how this nomination came about. Will keep it at not well based in fact and policy. This part is classic crystal balling, in blatant contradiction to how the media follow his activism, separation from Radboud, and current job search: "He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term". gidonb (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable to open up a deletion discussion if someone associated with the subject opens a thread at BLPN with concerns about the article and questions their notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reasonable. People do it so it might be. It is for sure wasteful of community resources to ask to delete subjects who easily pass the GNG. We are short of attention to the article space. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable if proper reason are brought up. All that the IP user on BLPNB had to offer was IDONTLIKEIT cleanup, and too many sources being in Dutch, neither of which are deletion reasons. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Cortador, your response follows the P&G. Often being the first to disagree with AfDs, I frequently get such debates under my opinion. Thank you for responding! gidonb (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a source in Russian. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC).

and no pass of GNG either, despite much special pleading: WP:BLP1E just a flash in the pan. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Article doesn't comply with notability guidelines. References seem unreliable too. ~~PolishHamster^yeah 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolishHamster: Sources used are established and reliable Dutch newspapers, in addition to the Dutch state broadcaster NOS.Vlaemink (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: The Belgian press also paid Pettit a lot of attention. In this domain I have only added the HLN list above. Belgium has so many other channels. Also NL is not nearly exhausted. Even just by the English-language sources, he completely passes the GNG. This class of !voting looks at references in the article in extreme defiance of WP:NEXIST and other P&G. Such !votes next get tallied by closers. gidonb (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject pases the WP:GNG, there is no requirement that the article pass WP:NPROF too (as gidonb noted). WP:BLP1E is not applicable, as there have been multiple events in question that garnered significant coverage (WP:What BLP1E is not applies).

His book The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt also received a number of reviews in reliable sources Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per news coverage and having written a notable book; passes GNG and due to book authorship is not a BLP1E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Gidionb. Vlaemink (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes GNG. Whether or not the article passes PROF isn't relevant because notability of academics isn't bound to PROF and PROF alone; they can be notable based on other policies as well. BLP1E doesn't apply either because Pettit has coverage due to a whole host of events, not just one. Major BEFORE failure. Cortador (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  I read the NlWiki article in its entirety before opening the AfD and saw the extensive sourcing the article, so I am well aware of the substantial coverage this issue has got in the Netherlands. I disagree that this person has long-term notability even if they have had a substantial burst of coverage over the last year WP:BLP says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I think it is legitimate disagreement rather than a WP:BEFORE failure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So sometimes people are in the news because they are the partner of someone. In such cases it makes sense not to allow articles under NOTNEWS. A better way to look at such cases is NOTINHERETED. That is entirely different from people who are famous activists, musicians, criminals, footballers or whatever. Claiming randomly that someone in the medium run (a very specific time span!) will suddenly become less of interest is (odd!) crystal balling. We can't know that. If they are famous now and the coverage is sustained then an article is justified. gidonb (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the point is we should not expect anything. Whether coverage continues should be irrelevant to the AFD. If coverage drops to zero from today onwards, it should not matter because there is already enough to justify an article. That's why we require there is already sustained coverage before we create articles. We won't have anything new but that's fine since we don't need anything new. (This is actually always a problem in BLPs since even if it article makes clear we're only talking about one point in time, many especially subjects feel it's unfair when things have changed years from now and we don't reflect that. But that's a discussion for another time and place.) If you think there is sustained coverage you should be fine with us keeping the article in such a case. If you think we can only keep an article is coverage continues at current or at least some level then I'd suggest we're not yet at sustained coverage level, only when you feel an article is justified whatever happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. A person is not an event. Notability is not temporary. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, certainly, but do not confuse that with topicality. This person is notable, even though their topicality will fluctuate. Just like with every (formerly) living person.Vlaemink (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Confusing concepts is never wise. Thanks for pointing out that there are many concepts one may also consider. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E and WP:ROTM. I'm concerned about this becoming a dangerous precedent, because this is a terrible case. Lots of people get into trouble at work and, since at least 2005, we have been avoiding any defamation against living people. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian: 'Run of the mill'-cases do not get sustained coverage by Dutch national news sources, all of them reputable and trustworthy. There's a difference between getting 'in trouble at work' due to a faux pas, mistake or coincidence and being a (controversial) public political organizer and activist alongside your academic career. Vlaemink (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no reliable evidence that he is an "organiser" - activist yes, but not organiser. Many people take part in activism. I also feel the article reads like a piece of defamation and was quite shocked by it. For example, the article fails to mention that there was a petition signed by 540 university staff supporting him - names and positions provided. If the article remains it would need a lot of editing. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, but your opinion does not matter here, reliable and valid sources do. You might personally dispute or refuse to believe that Pettit was an organizer, but this is what reliable and credible sources do state. You are also misinformed on a petition signed by "540 university staff members", the petition you're most likely referring to was in fact signed by 491 people; of which around 200 were linked to the Radboud University, most of them students (the Radboud University has a staff of about 5500 and 25.000 students) . By comparison, a petition calling for Pettits dismissal garnered 12000 signatures within two days. You seem to think that the controversies involving Pettit were some local, minor events. The Netherlands has 18 million inhabitants, it takes a particular amount of effort and notability for people to be openly discussed by ministers, to have questions asked about you in parliament and to be featured on the 8 o'clock news. Vlaemink (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The up-to-date version of the petition has 540 signatures. There is only one reference to him being a possible "organiser" - a reported allegation by single indivdual who may have had a grudge against him (ref. 6). There is also no reference to a published letter from jewish staff and students wrote supporting him, and the article still states at the beginning that he was dismissed from Radboud, which is also not correct (see ref 4). ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am doubtful that we are going to get a consensus on this one, but another week won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. "Their citation record is pretty weak" grossly understates the matter: his citation record is almost non-existent. Any decision to keep needs to come from his political activity, for which he appears to be just another rabble rouser. Athel cb (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, but is he a notable rabble-rouser? Has he received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources? Will he be covered in 5 years? Or has his 15 minutes of fame ended? ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources listed in the article, are all either major Dutch and Belgian newspapers, Dutch parliamentary records and/or the Dutch state broadcaster; which have commented on his controversial actions continuously for about two years. So it's beyond any reasonable doubt that he's received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. To speculate about where this person will be in 5 years is just that: speculation; but to describe the amount of attention this person has received as merely representing '15 minutes of fame' is grossly misrepresenting the level and quality of coverage.Vlaemink (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the BLPN noticeboard is correct to call this an attack page, and there is a lack of SIGCOV. Note that the Harry Pettit#Early life, education and career has no citations, the source in that graf on the Dutch page is an interview with the subject. The bulk of the article is a controversies section disguised with alternative labels, how can this possibly become balanced? Since there are comments here from IP user/s, I want to note that the content here should be covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic remedies.—BrechtBro (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The BLPN noticeboard did not call this an 'attack page', an IP claiming (,) to be the subjects mother did. Now if true (which is a big if) then I would understand a mother's worries about this article, as it touches upon a number of highly controversial issues in addition to the academic career. But the controversies listed, have received sustained reporting by reliable and national Dutch and Belgian media. His actions and comments have been discussed in Dutch parliament. His comments and actions let to his firing from two major universities and led to the involvement of the Dutch minister of education. The article is perfectly balanced, in that it describes Pettit's actions, comments and their consequences factually. It's unrealistic to expect an article equally (50/50) representing the views of Pettit's supporters and opponents. Vlaemink (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion itself may be internally balanced, but it UNDUE in the biography. Under headings titled for universities, there are one and a half sentences on his academic career and seven paragraphs discussing controversies. WP:BLP states, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced." This is a WP:BLPBALANCE problem: the article is a coat rack to discuss the controversy rather than a biography of the subject. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Helyeh Doutaghi

Helyeh Doutaghi (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 seems like a classic WP:BLP1E article to me: the subject is a low-profile individual who does not pass WP:NACADEMIC; reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of her termination; and her termination was not a significant event. Astaire (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Education, Iran, Palestine, and United States of America. Astaire (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Abdullah Beg Benari

Abdullah Beg Benari (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 can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage for this person, so I suspect he does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. This book has only a brief mention. Along with doing basic Google Books and Google Scholar searches, I searched Encyclopædia Iranica, the Google Books copy of A Modern History of the Kurds, Cambridge University Press, Al Manhal, and JSTOR. I also looked at the Arabic Wikipedia and Kurdish Wikipedia versions of the articles via machine translation, and they have a few citations, but those don't seem substantial/usable. I also tried searching for alternate transliterations, including Abdullah Bey Binari and Abdullah Bek Binari, with no meaningful results. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, History, and Iran. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak delete or draftify. The kurdish article has a few sources, which gives me pause, but I can't find anything in English. –DMartin (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Dmartin969 Here's what I deduced via machine translation about the Kurdish article citations:

  1. Article in English about the Dimdim mountain, which doesn't mention this person.
  2. Article in English about the Baradost tribe, which doesn't mention this person.
  3. Article in Persian about the Baradost tribe, which has a brief mention: "Towards the end of the Qajar rule, Abdullah Beg Binari was the chieftain of Baradost."
  4. Lazarev; Vasiliyeva (2005). History of Kurdistan. Tehran: Forough Book. pp. 131-135. Hard to figure out which book this is referring to; Mikhail Semenovich Lazarev wrote many books about Kurdistan, translated into various languages. But I feel like even in the best case, a single source with four pages about this person wouldn't be sufficient.
  5. Article in English about the Assyrian Genocide, which doesn't mention this person.

