Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Egypt

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Middle East.

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Egypt/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Egypt[edit]

CW 24 News[edit]

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

CW 24 News doesn't exist. Its existence is fabricated on several global Wikipedia and Wikiquote national pages, by two users (sock puppets or meat puppets) GQO and Beach Mirco Viejo and a few IP addresses (196.135.135.177, 154.187.210.6, 196.150.237.159, 196.135.169.232, 196.150.148.109, 154.189.72.22), since May 2024. Even the CW24News.com domain has only been established in April 2024 (for a newspaper that supposedly exists since 1973 and was co-founded by Anwar Sadat. All of the links and supporting info turned out to be nonsense. The cw24news.com website looks pretty real, until you see that it was created in Wordpress, and that the social media links are all phony (going to the template creator). Also: the Media Ownership Monitor doesn't show CW 24 News ownership by Egypt Media Group. Note also that there are a number of "CW 24 News" "logos" in Commons that seem to be completely made up by these perpetrators. I realize that this is cross-wiki spam, but I don't know how to easily make this into a cross-wiki "case". Any help in this respect will be appreciated. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, I actually created this article I added secondary sources and information from the memory sites of the attached site. Search in those formulas and see the result of this search -en- (CW24 News) --------------------search - ar - (سي دبليو 24 أخبار)

CW24 News (Arabic: سي دبليو 24 أخبار)