  I think this topic is in the unfortunate situation where there's a strong oral history tradition, but not much in writing, especially not in English in sources accessible online. I'd support WP:DRAFTIFY. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, seems like another option is to redirect to Emirate of Bradost and include any verifiable information there. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Dreamyshade about the less-than-useful Kurdish article sources, which I've also inspected. I have made a last ditch attempt on WP:RX to see if there is anything about the subject in a couple of possible sources: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request § Couple of possible sources for Abdullah Beg Benari article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Seyed Zia Hashemi

Seyed Zia Hashemi (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)

Topic does not meet WP:GNG, also confirmed by google search WonderCanada (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. No hope of keeping him on the basis of his research achievements (h = 8), but I can't comment on his other claims to fame. Athel cb (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Ali Sharifi Zarchi

Ali Sharifi Zarchi (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 already deleted before, for failing WP:NPROF, I believe it still applies. Legendbird (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Legendbird (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Although his credentials as a professor are not notable in and of themselves, his arrest and other dissident activities have received wide enough coverage for notability as a regular WP:BIO. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Nearly all of the references are in Persian. Surely to be considered notable for the English Wikipedia we need some evidence in English? Athel cb (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, we have no requirement that our sources be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom JLN2026 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. h-index is 23 and citations since 2020 is very poor. Not sufficient to pass WP:NPROF. --SatnaamIN (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 Fardis massacre

2026 Fardis massacre (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:NOPAGE, better covered in context of the broader 2026 Iran massacres. This entire article, save for two sentences, is about the protests and resultant crackdown. Longhornsg (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Social science, and Iran. Longhornsg (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Lova Falk (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom unless more sources added. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The notable massacre ads up to several other massacre that took place in Iran, showing a clear pattern by authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiri1383 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Given the existence of a broader article. Orientls (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 defection and desertion of Iranian security forces

2026 defection and desertion of Iranian security forces (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 is a weird article. An article with things random people have said about a phenomenon that may or may not be happening as part of large events? Per WP:NOPAGE, discussion of this topic would be better served in context on 2026 Iran war or 2025-2026 Iranian protests. Longhornsg (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iran, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @CAPTAIN RAJU: Sri Lanka? Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Not everything about the war needs a standalone article especially one dedicated solely to allegations and countered by actual evidence. Gotitbro (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro would you be ok with merging/redirecting this to 2026 Iran war (instead of delete) so that the talk page discussions may be preserved? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. This topic meets Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines and is not merely a collection of random opinions. The article can be improved, but deletion is not the appropriate solution. First, the subject appears to be a distinct and emerging phenomenon that has received coverage across multiple sources, which supports notability per Wikipedia:Notability. Even if coverage is still developing, that is not grounds for deletion when there is a clear potential for expansion with reliable sources. Second, the concern about “random statements” relates more to article quality than to whether the topic should exist. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, content should not be indiscriminate, but this is best addressed through cleanup, sourcing, and proper attribution—not deletion. Third, while some contextual overlap with broader topics like the 2026 Iran war or the 2025–2026 Iranian protests may exist, that alone does not require merging or deletion. Per Wikipedia:Content forking, a standalone article is appropriate if the subject has enough independent coverage and can be developed beyond a brief mention. In summary, the article has the potential to be improved into a well-sourced and structured entry. Cleanup and refinement are preferable to deletion. Gharouni Talk 07:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Please collapse this LLM drivel. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Happy to oblige Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. A lot of hot air about unsupported claims. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:GNG, lacks secondary coverage. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This topic is very important; literally, regime change in Iran depends on defections. None of the votes above address this, and claims about WP:GNG or lacking secondary coverage are groundless: BBC, New York Times, Iran International, The Guardian, Reuters, to name but a few sources of this ongoing and important topic. Ivegut (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  We do not deal in making cheerleading and "puff pieces". The sources just reiterating rumors and hearsay. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  These aren't SIGCOV of defections. The BBC article doesn't mention them, and the Guardian piece quotes a Pahlavi spokesman making claims unsupported by RS. This is a poor AfD showing. Longhornsg (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Whatever written in the sources is their claim, to me reliable and independent source means reliable an independent, no matter the content is Pahlavi's spokesman claims or not. For me what is important is the wikipedia edit supported by a reliable and independent source. Try not to push your opinion on other users. You even covered my opinion claiming it was AI created. AI created or not it was my opinion and not an article . You as the nominator did not have the right to cover, delete or amend other user opinion it is up to admins. Your nomination has not a wikipedia policy base. Gharouni ^Talk 22:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice Merge with a redirect to 2026 Iran war and preserve a TP; fails WP:GNG, lacks secondary coverage. It's a no-article, and I don't mean this in terms of NOARTICLE guideline - it's an article about non-phenomenon in a way that article tries to describe it and give it a notability. Ironically, the same editor who claims "Strong keep" said the following: "(T)his page has shifted from documenting defections to primarily documenting the absence of defections., and indeed it did, and with a good reason too: per NOPAGE, lack of confirmation in RS about occurring; instead all we get is all hearsay and claptrap about rumors or, simply, ideological bias, so another editor approached it from that fact and literally had to rewrite damn thing into article that explains the inauthentic nature of entire enterprise.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. My opinion (above) has been collapsed due to doubts about the use of AI tools, I was not sure if I can delete it as it recommends to not modify it. I explained in my talk page what happened. So please ignore or delete that and keep this one instead, thanks. I have reviewed the article. As the article was nominated for deletion in wikifa as well and my opinion there was to keep. However, since this is the English Wikipedia, decisions should be based on Wikipedia policies, not other language versions decisions, so that alone is not a sufficient reason to keep the article here. The article has more than 20 sources, which indicates that the subject may meet WP:N requirements. The meaning of this comment "This is a weird article" is not a wikipedia policy to nominate an article for deletion, what is weird. We have an article with sources in standard shape. There are information out there in sources someone created an article based on following exact wikipedia policies. Gharouni ^Talk 12:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Longhornsg and Santasa99 may I kindly request that instead of delete you !vote to direct the article to 2026 Iran war? Only because we've had some important discussion at Talk:2026 defection and desertion of Iranian security forces? If the result is delete, may I request the closing admin to somehow preserve the talk page? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  To merge with a redirect and preserve a TP? I can absolutely accept that option if that's what you mean, @VR? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly. Redirect to preserve the TP.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2026 Iran war per VR, altho I think there is a case to merge this with the football defections or something. There is a lot of coverage of speculated defections and desertions, moreso desertions. Not really anywhere to defect to. I agree with preserving this talk page, but I am not a fan of this title. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: As this is a notable article, the claims for deletion are very weak if not to say "weird". It might not count a lot in English Wikipedia, but a Persian Editor who probably knows more than any of us on the subject, has voted to keep it. This is something worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amiri1383 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete an article created in anticipation of stuff that is not certain to happen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 would you be ok with redirecting the article to the 2026 Iran war, instead of deleting, to preserve the talk page? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Vice regent: Does that article even mention these defections, I don't think so. If the only purpose of the rd is to preserve Talk discussions just archive them on the Iran war page (and put a move notice above them). Gotitbro (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  I added a single sentence, but you're right, a TP archive would be good enough.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hojatollah Khatib

Hojatollah Khatib (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)

Pretty certain this article does not merit itself via WP:SPORTBASIC. The only two WP:RS are in Farsi and Arabic. One could make the argument WP:BIAS, however it does not seem that this position of chairman alone signals notability as the prior chairman, Akbar Ghamkhar, does not have his own article. Wisenerd (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Wisenerd (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Persepolis Athletic and Cultural Club, being the chairman of this organization is his only claim to notability. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Persepolis Athletic and Cultural Club#Chairpersons – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 11:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect- to Persepolis Athletic and Cultural Club#Chairpersons as an ATD is OK with me as well based on my own additional searches online.Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Persepolis Athletic and Cultural Club as both a bit WP:PROMO-y as well as fail of WP:BASICSPORT. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 12:11, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Persepolis Athletic and Cultural Club Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Persepolis_Athletic_and_Cultural_Club#Chairpersons where it takes you directly to the listing. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

National Union for Democracy in Iran

National Union for Democracy 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)

I was unable to find sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria: that are independent, secondary, reliable and give NUFDI WP:SIGCOV (as opposed to merely quote NUFDI for articles on other topics).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Something that motivated me to nominate this article for deletion is that I found two references that are not only broken links, but the title refers to articles that can't be found via google. For example, the article cites a citation called ""MAHSA Act gains traction in U.S. Congress". Voice of America. September 2024. Retrieved 2025-05-02". But a google search doesn't yield any results for such an article. Likewise, I couldn't find the existence of this Aljazeera article either. Either I'm doing something wrong, or the author of the article fabricated references. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:35, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  The author had been cited before multiple times in ANI for WP:SYNTH. Borgenland (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  And habitually misreading articles (mostly by failing to read beyond the headlines). Borgenland (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Non-existent news articles? Smells like AI. Cortador (talk) 06:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:29, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under WP:G15 I was going to leave a long argument about why I'm convinced this fails GNG and why nothing of value would be lost if this page were deleted, but that's moot now.

I took a look at a handful of sources on this page. One of them purported to be an Al Jazeera article. It's a 404 not found. That's okay, maybe it's just human error. since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. So I looked at another one, purporting to be an article from Iran International. Also just a 404 not found. Maybe still just human error, so I looked at another one. Source #5 calls itself "MASHA Act gains traction in U.S. Congress" Voice of America. September 2024." Which links to a radio show from 2023 about the Wagner leader Yevgeny Prigozhin's death. Seems like Citations that exhibit invalid temporality (news reports about an accident before the accident occurred) to me. But maybe all 3 of these are human error, maybe they just copied the wrong link. So I did a quick internet search for "MASHA Act gains traction in U.S. Congress" in quotes. Searched on both Google and DuckDuckGo. No article called "MASHA Act gains traction in U.S. Congress" has ever been published by any outlet. Did another search, "MASHA" "voice of america". VoA has never covered the MASHA Act. Begone, slop.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the sloppiest material was added by an IP editor and not the original page author, so I should probably elaborate on why I think the topic fails GNG in case someone suggests simply reverting the slop as an alternative to speedy deletion. The slop is the entire page, there's a reason why this was just a two sentence stub before it. I searched the group's name and acronym and scrolled through all the results, hitting "More Results" about a dozen times, and was not impressed with what I found. The group was only mentioned in 2 sources that could be considered RS, though both of them were in the blogs section of their respective sites. One was this Times of Israel article, the only one that provided any significant coverage. The other was this Jerusalem Post article that just briefly namedropped the group in passing. I recognize I'm searching the group's name in English, but this doesn't seem to be a language barrier issue, either. The corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias are worse, not better. Sources simply aren't out there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Took another look at the rest of the sources. All hallucinated. Nothing to salvage. It's a growing problem that it takes far less time to generate & publish slop than it takes to delete it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vanilla Wizard I removed all of the slop and only kept mention of their easily verifiable connection to the Iran Prosperity Project that the Iranian opposition is rallying behind. All that is necessary in this page is that it mentions that NUFDI is what it is and that they helped to create the Iran Prosperity Project. It's like CNR with occupied France and their Programme. It's almost exactly like that actually. Here's the page to that -- sources could probably definitely be improved: National Council of the Resistance ConflictFan (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

^^ Didn't check the leadership section entirely though. I only checked to see if an Alireza was in the original page and he was ConflictFan (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The leadership section is also sourced to a likely-AI-generated 404 not found page. The only things we can say is that this group is a thing that exists and that they published the Iran Prosperity Project. I'm not so sure the Iran Prosperity Project is notable either considering its article relies mostly on primary sources, but this page has zero non-hallucinated secondary sources. I don't know that we can even keep the lead of this page since most of its contents were sourced to slop as well and are no longer verified by the body.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I finished removing all the unsourced and hallucinated material, but now it is just a 2 sentence stub that relies exclusively on primary sources, just as it was before the AI slop was added. This isn't a notable topic.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I see, maybe it can be a section on the Iran Prosperity Project page. There are a few secondary sources talking about IPP and it is well known and discussed in Iranian circles, so I think that one should be kept ConflictFan (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kelob2678 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

From Border to Border

From Border to Border (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 references (can't be fully sure about № 7, which seems to not be accessible nor have any useful snapshot on the archive.org Wayback Machine) are either by the book author or related to the author's prosecution, rather than the book. Does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, Social science, Iran, and Iran. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. If not kept, consider merging to Kameel Ahmady. pburka (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kameel Ahmady. The publication of the book does seem to be a very notable event in his life, but I can't find any WP:NBOOK-qualifying coverage that would make a clear-cut argument for a standalone book. I can't find evidence of any academic reviews, and I see only two citations in GScholar. (No non-scholarly reviews either that I can see.) The Ahmady biography article looks to be a bit overloaded currently and addresses some details of this book already so I don't think a merge is necessary (especially while the content is preserved in the redirect's article history) but a selective merge could also be worthwhile. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

A House on Water

A House on Water (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 topic of this article does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV. The sources cited are either by the book's author or are material related to the subject of the book, rather than the book. Even reference 2, despite mentioning the title, seems to be about the research project on which the book was based. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Social science, and Iran. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. If not kept, consider merging to Kameel Ahmady. pburka (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kameel Ahmady. I find no reviews, and only six citations in GScholar, so nothing for WP:NBOOK to build a separate article out of. I don't object to a selective merge but some of this material is already covered in the rather overloaded bio article already so a redirect seems sufficient as an ATD. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020) (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)

POV fork of 2020 Azerbaijani protests / July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes / Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. This was previously nominated and the discussion was... unusual. Largely slanted towards deletion until a sudden influx of keep votes by Azerbaijani editors. The keep arguments were rather repetitive and highlighted the number of sources present without much regard for their quality. It was pointed out early on that many are of dubious reliability, if not blatant government propaganda. I'm sure that some content related to this would have a place on Wikipedia, but it would be nothing close to what's currently here. Even in this scenario, little if any of what actually exists here could be salvaged, and in any case, there's no clear reason it should exist as its own article. The protests discussed here stem from two separate events in 2020 and it's not clear that those that specifically happened in Iran are widely discussed as a group outside of the context of the conflicts themselves or at least the actions of Azerbaijanis / members of the Azerbaijani diaspora as a whole. The few decent sources that came up during the discussion mainly focused on how the two conflicts affected the overall relationship between Iran and Azerbaijan (which would seem to be a perfectly fine topic). Again, this is clearly a POV fork in that sense; it is framed in such a way as to maximize criticism of Iran and minimize discussion of Azerbaijan's conduct in the conflict. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Middle East, Iran, and Azerbaijan. — An anonymous username, not my real name 00:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: What an unusual article. It's still got a POV issue template since the previous nomination for deletion, and I can see why. I honestly get the feeling that the entire article is synthesizing a notable event. It's an extensive article with a supposed 177 sources, which at a first glance gives the impression of notability, yet when you look at it a bit further it starts to come apart. I cannot find a single citation to an article in English by a reputable source focusing on this supposed notable popular movement. While I'm sure there has been some tensions between Azeris in Iran and the Iranian government, and that could perhaps be mentioned in one of the other articles, I don't see how this is a notable topic in and of itself. Considering all of this, and knowing the history of this topic area, I think it's a safe bet to say that this article is a heavily POV-driven endeavour. If this was actually notable the citations should be full of contemporary English news reports, but there isn't a single one. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 14:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a really bizarre page. I don't really have a strong opinion lol it's either a keep with a serious, serious rewrite (because the narrative flow is really poor) or just deletion. Not opposed to delete Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus on what to do with the page as of this relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Merge with 2020 Azerbaijani protests - The merge target does not get too deep into the content, perhaps some content can be transferred. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well-referenced, 53 references are to Voice of America and 13 are to IranWire. I think both are reliable for this. The protests are not mentioned in passing. Here is, for example, an article from the BBC. Even if the article is a fork of something (of what exactly?), I think this is acceptable as this page is quite large. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Kelob2678, this article as it currently exists is clearly someone's personal soapbox. I think we can at least agree that very little if any of what's currently written here belongs on Wikipedia. What I'm not convinced by is that an article under this name should exist at all: the protests being discussed occurred in relation to two separate conflicts in 2020 and the title of this article does not make it clear who is supporting Azerbaijan or how (it makes it sound as though it's the Iranian government when it's clearly protestors). We could probably have something like Second Nagorno-Karabakh War protests in Iran (akin to Gaza war protests in Australia, for instance), but protests stemming from the July clashes seem to have received comparatively little coverage by RS (that section of this article is based especially heavily on blatantly unreliable sources). An article framed in terms of protests instead of a laundry list of "actions in support of Azerbaijan" would allow for nuance regarding the Iranian government's ambivalent stance in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (, , ) and even concerns about foreign influence damaging the historically friendly relationship between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Iran (, ). TLDR — there is a notable topic adjacent to this article, but it would require a near-total rewrite and most likely a move, which would be functionally about the same as deletion. Lastly, I'm not sure if IranWire is indeed reliable. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this is TNT-worthy, the issues can be resolved by trimming the background section ("History" and "July clashes") and removing references in the "During the Second Karabakh War" section that do not discuss protests. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement that the quality of the existing content is hard to understate. The main benefit of a keep + massive overhaul versus outright TNT that I see is that at least some of the sources are reliable and they will be readily available for anyone who wants to deal with this situation. I guess the question is whether anyone is actually going to step up and do so. My advice in the event that this does end up kept / no consensus is that there needs to be, at the bare minimum, a move to a less confusing title, a massive condensation of the "History" and "During July clashes in 2020" sections into just "Background", and the removal of all Azerbaijani and Turkish state-sponsored media as sources. — An anonymous username, not my real name 01:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

If it does survive I'm in favour of at the very least trimming it down a lot. I'm slightly concerned that even if this article in theory might meet notability criteria and could be turned into something that doesn't mean it's actually realistic for that to happen. The topic is very niche, much of the current sourcing isn't in English and any editor who attempts to do it runs the risk of getting themselves bogged down fighting in a contentious topic area because someone comes around and feels they didn't do it the "right way". Sure, policy tells us to "just improve an article instead of deleting it", but how is that even done in a situation like this? The idea of someone being able to create a POV mess and then demand other editors put immense effort into cleaning it up if they want anything done about it because it's technically a salvageable topic doesn't sit right with me.
―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 16:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Also, I would like to clarify that I have somewhat walked back on my original stance: there probably are enough reliable sources to support a related article, but again, it would bear little resemblance to this one in terms of title, structure, and content. — An anonymous username, not my real name 20:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Support. This is a POV fork, and the answer to @An anonymous username, not my real name's question is no, very little has been done to make this article NPOV and remove the state-sponsored subpar sources since the last AFD nomination. So at this point, the best option is to TNT this POV fork. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Gan Israel Camping Network

Gan Israel Camping Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to Chabad, its parent org. Sourcing is not from independent sources, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, Israel, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Not seeing any independent sources either. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 Ghazali family killing

2026 Ghazali family killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect into Temple Israel synagogue attack. This event can be covered in the aforementioned article, and there is no indication in the article that this event needs a standalone article per WP:NEVENT. None of the victims of the attack were notable people prior to their deaths, either and I see no reason to dedicate an entire article to the perpetrator's potential motives for the Temple Israel attack. Raskuly (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Lebanon. Raskuly (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Temple Israel synagogue attack, which already covers the relevant aspects of the incident at a significant level of detail. Per User:Raskuly, there is no evidence of standalone notability for the incident, and this article appears to exist solely based on the context of its connection as a theorized motive for the attack on Temple Israel. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. This was not notable until the alleged attacker cited it as his reasoning for committing the attack. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip

December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip (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 terrible piece of work was translated from the Persian Wikipedia in October 2024. The two sentences of actual content are already covered in full on Gaza War (2008–2009). The rest is shoddily-sourced commentary on the broader war we already have on the main article. There's no need for this. Longhornsg (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thanks again to Longhorn for working to reduce the glut of PIA stubs that are of little notability. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Joe Stork

Joe Stork (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. Tributes are from advocacy organizations he was affiliated with, such as HRM, MERIP, and GCFHR, and therefore are not independent, nor can or should advocacy orgs be used for establishing notability. Redirect to Middle East Research and Information Project, the organization he co-founded as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Shoshana Strook

Shoshana Strook (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 has multiple issues:

• low-quality sources (e.g. TRT, infopal, vicenews.it).
• unsourced statements.
• misrepresentation of sources (e.g. cited source does not say: "While initial reports from some sources suggested suicide, the Israeli police opened a formal investigation into the circumstances of her death due to the ongoing high-profile criminal allegations she had leveled against her family")
• pulls in material from sources that don't mention the subject (e.g. Haaretz article about conviction of subject's brother).