(GQO (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Delete possible hoax. The Egyptian cw24news dot com was created this year.[1] The domain name was previously an unrelated Bangladesh news site. The BBC's Egyptian media guide does not mention it.[2] The Library of Congress guide does not mention it.[3] The FeedSpot news aggregator does not list it.[4] The biography of Anwar Sadat: Visionary Who Dared does not mention it.[5] Anwar Sadat's autobiography In Search of Identity does not mention it, even though it does mention the unrelated al-Gumhuriah (The Republic) that Sadat founded and briefly edited in the 50s (p. 136).[6] Even if it is not a hoax, it would not meet the notability threshold without any coverage in WP:RS. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note: view the source code of my post for html comments to see the archive.org link to the old website. Wikipedia's blacklist prevented me from including a linked url containing "CW24news.com". Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious spam/hoax. And, imo, you can add Mahmushij and Paula Fenness to that list of sock puppets. MLTRock (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. According to Wikidata there are a total of 11 Wikipedia and 3 Wikiquote pages across the languages. Looking at the history page of the Wikidata entry, some were removed early May and recreated afterwards. Is there an easy way to address all language versions? _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 16:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: Given that this is now a proved cross-wiki hoax, and the sock puppets have all been globally banned, I think this now qualifies for speedy deletion. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sea Derby[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be a notable football rivalry. The references are generally about the country's relations, not football. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing in the article or a Google search does anything to establish these teams as rivalries. All discuss relations between the two countries (unrelated to football), or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the two football teams. Frank Anchor 14:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOSTATS, I've never heard of the Red Sea Derby, and Derby is a very English term. Besides this being just a head to head, I don't even know where the term came from? WP:OR? Govvy (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people just love making up these rivalries and giving them names. I nominated for deletion the alleged rivalry between Portugal and France, which somebody gave the flowery nickname "Battle of the Vineyards" but couldn't put the same amount of effort into proving it existed, apart from showing evidence that the two countries played against each other. I was even chastised for using offensive language just for suggesting that not every pairing of international teams is a rivalry. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COATRACK of relations between the two nations (a serious topic) with a few football scores thrown in on the end. WP:SYNTH. This is like saying because relations between the USA and China/Russia are inflamed, they have a football rivalry. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opay[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. — Saqib (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @CNMall41, @Saqib, @Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggestedParwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP of an activist, deleted at AfD in January and immediately recreated. Notability is not evident to me at all, as the article is a collection of activities which are run of the mill. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Egypt, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with small potential Wikipedia:CONFLICT) as I said in previous discussion. The recreated article removed non-notable information and sources to address previous reasons for deletion, so "it was deleted before" is insufficient reason: this is a new article that should be judged on its own merits, but I still believe the subject has established notability due especially to articles about her in non-English sources. There is a danger of underrepresentation due to Wikipedia:Systemic bias if we insist on more notable English-language sources without recognising the Egyptian coverage as notable. Also, the previous deletion occurred just 8 hours after a single extra delete vote was placed after 3 relistings, so I believed that immediately recreating the article in a form that addressed the reasons for deletion was justified. With regard to Jana's activities being "run of the mill", correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding of Wikipedia:Notability is that it's not up to us editors to judge whether or not a subject's activities are extraordinary in their own right, but merely to summarise what sources are saying if the sources meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and notability. Hence the question should not be "did Jana do something worthy of a Wikipedia article" but "are sources giving Jana coverage that is worthy of a Wikipedia article". (My possibly-biased opinion happens to be that the answer to both questions is "yes" but if we're supposed to focus on the second then no need to argue about the first.) Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not suggesting we need English language sources. We need in depth coverage in independent sources in any language. The piece in Elle is an interview where she talks about herself, as is the piece in Marie Claire. Two other sources are authored by her. Now This News is a passing mention. Some of the others have a strong whiff of PR placements. They tell us she works for an NGO, did a TED talk, and attended a lecture by Malala Yousefzai. She hasn’t received a well-known and significant award or honor, or been nominated for such an award several times; or made a widely recognized contribution in a specific field, and isn’t in a Dictionary of National Biography. So what exactly is notable about her? Mccapra (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If someone is interviewed by a source, then the fact that the source decided to interview the person might in itself confer notability if that source does not interview just anybody. So I don't think we should dismiss interviews just because they are interviews without also asking the question: how difficult is it to get an interview in that publication? I'm imagining it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia for example. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 07:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the one interview isn't in Arabic, English, or French, all of which are spoken in Egypt, so I'm not sure what using an Italian source has to do with Egypt... Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I wasn't commenting on the Italian source. I was commenting on the Egyptian Streets article and the Marie Claire Arabia article, which are in English and Arabic respectively. Whether these articles also count as "interviews" depends on exactly how you define an "interview", but either way my point was that getting published in Egyptian Streets and in Marie Claire Arabia seems notable to me. My point is wrong if it can be shown that these publications have a low acceptance standard of what they document, but I don't think that's the case. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again? Same sources as last time, a TED talk and an interview don't make you notable here... As for the systemic bias, you're actually hurting the standards by using such low quality sources, thereby contributing ot the bias (oh, we'll give this one a "pass"). Still having a lack of sources and nothing we can use to create the article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As mentioned above, I believe it's not that easy to get into Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia. And not exactly the same sources as last time: I deleted some of the weaker ones and added in a couple more. That's why I think it should be re-evaluated on its merits in its current state. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 19:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to judge the notability of activists by similar merits as I judge the notability of businesspeople, because there are similar incentives as it relates to coverage and they're both prone to PROMO for the same reasons. None of the coverage of this individual is WP:INDEPENDENT. There is zero critical coverage of this individual, honestly most of these interviews if you changed some of the subject words could be straight off of someone's LinkedIn page. Profiles are not good evidence of notability because of their dependence and frequent aggrandisement of their subject. BrigadierG (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I believe that at least Mirna Khaled Sayed's article in Egyptian Streets and Cynthia Sukkar's Arabic article in Marie Claire Arabia are both WP:INDEPENDENT. That policy page does say "independence does not imply even-handedness". Jana was 17 at the time, and it's understandable that two newspapers reporting on an underage female activist might choose to be supportive, so unless we have evidence that Egyptian Streets and Marie Claire Arabia are both in the habit of running promotional pieces disguised as independent articles, I think we do have here one or two independent, albeit supportive, articles. It is possible that Jana's young age was part of her notability at the time; Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time so if someone was notable for being reported as a teenage activist then they are now notable for (at the very least) being formerly reported as a teenage activist even if their more recent activities as an adult activist were to fail notability. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible for somebody to add a second opinion specifically on the two articles I mentioned? as currently I'm thinking people are saying "oh, nothing notable here" and not noticing those two. Thanks. Silas S. Brown (email, talk) 18:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Proposed deletions[edit]