This is the coverage I have found, but I do not believe it is sufficient to meet GNG , especially because of WP:CRIME considerations. I think this topic should be a paragraph on the page of the subject's mother, Orit Strook, unless/until better sourcing is found. Rainsage (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Several of the issues raised have been addressed in a recent edit. The low-quality sources (voxnews.it, infopal, the original broken TRT World URL) have been replaced with citations from The Jerusalem Post and International Business Times UK. The Haaretz citation for Zviki Strook's conviction has been replaced with a direct Ynet News source that explicitly covers the subject's brother. The misrepresentation in the Death section has been reworded to reflect only what the Jerusalem Post source actually states. Unsourced statements in the Legal action subsection remain and are a work in progress — sourcing for the Italy complaint is being sought.
  On the substantive GNG question: the subject is not notable merely as a family member of Orit Strock but in her own right as the originator of a sustained public whistleblowing campaign that generated a national debate in Israel around judicial gag orders, the handling of abuse allegations against political figures, and the role of Lahav 433. This coverage is independent of her mother. The WP:CRIME consideration raised by the nominator applies more naturally to perpetrators than to victims and activists. A paragraph on Orit Strock's page would not adequately cover the independent public debate this subject generated. Venusasaguy (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I removed your reference to International Business Times per WP:IBTIMES. Lafi90 (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  It may be true that there is a national debate in Israel about these things, but I have not seen it widely covered in reliable sources. We would need much better sourcing to warrant an entire article about this. Actually, WP:CRIME specifically warns against making articles about people who are notable primarily for being victims of a crime (in this case the crimes are currently unproven allegations). Rainsage (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you. If your death is mentioned by Netanyahu AND your social media posts lead to testimony at the Knesset. It's a strong keep IMHO. Juju (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - WP:A7 Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  She knowingly made the ultimate sacrifice to save children from sexual abuse, that's not a credible claim of significance to you? In every culture, the memories of people like her are cherished for hundreds of years, unless evil triumphs, and manages to speedily delete them. ~2026-17245-40 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - This isn't an A7 candidate. There has been sustained, non-routine coverage in sources like The Times of Israel and TRT World dating back to April 2025. You can't claim a7 for someone who has been the subject of multiple independent investigative reports and a Lahav 433 case. Grethko (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  TRT world is not a great source for this topic in my opinion; see WP:TRT. I only see one TOI live blog entry about her death which i linked above; do you know of other TOI sources? Rainsage (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• This should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17090-08 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep for now. But a QUALITY check should be performed as to the correct spelling of names (STROOK / STROCK). This should be a basic thing. We should watch development and perhaps later merge the articles with the mother's page. You can delete it later, if no new developments emerge. Royalrec (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Strock is listed on Shoshana's passport. Strock is listed as her mother's surname on the kinesset website as well as her political party's site. Grethko (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, being the child of a politician (with her own article!) as well as the victim of a scandalous crime is clearly notable. Check w:he:שושנה סטרוק if you need more news sources. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  those things don't make someone notable per WP:CRIME and WP:INVALIDBIO. which sources in particular would you recommend from the hebrew version? i see a mix of low quality sources (e.g. ), social media posts, and sources that don't mention the subject [e.g. ). Rainsage (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Did you already check the gov.il sources? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I’m unable to view them for some reason, but the titles don’t make it sound like they mention the subject. If they do mention her, can you tell me what they say about her? government websites are generally more of a primary source than the kind of secondary, independent coverage we would need to show notability Rainsage (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I checked the gov.il website and found no mention of Shoshana Strookת only her mother’s parliamentary profile. Regarding the allegations of a 'scandalous crime,' these remain unproven. Journalists who investigated the matter reported that there is no evidence to support her claims. While this doesn't strictly disprove her story, it means the allegations rely solely on her personal testimony without any external verification. Yona B. (discussion) 14:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  What journalists are you referring to who specifically disprove her story? There are multiple outlets listed in this article that say other women have testified that they had similar abuse? Juju (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Might be notable, not is guaranteed notable. Other than saying things, she hasn't done anything that we would consider notable. There isn't even a criminal conviction at this point, so we have nothing to write about. Allegations of a crime aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, at the moment of this edit there is not enough coverage to guarantee WP:GNG and what little information there is in the article could sensibly be moved to the Orit Strook. Wouldn't be opposed to a draftify if requested. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge into Orit Strook#Personal life. I do not object to the existence of this article and its quality looks fair to me. The case is far from TNT and otherwise AfD is not cleanup. That said, the article is short and this horrific story is already mentioned at Orit Strook. It should be expanded there with details and references in the article. While I join the conversation late, hopefully this could be a good compromise between those passionately arguing to keep or delete. gidonb (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Keep After looking up sources for this, I think if the Prime Minister mentions your death in a statement, it should definitely be kept. Juju (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table prepared by User:jujucabana

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
wp:JERUSALEMPOST https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-889978	Included in Wikipedia:GREL		detailed coverage by a leading periodical of the nation where she's born and died, including a statement from the Prime Minister of her country	✔ Yes
WP:TIMESOFISRAEL https://www.timesofisrael.com/horrifying-testimonies-seek-to-lift-shroud-of-silence-around-ritual-sex-abuse-claims/	Included in Wikipedia:GREL	~ They do not specifically mention her name but they do make reference to Wikipedia covering details of the most sweeping gag order in recent memory concerning a minister’s daughter. This takes up two sentences in the write up.	If a reputable news outlet sees Wikipedia as the only way for news to come out, due to a restrictive gag order, it’s important that this page stays up.	~ Partial
WP:RSPVOX https://www.voxnews.al/english/kosovabota/gjendet-e-vdekur-vajza-e-ministres-izraelite-kishte-akuzuar-prinderit-i112468	Included in Wikipedia:GREL		another source claiming the prime minister of israel spoke about her death	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

• I rewrote a lot of it, but basically her social media posts led directly to a high profile testimony at the Knesset. I think this is a strong keep.Juju (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  do you have a source that makes this claim? the JPOST citation about the Knesset testimony doesn't mention her Rainsage (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  I guess “directly” is a bit strong, but Yael Shitrit testified at the Knesset and is Shoshana’s friend, according to the Vox article. The Knesset article claims that the barkam article was the impetus, but the article only came out after strook’s public posts. The way I wrote the article, I didn’t make as strong inferences as my wiki backend commentary though. The whole thing is truly interesting and I enjoyed reading about her and seeing how her social posts and activism led to so much attention. I could probably even add something about the protests, which I forgot to mention. Juju (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  I found a direct post from Shoshana claiming she was there and a lot more sources. Thanks for challenging me to learn more about this. Juju (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I googled there just aren't enough sources right now for a page--might be a case of WP:TOOSOON Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  There are currently nineteen sources, which is more than the Wiki average of around 5. Juju (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  source about what? add source with her mother profile it not really relevant to the article. other source divide by two. article about her complain in April 2025, and article about her death in march 2026. so maybe you see 23 sources but it is not really a lot. Yona B. (discussion) 14:43, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  I’m not sure what your standards are alluding to, but if she has coverage in most national news outlets and the Prime Minister addressed her death and another individual with his own Wikipedia addresses her activism AND she allegedly had the most severe gag order in recent memory…she seems significant…. Juju (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  The Prime Minister's condolences were directed at a public figure (the cabinet member), not the deceased. Such an acknowledgment of a colleague's loss is a routine official act and is insufficient to establish a separate article for the daughter. Israel is a small country so it was in the national news for short time, in the death day, nothing after.

  Due to the severe gag order, many details remain unknown, leaving us with speculation rather than reliable information. At this stage, it is premature to determine notability. after more significant facts will be revealed (once the order is lifted, for example) the article's importance can be reassessed, but currently, it does not meet the required threshold." Yona B. (discussion) 19:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  I’m sorry but PM making an official statement is not routine. The parents of all the MKs have died at some point and the PM didn’t acknowledge it or make any public statement. That’s absurd to say it’s routine. Particularly, because there is a big war going on right now, the fact that he made a point to mention it is unusual. Juju (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• delete and redirect this is already covered at the parent's article so CFORK applies. Secondly, the sourcing analysis above isn't accurate. The first one lacks depth, the second heavily quotes other people, has no byline and lacks specific journalistic input and the third looks like a new aggregator and I doubt is an RS. There is no fact checking input for example. Thirdly, this looks like BLP1E and too recent to be confident of enduring coverage. The keep votes are mostly policy free or assertions and should be given very little weight in the close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  The first one WP:JERUSALEMPOST covers her whole public presence until death, discusses her claims and death, discusses who has talked about her claims from police to advocacy organizations, then discusses the aftermath of her death. I would categorize that as coverage that has ‘depth,’ although your use of the term is vague and not covered in Wikipedia policies. It is considered a reliable source of news according to wiki policies Wikipedia:GREL.

  The second one has no byline and does quote another prominent person discussing something specifically her activism, but those are not disqualifying on whether that meets GNG. However it isn’t listed under reliable sources, so I plan to replace it with WP:TIMESOFISRAEL who covered the story at least twice I believe.

  the third one WP:RSPVOX is just Albanian version of Vox news, which is considered a reliable source by wiki guidelines Wikipedia:GREL. Juju (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think there's no consensus at the moment but am going to relist to see if we can find some, as this is a fast-moving topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Daughter of a minister that alleged things happened; no convictions have taken place. Rather routine life otherwise, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Could be briefly mentioned in the article about the father/alleged perpetrator, but no crime has been found to have happened; can only really be notable after a conviction. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Sources arent really providing us much to go on. Weak reported allegations from an unfortunately dead person. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean by “weak reported allegations”, do you think I should add more details of the alleged crimes in the write up? There were a lot of details covered by different outlets, but I didn’t want to dwell on the abuse allegations of a minor because I find it disturbing. Juju (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  Nothing proven in court, "he said/she said" is how I understand that statement. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Gal De Paz

Gal De Paz (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 Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2026-01 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Has received coverage from WP:RS before her appearance on HaKokhav HaBa. , , . Article does need to be expanded, however. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  1 and 2 are good, 3 is an interview. Find anything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Snowmanonahoe I tried to find more sources, and found these . There is almost certainly more sourcing in Hebrew that would meet WP:RS, but I'm not a Hebrew speaker, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to find them. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Those are also both interviews. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Snowmanonahoe

  I'm not subscribed to this page, so please ping me when you respond so I'll see it.

  Do either of these work? , EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on what's available and to avoid feeding our critics. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Yitzhak Ben-Bashat

Yitzhak Ben-Bashat (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:MEMORIAL article that fails WP:NBLP. Non-notable ordinary soldier whose only coverage in sources is a couple obituaries after his death and brief passing mentions in routine announcements before his death. Most of the coverage of his death was from the IDF website, not even from news outlets. Renominating after two years as the last discussion produced no consensus and had poorly substantiated !votes.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Military, and People. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - I checked all the sources in the English and Hebrew articles. Most of them are passing mentions. One or two of them cover his death and life before in a couple paragraphs. I got similar results when searching his name in Hebrew and auto-translating some of the top results. I don't think this passes WP:BIO1E. InfernoHues (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Golani Brigade#Gaza_war. The only piece with sigcov is about his death. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this redirect is needed; Ben-Bashat is only mentioned once briefly as an example on that page. InfernoHues (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep or redirect – as a senior IDF officer killed in the Gaza war, the subject has received some independent coverage; however, this appears largely tied to the incident itself rather than in-depth biographical coverage, making standalone notability under WP:GNG borderline. A redirect to the relevant article on the Gaza war or a list of casualties may be more appropriate if broader coverage cannot be demonstrated. JournalJane (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging participants of the last discussion: @Hawkeye7, @Zero0000, @Gidonb, @Marokwitz, @Necrothesp, and @Youknowwhoistheman which was not done, but should always be done when redoing a AfD. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the WP:SIGCOV for the killed subject indicates that there was rank and other significance to this person, as well as a sufficient coverage around their achievements up to that rank that goes well beyond standard WP:NOTMEMORIAL. So that is invalid as a reason to not keep this. Also, WP:ONEEVENT does not apply as there is significance, as reported by the reliable sources that essentially this was one of the highest ranking persons killed in the Gaza war, on top of their other life notability. At least a WP:ANYBIO pass. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  "He, along with Asaf Hamami, Roi Levy and Yonatan Steinberg are the most senior IDF officers killed in the war." WP:NBLP is also not the right notability guideline for the nom to cite since this person is dead. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  NBLP is just one of the shortcuts to Wikipedia:Notability (people), him being living or not isn't a determining factor here. To my knowledge, his rank does not confer inherent notability, so the lack of any significant coverage in both English and Hebrew language sources is an issue.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Still leaning to delete. This is a person notable only for his death, and the death of a soldier in a war is inherently not notable. Zero^talk 04:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO1E. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Harry Pettit

Harry Pettit (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 think this a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. Their citation record is pretty weak and there is no evidence of them passing any of the other PROF criteria, and essentially all news coverage of them is from mid 2025 onwards about them making controversial remarks and actions primarily about the Israel-Gaza conflict and then subsequently leaving their academic lecturing job as a result and then failing to get another job. Leaving a job as a result for making controversial remarks about the Israel-Gaza conflict seems pretty unremarkable and not something of long-term encyclopaedic significance, and there's not really any evidence in my view that Pettit is notable as an activist per se. While one might draw a comparison to David Miller (sociologist), Pettit has far less prominence for his academic work than Miller does. The article has been subject to a complaint apparently by the subject's mother on the BLPN noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harry_Pettit:_Attack_page, which has also questioned his notability, so I think this can reasonably be considered a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Geography, Egypt, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom - absent the political controversy, notability would be dicey at best, and BLP1E argues for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This subject appears to fail WP:PROF and the sources tend to indicate WP:BLP1E. The depth of biographical coverage regarding controversy is short of encyclopedic, and the subject is not particularly notable for the controversy. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning keep. He's now departed from one university and been barred from teaching at two others. The story travels across two countries and two years. Sources are available in English, including mainstream reporting from the Belgian news agency. --Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  He's been barred from teaching at just one uni. Sources are mainly internal university publications. Mainstream media adds little info ~2026-15754-93 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  (FYI: The above IP claims to be the subjects mother.Vlaemink (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Current sources include NOS Nieuws, National Post, De Telegraaf, and EJC. More have already been listed, which is what is actually relevant. Cortador (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-15754-93; Pettit has been effectively fired by both a Dutch university and a Belgian university within less than a year.Vlaemink (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  The sources are all either Dutch or Belgian, apart from one that does not relate to the subject (National Post) and the EJC which just confirms his contract with VUB was terminated because of complaints made by them. There is a Dutch/Flemish Wikipedia article on the subject which is not a direct translation of this one and feels more appropriate for the Dutch/Flemish speaking world. The first reference given on him was published just over a year ago (11.3.25), apart from confirmation of his publications which is no longer available to read anyway - the screen shot doesn't show it and Radbound no longer have it on their website of course. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-16688-54: The fact that these valid and trustworthy sources were published by Belgian or Dutch outlets; or the fact that they are in Dutch, doesn't diminish their accuracy or validity in any way, shape or form. All sources listed have been properly archived and are still accessible, so the fact that the Radboud (not Radbound) university doesn't have this information on its current website (again, this makes sense, this person was fired from this institution) is irrelevant.Vlaemink (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the most debated people in the Netherlands. Huge amounts of coverage. Easy pass of the GNG. Referencing here would come in long lists of articles per media channel, not in single articles as we see elsewhere. BLP1E does not apply to many events. Common mistake. gidonb (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... What you have to consider is, if you were looking back on this article from 5 to 10 years from now, and the current coverage was all that exists, would this person demonstrate long-term significance? As is, it seems like a fail of WP:SUSTAINED beyond the current controversy over his remarks. He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term, and I don't think BLPs of subjects who are only notable for relatively brief controversies is a good idea. I think the controversy would be better covered as a paragraph in the Radboud University Nijmegen and Academic_freedom#Netherlands articles rather than as a standalone BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh the coverage is absolutely WP:SUSTAINED. Over years already. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply by any standard or stretch of the imagination. The idea that former university teachers can only be notable if they also meet WP:PROF is extremely stiff. Former professors can be notable for anything: activists, politicians, criminals, authors, artists. Literally anything. Pettit is known for activism. He is not different from other activists on Wikipedia. Only better known. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Lists of sources by channel: Algmeen Dagblad list, De Gelderlander list, Het Laatste Nieuws list, NOS list, De Telegraaf list, Trouw list De Volkskrant list. Easy to expand this with magazines, more international. I have no clue if this is a BEFORE failure, IDONTLIKEITT, or how this nomination came about. Will keep it at not well based in fact and policy. This part is classic crystal balling, in blatant contradiction to how the media follow his activism, separation from Radboud, and current job search: "He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term". gidonb (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable to open up a deletion discussion if someone associated with the subject opens a thread at BLPN with concerns about the article and questions their notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reasonable. People do it so it might be. It is for sure wasteful of community resources to ask to delete subjects who easily pass the GNG. We are short of attention to the article space. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable if proper reason are brought up. All that the IP user on BLPNB had to offer was IDONTLIKEIT cleanup, and too many sources being in Dutch, neither of which are deletion reasons. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Cortador, your response follows the P&G. Often being the first to disagree with AfDs, I frequently get such debates under my opinion. Thank you for responding! gidonb (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a source in Russian. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC).

and no pass of GNG either, despite much special pleading: WP:BLP1E just a flash in the pan. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Article doesn't comply with notability guidelines. References seem unreliable too. ~~PolishHamster^yeah 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolishHamster: Sources used are established and reliable Dutch newspapers, in addition to the Dutch state broadcaster NOS.Vlaemink (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: The Belgian press also paid Pettit a lot of attention. In this domain I have only added the HLN list above. Belgium has so many other channels. Also NL is not nearly exhausted. Even just by the English-language sources, he completely passes the GNG. This class of !voting looks at references in the article in extreme defiance of WP:NEXIST and other P&G. Such !votes next get tallied by closers. gidonb (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject pases the WP:GNG, there is no requirement that the article pass WP:NPROF too (as gidonb noted). WP:BLP1E is not applicable, as there have been multiple events in question that garnered significant coverage (WP:What BLP1E is not applies).

His book The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt also received a number of reviews in reliable sources Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per news coverage and having written a notable book; passes GNG and due to book authorship is not a BLP1E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Gidionb. Vlaemink (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes GNG. Whether or not the article passes PROF isn't relevant because notability of academics isn't bound to PROF and PROF alone; they can be notable based on other policies as well. BLP1E doesn't apply either because Pettit has coverage due to a whole host of events, not just one. Major BEFORE failure. Cortador (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  I read the NlWiki article in its entirety before opening the AfD and saw the extensive sourcing the article, so I am well aware of the substantial coverage this issue has got in the Netherlands. I disagree that this person has long-term notability even if they have had a substantial burst of coverage over the last year WP:BLP says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I think it is legitimate disagreement rather than a WP:BEFORE failure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So sometimes people are in the news because they are the partner of someone. In such cases it makes sense not to allow articles under NOTNEWS. A better way to look at such cases is NOTINHERETED. That is entirely different from people who are famous activists, musicians, criminals, footballers or whatever. Claiming randomly that someone in the medium run (a very specific time span!) will suddenly become less of interest is (odd!) crystal balling. We can't know that. If they are famous now and the coverage is sustained then an article is justified. gidonb (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the point is we should not expect anything. Whether coverage continues should be irrelevant to the AFD. If coverage drops to zero from today onwards, it should not matter because there is already enough to justify an article. That's why we require there is already sustained coverage before we create articles. We won't have anything new but that's fine since we don't need anything new. (This is actually always a problem in BLPs since even if it article makes clear we're only talking about one point in time, many especially subjects feel it's unfair when things have changed years from now and we don't reflect that. But that's a discussion for another time and place.) If you think there is sustained coverage you should be fine with us keeping the article in such a case. If you think we can only keep an article is coverage continues at current or at least some level then I'd suggest we're not yet at sustained coverage level, only when you feel an article is justified whatever happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. A person is not an event. Notability is not temporary. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, certainly, but do not confuse that with topicality. This person is notable, even though their topicality will fluctuate. Just like with every (formerly) living person.Vlaemink (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Confusing concepts is never wise. Thanks for pointing out that there are many concepts one may also consider. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E and WP:ROTM. I'm concerned about this becoming a dangerous precedent, because this is a terrible case. Lots of people get into trouble at work and, since at least 2005, we have been avoiding any defamation against living people. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian: 'Run of the mill'-cases do not get sustained coverage by Dutch national news sources, all of them reputable and trustworthy. There's a difference between getting 'in trouble at work' due to a faux pas, mistake or coincidence and being a (controversial) public political organizer and activist alongside your academic career. Vlaemink (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no reliable evidence that he is an "organiser" - activist yes, but not organiser. Many people take part in activism. I also feel the article reads like a piece of defamation and was quite shocked by it. For example, the article fails to mention that there was a petition signed by 540 university staff supporting him - names and positions provided. If the article remains it would need a lot of editing. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, but your opinion does not matter here, reliable and valid sources do. You might personally dispute or refuse to believe that Pettit was an organizer, but this is what reliable and credible sources do state. You are also misinformed on a petition signed by "540 university staff members", the petition you're most likely referring to was in fact signed by 491 people; of which around 200 were linked to the Radboud University, most of them students (the Radboud University has a staff of about 5500 and 25.000 students) . By comparison, a petition calling for Pettits dismissal garnered 12000 signatures within two days. You seem to think that the controversies involving Pettit were some local, minor events. The Netherlands has 18 million inhabitants, it takes a particular amount of effort and notability for people to be openly discussed by ministers, to have questions asked about you in parliament and to be featured on the 8 o'clock news. Vlaemink (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The up-to-date version of the petition has 540 signatures. There is only one reference to him being a possible "organiser" - a reported allegation by single indivdual who may have had a grudge against him (ref. 6). There is also no reference to a published letter from jewish staff and students wrote supporting him, and the article still states at the beginning that he was dismissed from Radboud, which is also not correct (see ref 4). ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am doubtful that we are going to get a consensus on this one, but another week won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. "Their citation record is pretty weak" grossly understates the matter: his citation record is almost non-existent. Any decision to keep needs to come from his political activity, for which he appears to be just another rabble rouser. Athel cb (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, but is he a notable rabble-rouser? Has he received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources? Will he be covered in 5 years? Or has his 15 minutes of fame ended? ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources listed in the article, are all either major Dutch and Belgian newspapers, Dutch parliamentary records and/or the Dutch state broadcaster; which have commented on his controversial actions continuously for about two years. So it's beyond any reasonable doubt that he's received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. To speculate about where this person will be in 5 years is just that: speculation; but to describe the amount of attention this person has received as merely representing '15 minutes of fame' is grossly misrepresenting the level and quality of coverage.Vlaemink (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the BLPN noticeboard is correct to call this an attack page, and there is a lack of SIGCOV. Note that the Harry Pettit#Early life, education and career has no citations, the source in that graf on the Dutch page is an interview with the subject. The bulk of the article is a controversies section disguised with alternative labels, how can this possibly become balanced? Since there are comments here from IP user/s, I want to note that the content here should be covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic remedies.—BrechtBro (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The BLPN noticeboard did not call this an 'attack page', an IP claiming (,) to be the subjects mother did. Now if true (which is a big if) then I would understand a mother's worries about this article, as it touches upon a number of highly controversial issues in addition to the academic career. But the controversies listed, have received sustained reporting by reliable and national Dutch and Belgian media. His actions and comments have been discussed in Dutch parliament. His comments and actions let to his firing from two major universities and led to the involvement of the Dutch minister of education. The article is perfectly balanced, in that it describes Pettit's actions, comments and their consequences factually. It's unrealistic to expect an article equally (50/50) representing the views of Pettit's supporters and opponents. Vlaemink (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion itself may be internally balanced, but it UNDUE in the biography. Under headings titled for universities, there are one and a half sentences on his academic career and seven paragraphs discussing controversies. WP:BLP states, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced." This is a WP:BLPBALANCE problem: the article is a coat rack to discuss the controversy rather than a biography of the subject. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Omar Dabaj

Omar Dabaj (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)

Previous AfD last August closed as keep on the basis of some Arabic news sources found in the AfD. None of these found their way into the article because, in fact, these are all primary sources, and lack significant coverage. It is clear that he was a boxer who served a suspension for some reason, that is not clear from any of the coverage. But a boxer is not notable simply for serving a suspension, and neither is participation in an Olympic team sufficient for notability. What we lack here is any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In particular, we cannot write an article about this boxer, because we haven't found any evidence anywhere that anyone has written about him with anything approaching biographic details. We can't synthesise an article from match reports and ban appeals - that is not encyclopaedic.

Source analysis of all previously found sources follows, collapsed to aid readability.

More information Source Analysis, Source ...

Source Analysis

Source assessment table prepared by User:Example Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? "Our boxer, Omar Dabaj (Dannan "A Mukalafm"), lost on points after fighting Ugandan boxer Marawiyata for 7 consecutive rounds, proving his strength." and "The two Jordanian boxers lost their matches at the beginning of the qualifiers. Omar Dabaj lost to Ugandan Franco by tap-out, while Abdulnam Shabab lost by stoppage after 1.5 minutes of the first round against a boxer from Kitia." No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. The use of "our boxer" indicates the local interest but not lack of independence. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. This is a simple match report, and lacks significant detail even for that. ✘ No - (sentence at end of report on others) No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. This is a simple match report, and lacks significant detail even for that. ✘ No "The Federation allowed player Omar Dabaj to participate with his club, Al-Dhafatain, in all its internal activities, while emphasising his “ban” from participating with the national team for two years, based on the decision of the Arab Federation. The Federation also reviewed the risks that were taken" No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. Short report on a decision to allow him to participate, and lacks anything from which an article can be written. ✘ No "Based on the actions of player Omar Dabaj during the Fifth Arab Boxing Championship, which was held in Damascus from November 4th to 25th, 2011, the Federation decided to suspend player Omar Dabaj from participating in the Federation's activities for two years, effective from the date of the announcement 15/14/00. It should be noted that the Arab Federation had previously decided to suspend the aforementioned player from participating in Arab championships for a period of ..." No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. Report of his suspension. Not SIGCOV and nothing to write an article from. ✘ No - "The Council reviewed the Technical Committee's decision regarding the actions of boxer Al-Zadqi Aden Babah, which took place in Damascus from [date missing] and endorsed the Technical Committee's decision, which includes banning boxer Omar Dabaj from participating in upcoming Arab championships for two years, as well as requesting the Jordanian Boxing Federation to take the necessary penalties. The Secretary-General was tasked with circulating the decision to all national federations that are members of the Arab Federation, as well as the Jordanian Olympic Committee." Confirmed identical text with below No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. Short report on a decision to allow him to participate, and lacks anything from which an article can be written. ✘ No - "The Council reviewed the Technical Committee's decision regarding the conduct of Jordanian boxer Omar Dabbaj during the Arab Championship in Damascus from 11/4/1961 to 1989. The Council endorsed the Technical Committee's decision, which includes banning boxer Omar Dabbaj from participating in the next Arab Championship for two years and requesting the Jordanian Federation to take the necessary disciplinary measures against him. The Secretary General was instructed to forward the decision to all national federations and the Olympic Committee. The Council then listened to the Media Committee's report." No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. This is an identical report to the above and not significant for the same reason. ✘ No - "The audience returned and once again believed in boxer Omar Dabaj, who played a good match and won on points after defeating his opponent Majid Mahmoud “Al-Tayaran”. Dabaj was the most effective at hitting the face and the best in defense. It was noted that Mahmoud’s skill in throwing punches was faster, but Dabaj’s defense denied his opponent the opportunity to score." No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. This is a simple match report, and lacks significant detail even for that. ✘ No - "On the national team front, boxer Omar Dabbaj advanced to the middleweight final, where he will compete for the gold medal against Tunisian Raouf Al-Harbi." No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. This is a simple fixture report, and lacks significant detail even for that. Not SIGCOV and nothing to write an artricle from. ✘ No "So what does that mean? Perhaps our boxer Omar Dabbaj, who was nominated by the technical committee and opposed by the federation after it had agreed to his nomination, proved his determination despite his psychological state, which he acknowledged, due to the federation's attempt to prevent him from traveling to the Olympics, in a way..." No reason to suppose this news reporting is not independent. Again "our boxer" might imply a lack of objectivity but is more likely because of the local nature of the reporting rather than a lack of independence. However, it is primary news reporting without synthesis, and primary sources do not count towards notability. No reason to doubt the reliability. A short report about his appeal of his suspension. Nothing about him, just about the appeal. We can't write an article from this. And again, it is not a secondary source. ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Boxing, Olympics, and Jordan. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• The Internet Archive is down so I can't check the sources, but I'm very sure I would not have called "a sentence at end of report on others" a 300-word story jointly-focused on him and one other (how I described it in the last AFD). Furthermore, just because the sources are newspapers does not make them primary, "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved" (no evidence that they are written by people involved in the events as opposed to independent sports journalists who chose to cover Dabaj, which would be secondary coverage – which is more likely). I'm not voting keep yet as I can't read the sources, but strongly leaning that way as I would only have voted keep in the last AFD if I was absolutely sure there was enough to write a quality article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

2026 Ghazali family killing

2026 Ghazali family killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect into Temple Israel synagogue attack. This event can be covered in the aforementioned article, and there is no indication in the article that this event needs a standalone article per WP:NEVENT. None of the victims of the attack were notable people prior to their deaths, either and I see no reason to dedicate an entire article to the perpetrator's potential motives for the Temple Israel attack. Raskuly (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Lebanon. Raskuly (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Temple Israel synagogue attack, which already covers the relevant aspects of the incident at a significant level of detail. Per User:Raskuly, there is no evidence of standalone notability for the incident, and this article appears to exist solely based on the context of its connection as a theorized motive for the attack on Temple Israel. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Redirect per nom. This was not notable until the alleged attacker cited it as his reasoning for committing the attack. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Unit 4400

Unit 4400 (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 was PRODed and the proposal was rejected adducing that "this org is notable". However, the article represents a textbook case for WP:TNT, as the entire entry is built upon a foundation of policy violations that cannot be remedied through simple editing. The most significant issue is the systematic violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE. While the article is presented as an objective overview, an analysis of the citations shows that the text serves merely as an echo chamber for a single belligerent's military narrative. Every substantial claim, from the existence and designation of "Unit 4400" to the specific roles and alleged deaths of its members, is traced back to a primary military source (the IDF). The article subsequently strips away the necessary attribution found in those sources, presenting partisan assertions as uncontested facts.

The sourcing itself is an example of source padding and ref-spamming designed to create a false impression of a broad media consensus. Sources 1 and 4 are identical articles from a partisan think tank (FDD), while Sources 8 and 10 are identical copies of the same AP report. Of the ten provided citations, nine are non-independent, partisan think tanks, state-owned outlets, or unedited syndicated feeds (such as the NDTV source, which explicitly admits to lacking editorial oversight). Only one source, AP News, qualifies as a high-quality RS; however, it is used in a way that fundamentally misrepresents its reporting. The AP report focuses primarily on Lebanese internal security and Hezbollah's denials, mentioning the "Unit 4400" claim only at the end of the piece as a statement attributed to the Israeli military. By cherry-picking this single quote and ignoring the neutral context of the source, the article violates WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

There is also undeniable evidence of AI-generated content, with indicators such as WP:OAICITE, WP:AILIST, and WP:AICURLY pointing to a process of WP:LLM generation. This article was posted by a confirmed sockpuppet whose dozens of other articles follow this exact modus operandi, relying on AI generated sources and stating controversial claims originating from military sources as facts. Because the article's very title and premise are derived from unattributed military claims rather than independent verification, there is no neutral version to revert to. The only viable solution is deletion. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Suspected AI-generated articles, and Lebanon. Paprikaiser (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The page was created by Special:Contributions/BasselHarfouch. The account has been blocked. Perhaps the page qualifies for WP:G5 speedy deletion given the stated reason for the block. 'Who Wrote That?' says 92.1% of the current page was added by BasselHarfouch. Whether that passes an 'if not substantially edited by others' test, I have no idea. Either way, if deleted, it is likely the page will be recreated in the near future. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I was unsure whether to pursue PROD or G5. Both carried a significant likelihood of being rejected. In this instance, the editor who declined the proposal did not provide a strong rationale or contribute to the article, either prior to or following the rejection. In any case, the remaining avenue is AfD. I presume that, if the discussion results in deletion, it would establish a stronger basis against recreation by other editors. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions

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

Helyeh Doutaghi

Helyeh Doutaghi (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 seems like a classic WP:BLP1E article to me: the subject is a low-profile individual who does not pass WP:NACADEMIC; reliable sources only cover the subject in the context of her termination; and her termination was not a significant event. Astaire (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, Education, Iran, Palestine, and United States of America. Astaire (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip

December 2008 air strikes in the Gaza Strip (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 terrible piece of work was translated from the Persian Wikipedia in October 2024. The two sentences of actual content are already covered in full on Gaza War (2008–2009). The rest is shoddily-sourced commentary on the broader war we already have on the main article. There's no need for this. Longhornsg (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thanks again to Longhorn for working to reduce the glut of PIA stubs that are of little notability. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Joe Stork

Joe Stork (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. Tributes are from advocacy organizations he was affiliated with, such as HRM, MERIP, and GCFHR, and therefore are not independent, nor can or should advocacy orgs be used for establishing notability. Redirect to Middle East Research and Information Project, the organization he co-founded as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - for lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Harry Pettit

Harry Pettit (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 think this a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. Their citation record is pretty weak and there is no evidence of them passing any of the other PROF criteria, and essentially all news coverage of them is from mid 2025 onwards about them making controversial remarks and actions primarily about the Israel-Gaza conflict and then subsequently leaving their academic lecturing job as a result and then failing to get another job. Leaving a job as a result for making controversial remarks about the Israel-Gaza conflict seems pretty unremarkable and not something of long-term encyclopaedic significance, and there's not really any evidence in my view that Pettit is notable as an activist per se. While one might draw a comparison to David Miller (sociologist), Pettit has far less prominence for his academic work than Miller does. The article has been subject to a complaint apparently by the subject's mother on the BLPN noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harry_Pettit:_Attack_page, which has also questioned his notability, so I think this can reasonably be considered a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Geography, Egypt, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom - absent the political controversy, notability would be dicey at best, and BLP1E argues for deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This subject appears to fail WP:PROF and the sources tend to indicate WP:BLP1E. The depth of biographical coverage regarding controversy is short of encyclopedic, and the subject is not particularly notable for the controversy. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning keep. He's now departed from one university and been barred from teaching at two others. The story travels across two countries and two years. Sources are available in English, including mainstream reporting from the Belgian news agency. --Jahaza (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  He's been barred from teaching at just one uni. Sources are mainly internal university publications. Mainstream media adds little info ~2026-15754-93 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  (FYI: The above IP claims to be the subjects mother.Vlaemink (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  Current sources include NOS Nieuws, National Post, De Telegraaf, and EJC. More have already been listed, which is what is actually relevant. Cortador (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-15754-93; Pettit has been effectively fired by both a Dutch university and a Belgian university within less than a year.Vlaemink (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  The sources are all either Dutch or Belgian, apart from one that does not relate to the subject (National Post) and the EJC which just confirms his contract with VUB was terminated because of complaints made by them. There is a Dutch/Flemish Wikipedia article on the subject which is not a direct translation of this one and feels more appropriate for the Dutch/Flemish speaking world. The first reference given on him was published just over a year ago (11.3.25), apart from confirmation of his publications which is no longer available to read anyway - the screen shot doesn't show it and Radbound no longer have it on their website of course. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-16688-54: The fact that these valid and trustworthy sources were published by Belgian or Dutch outlets; or the fact that they are in Dutch, doesn't diminish their accuracy or validity in any way, shape or form. All sources listed have been properly archived and are still accessible, so the fact that the Radboud (not Radbound) university doesn't have this information on its current website (again, this makes sense, this person was fired from this institution) is irrelevant.Vlaemink (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. One of the most debated people in the Netherlands. Huge amounts of coverage. Easy pass of the GNG. Referencing here would come in long lists of articles per media channel, not in single articles as we see elsewhere. BLP1E does not apply to many events. Common mistake. gidonb (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... What you have to consider is, if you were looking back on this article from 5 to 10 years from now, and the current coverage was all that exists, would this person demonstrate long-term significance? As is, it seems like a fail of WP:SUSTAINED beyond the current controversy over his remarks. He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term, and I don't think BLPs of subjects who are only notable for relatively brief controversies is a good idea. I think the controversy would be better covered as a paragraph in the Radboud University Nijmegen and Academic_freedom#Netherlands articles rather than as a standalone BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh the coverage is absolutely WP:SUSTAINED. Over years already. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply by any standard or stretch of the imagination. The idea that former university teachers can only be notable if they also meet WP:PROF is extremely stiff. Former professors can be notable for anything: activists, politicians, criminals, authors, artists. Literally anything. Pettit is known for activism. He is not different from other activists on Wikipedia. Only better known. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Lists of sources by channel: Algmeen Dagblad list, De Gelderlander list, Het Laatste Nieuws list, NOS list, De Telegraaf list, Trouw list De Volkskrant list. Easy to expand this with magazines, more international. I have no clue if this is a BEFORE failure, IDONTLIKEITT, or how this nomination came about. Will keep it at not well based in fact and policy. This part is classic crystal balling, in blatant contradiction to how the media follow his activism, separation from Radboud, and current job search: "He seems likely to fade into obscurity in the medium term". gidonb (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable to open up a deletion discussion if someone associated with the subject opens a thread at BLPN with concerns about the article and questions their notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if it is reasonable. People do it so it might be. It is for sure wasteful of community resources to ask to delete subjects who easily pass the GNG. We are short of attention to the article space. gidonb (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable if proper reason are brought up. All that the IP user on BLPNB had to offer was IDONTLIKEIT cleanup, and too many sources being in Dutch, neither of which are deletion reasons. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Cortador, your response follows the P&G. Often being the first to disagree with AfDs, I frequently get such debates under my opinion. Thank you for responding! gidonb (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a source in Russian. gidonb (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC).

and no pass of GNG either, despite much special pleading: WP:BLP1E just a flash in the pan. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. gidonb (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Article doesn't comply with notability guidelines. References seem unreliable too. ~~PolishHamster^yeah 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@PolishHamster: Sources used are established and reliable Dutch newspapers, in addition to the Dutch state broadcaster NOS.Vlaemink (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vlaemink: The Belgian press also paid Pettit a lot of attention. In this domain I have only added the HLN list above. Belgium has so many other channels. Also NL is not nearly exhausted. Even just by the English-language sources, he completely passes the GNG. This class of !voting looks at references in the article in extreme defiance of WP:NEXIST and other P&G. Such !votes next get tallied by closers. gidonb (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject pases the WP:GNG, there is no requirement that the article pass WP:NPROF too (as gidonb noted). WP:BLP1E is not applicable, as there have been multiple events in question that garnered significant coverage (WP:What BLP1E is not applies).

His book The Labor of Hope: Meritocracy and Precarity in Egypt also received a number of reviews in reliable sources Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per news coverage and having written a notable book; passes GNG and due to book authorship is not a BLP1E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Gidionb. Vlaemink (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily passes GNG. Whether or not the article passes PROF isn't relevant because notability of academics isn't bound to PROF and PROF alone; they can be notable based on other policies as well. BLP1E doesn't apply either because Pettit has coverage due to a whole host of events, not just one. Major BEFORE failure. Cortador (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

  I read the NlWiki article in its entirety before opening the AfD and saw the extensive sourcing the article, so I am well aware of the substantial coverage this issue has got in the Netherlands. I disagree that this person has long-term notability even if they have had a substantial burst of coverage over the last year WP:BLP says Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I think it is legitimate disagreement rather than a WP:BEFORE failure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So sometimes people are in the news because they are the partner of someone. In such cases it makes sense not to allow articles under NOTNEWS. A better way to look at such cases is NOTINHERETED. That is entirely different from people who are famous activists, musicians, criminals, footballers or whatever. Claiming randomly that someone in the medium run (a very specific time span!) will suddenly become less of interest is (odd!) crystal balling. We can't know that. If they are famous now and the coverage is sustained then an article is justified. gidonb (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the point is we should not expect anything. Whether coverage continues should be irrelevant to the AFD. If coverage drops to zero from today onwards, it should not matter because there is already enough to justify an article. That's why we require there is already sustained coverage before we create articles. We won't have anything new but that's fine since we don't need anything new. (This is actually always a problem in BLPs since even if it article makes clear we're only talking about one point in time, many especially subjects feel it's unfair when things have changed years from now and we don't reflect that. But that's a discussion for another time and place.) If you think there is sustained coverage you should be fine with us keeping the article in such a case. If you think we can only keep an article is coverage continues at current or at least some level then I'd suggest we're not yet at sustained coverage level, only when you feel an article is justified whatever happens. Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. A person is not an event. Notability is not temporary. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary, certainly, but do not confuse that with topicality. This person is notable, even though their topicality will fluctuate. Just like with every (formerly) living person.Vlaemink (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Confusing concepts is never wise. Thanks for pointing out that there are many concepts one may also consider. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per BLP1E and WP:ROTM. I'm concerned about this becoming a dangerous precedent, because this is a terrible case. Lots of people get into trouble at work and, since at least 2005, we have been avoiding any defamation against living people. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bearian: 'Run of the mill'-cases do not get sustained coverage by Dutch national news sources, all of them reputable and trustworthy. There's a difference between getting 'in trouble at work' due to a faux pas, mistake or coincidence and being a (controversial) public political organizer and activist alongside your academic career. Vlaemink (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no reliable evidence that he is an "organiser" - activist yes, but not organiser. Many people take part in activism. I also feel the article reads like a piece of defamation and was quite shocked by it. For example, the article fails to mention that there was a petition signed by 540 university staff supporting him - names and positions provided. If the article remains it would need a lot of editing. ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, but your opinion does not matter here, reliable and valid sources do. You might personally dispute or refuse to believe that Pettit was an organizer, but this is what reliable and credible sources do state. You are also misinformed on a petition signed by "540 university staff members", the petition you're most likely referring to was in fact signed by 491 people; of which around 200 were linked to the Radboud University, most of them students (the Radboud University has a staff of about 5500 and 25.000 students) . By comparison, a petition calling for Pettits dismissal garnered 12000 signatures within two days. You seem to think that the controversies involving Pettit were some local, minor events. The Netherlands has 18 million inhabitants, it takes a particular amount of effort and notability for people to be openly discussed by ministers, to have questions asked about you in parliament and to be featured on the 8 o'clock news. Vlaemink (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

The up-to-date version of the petition has 540 signatures. There is only one reference to him being a possible "organiser" - a reported allegation by single indivdual who may have had a grudge against him (ref. 6). There is also no reference to a published letter from jewish staff and students wrote supporting him, and the article still states at the beginning that he was dismissed from Radboud, which is also not correct (see ref 4). ~2026-16688-54 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am doubtful that we are going to get a consensus on this one, but another week won't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. "Their citation record is pretty weak" grossly understates the matter: his citation record is almost non-existent. Any decision to keep needs to come from his political activity, for which he appears to be just another rabble rouser. Athel cb (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, but is he a notable rabble-rouser? Has he received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources? Will he be covered in 5 years? Or has his 15 minutes of fame ended? ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The sources listed in the article, are all either major Dutch and Belgian newspapers, Dutch parliamentary records and/or the Dutch state broadcaster; which have commented on his controversial actions continuously for about two years. So it's beyond any reasonable doubt that he's received sustained coverage by multiple independent, reliable sources. To speculate about where this person will be in 5 years is just that: speculation; but to describe the amount of attention this person has received as merely representing '15 minutes of fame' is grossly misrepresenting the level and quality of coverage.Vlaemink (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the BLPN noticeboard is correct to call this an attack page, and there is a lack of SIGCOV. Note that the Harry Pettit#Early life, education and career has no citations, the source in that graf on the Dutch page is an interview with the subject. The bulk of the article is a controversies section disguised with alternative labels, how can this possibly become balanced? Since there are comments here from IP user/s, I want to note that the content here should be covered by the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic remedies.—BrechtBro (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The BLPN noticeboard did not call this an 'attack page', an IP claiming (,) to be the subjects mother did. Now if true (which is a big if) then I would understand a mother's worries about this article, as it touches upon a number of highly controversial issues in addition to the academic career. But the controversies listed, have received sustained reporting by reliable and national Dutch and Belgian media. His actions and comments have been discussed in Dutch parliament. His comments and actions let to his firing from two major universities and led to the involvement of the Dutch minister of education. The article is perfectly balanced, in that it describes Pettit's actions, comments and their consequences factually. It's unrealistic to expect an article equally (50/50) representing the views of Pettit's supporters and opponents. Vlaemink (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion itself may be internally balanced, but it UNDUE in the biography. Under headings titled for universities, there are one and a half sentences on his academic career and seven paragraphs discussing controversies. WP:BLP states, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced." This is a WP:BLPBALANCE problem: the article is a coat rack to discuss the controversy rather than a biography of the subject. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Muhammad Isa al-Bakr

Muhammad Isa al-Bakr (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 to Wikipedia:Notability (people). فيصل (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Qatar. فيصل (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Prima facie case of notability based upon the number and quality of the sources. The burden for dead people is on the nomination, and I don't see how this passes. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep plenty of sources well over three that meet WP:Notability Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect to Madid Ahl al-Sham#Muhammad Isa al-Bakr. Looking at every source currently present in Special:Permalink/1343352669 (excluding the dozen links to YouTube and X/Twitter), most of the references appear to mention al-Bakr briefly at best but usually not at all, instead centering on Madid Ahl al-Sham (45681519) or other associated topics (1216). Notability is not inherited—while this article appears to demonstrate significant coverage of al-Bakr at first, a closer look shows that much of the content and sourcing is actually in fact about other, only tangentially related, topics. Of the remaining sources, several are from non-independent advocacy organizations Amnesty International (2528) and ANHRI (2427). 26 might be the only source present in this article that could meet WP:42. There's also 3, but that only has about a paragraph of stuff relating to al-Bakr. That’s maybe 1.5 out of WP:THREE, which is not great, especially for a (potential?) WP:BLP in a controversial subject area. My own external search for WP:NEXIST did not yield anything much (though it was probably not as thorough as my analysis above, and there were many false positives—if additional sources are found or my !vote rationale may otherwise be flawed in any way, please ping me!). As far as WP:ATDs go, I don't believe significant merging is needed—most of the things that could or should potentially be merged from here have been adequately covered already in the relevant articles. I've made some sub-headings and I think a redirect to Madid Ahl al-Sham § Muhammad Isa al-Bakr could work nicely. GoldRomean (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Cairo (1517)

Battle of Cairo (1517) (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)

Appears to be machine generated with hallucinated references, and also a copy/POV-fork of Capture of Cairo (1517).

The bulk of it is cited to History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Volume 1 (1976) by Stanford J. Shaw, which is previewable on google. The only passage that I've been able to find that mentions anything about the events in Cairo in January 1517 is on page 84, and it doesn't verify the vast majority of the text in the article. Pages 70-74 definitively don't discuss it. The two other refs aren't on preview but I have my doubts that it verifies the text as well. Regardless, we definitely don't need two articles discussing the same topic. Griboski (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Griboski (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Suspected AI-generated articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Capture of Cairo (1517) as WP:BADFORK. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Capture of Cairo (1517). D4iNa4 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Google Scholar favors Capture 43-5. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Beykent Educational Institutions

Beykent Educational Institutions (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 in WP:NORG owing to the lack of CORPDEPTH and failed WP:SIRS. My BEFORE didn't yield anything useful. The Turkish Wiki is filled with PRIMARY sources, so didn't help. Won't mind withdrawing if someone can find sources. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Turkey. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yenice Çağ Private High School

Yenice Çağ Private High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails in GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. My BEFORE didn't yield anything useful. Won't mind withdrawing if sources are found. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Turkey. BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I think the noms WP:BEFORE was adequate to establish the WP:NSCHOOL fail. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Jarmo (game)

Jarmo (game) (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 is an old, effectively unreferenced article (there are just two ELs to game description on fansites). The game has dubious WP:GNG, but ironically, a recent article about it in a Polish game portal I consider reliable and that does help a bit with GNG also explicitly notes our (Wikipedia) article has quite a few errors. Adding to this poor style ("An interesting aspect of...", etc.), I think this warrants a[ WP:TNT approach, with the article, if deemed notable, to be recreated one day from reliable sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Poland, and Turkey. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Others

• Matthew Nakkar (via WP:PROD on 20 September 2025)

Zee Aflam

Zee Aflam (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. Restore previous redirect which has been removed a few times. Mariamnei (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Zee Aflam Is Unsourced ~2026-17311-16 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Television, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises#International: this nomination was actually overdue, given the repeatedly-contested BLARs (at some point, if there are repeated signs of contesting and an AfD has not been conducted, we have to go through the motions of a nomination to confirm non-notability). This was semi-protected for a few months last year; as every contesting has been by IPs and TAs (and one contesting came days after the semi-protection expired), that should probably be restored with no expiration date (and I'm not opposed to deleting the article history and its unsourced text and simply recreating as a redirect either). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises#International per WCQuidditch It Is Overdue And BLARs This Is Semi Protected Last Year And No One Read This ~2026-17311-16 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect High time to cull some of the non-notable Zee channels with standalone articles that don't merit them. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Redirect per Sammi Brie Notable Zee Channels Did Not Merit ~2026-18775-42 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Issam Ahmad Dibwan al-Makhlafi

Issam Ahmad Dibwan al-Makhlafi (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 WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NBIO. Mentioned in reporting as part of a cell, but nothing that would satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Longhornsg (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Yemen, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to FBI Seeking Information – Terrorism list where this person's name is mentioned. Article seems to be a pseudo-biography created because their name appeared on a list. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Ali bin Ali Douha

Ali bin Ali Douha (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:NBIO. Redirect to 2007 Temple of Awwam bombing. Longhornsg (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, Yemen, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect to 2007 Temple of Awwam bombing per nom. This is WP:BIO1E. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)