Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
ORD
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a46b8234a922cdc7

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:deletion sorting|Middle East|sig=~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Middle East. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


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


Deletion sorting by country or territory

Middle East

[edit]

Wasta

[edit]


Wasta (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)

Should be deleted, per WP:DICTIONARY. Ighs (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Kharijite Rebellions (684–693)

[edit]


Kharijite Rebellions (684–693) (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)

Very poor fork of Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi, made by a user that has a history of creating numerous articles that are also either just forks, non-notable or LLM and were all deleted. Ahmed.Mhdv (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete per nomination.HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete or Split: to Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi and Najdat. Article namespace "Khajarite Rebellion (687–693)" is useful and arguably a good WP:REDIRECT to Najdat, or "Najdat" to it, depending on which term better satisfies WP:COMMONNAME[1]. However, article itself is not sufficient in content to merit its distinct status, especially when its content seems well-covered by the other two. Considerable content from Najda ibn Amir al-Hanafi might also be worth moving to Najdat.
Note: Contrary to the claims of the nominator, only four of @Iwantahawarma's articles have been deleted as of this post, two of which were removed for alleged LLM use (Battle of Damascus (750), Battle of Tall al-Hammam), one for violating a WP:SANCTIONS (Siege of Kalinjar (1545)), one by nomination (Battle of Shopian (1814)) for poor citation and non-notability. A general review of contributions is merited, but until such a review is completed, it is wrong to say that all of the user's article contributions were forks or LLMs when we do not yet know.
[1]: Yes, "Najdat" technically refers to a follower of Najda and not explicitly to the revolt he led from 687–693; however, given the term does not appear to be otherwise used, they are possible to associate as topic headings. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Arada (company)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Arada (company) (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 indication of notability, just a whole lot of WP:CORPTRIV. Athanelar (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)reply

@Docketman All of the things you've described are unambiguously WP:CORPTRIV and don't help to establish notability. Athanelar (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Can anyone find any reliable sources that aren't announcements of construction projects? Unless I see that, I am inclined to side with Docketman Athanelar. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Guy Macon Do you mean you're inclined to side with me? (i.e., delete)? Athanelar (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Oops. Note to self: Next time, edit Wikipedia before smoking crack... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Guy Macon, I am a paid editor as already declared so i wont vote but here are some sources that aren't announcements of construction projects...
1: Building, Daniel Gayne, Mar 2026 https://www.building.co.uk/focus/arada-bought-the-dip-in-the-uae-and-reaped-the-rewards-but-will-it-work-in-london/5141293.article
2: The Telegraph, Pui-Guan Man, 17 Nov 2025 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/17/gulf-royalty-strikes-deal-to-build-thousands-london-homes/
3: Bloomberg, Zainab Fattah, 29 Sep 2024 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-29/uae-real-estate-sharjah-is-a-haven-from-dubai-s-sky-high-rents
4: Semafor, 2 Sep 2026 https://www.semafor.com/article/09/02/2026/uae-real-estate-developer-arada-agrees-to-build-7b-district-in-damascus
5: AGBI, Aug 2026 https://www.agbi.com/construction/2026/08/arada-reports-revenue-rise-but-blames-war-for-building-delays/
6: AGBI, Sep 2026 https://www.agbi.com/construction/2026/09/arada-joins-gulf-push-into-syria-with-7bn-project/
OmarKattan (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@OmarKattan
1. "Building" is a trades publication and there's consensus against using those to establish notability; and in any case this piece surrounds an interview with the company's chief exec so it's not independent
2. This is WP:CORPTRIV
3. No SIGCOV of the company, just a passing mention which is also CORPTRIV and also literally is an announcement of a construction project. Arada Developments, owned by the son of Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and a member of Sharjah’s ruling family, is building a $9.5 billion project...
4. Literally an announcement of a construction project.
5. Corptriv
6. More coverage of the same project as no. 4 Athanelar (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

First, a word about disclosed paid editing. Some people on Wikipedia don't like it, but in my opinion they are being foolish. They imagine that the paid editors will just go away, and maybe some will, but the reality is that if you don't give a corporation like Arada a way to suggest changes you are just tempting them to have someone edit without disclosing a COI. The above is a perfect example of why we should value disclosed paid editing. It gave me six sources I can evaluate. A good source is a good source no matter who brings it to my attention. That being said, are they actually good sources? Athanelar argues that they are WP:CORPTRIV. Anyone who wants to evaluate these sources should not only read CORPTRIV but the entire section (WP:ORGCRIT) that CORPTRIV is part of.

My evaluation follows. I am making each evaluation a separate comment to make it easy to discuss just that source. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Number 1: Building Magazine Definitely significant coverage about the company, not just a project. But it is a trade publication -- one that has been publishing since 1843. Athanelar is wrong in claiming that WP:TRADES says that there is a consensus against using trade magazines to establish notability. The actual guidance is "Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability". it also says "If contested, consensus on the use of sources can be sought at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard", so I brought this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Building Magazine (UK) / building.co.uk. Please monitor the discussion there. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks Guy Macon. Here is another one https://www.thetimes.com/uk/london/article/thameside-west-development-london-dm29kgcx5 , The Times sent their London editor Andy Silvester https://www.thetimes.com/profile/andrew-silvester to Sharjah to cover Arada's communities, although flagging that the footer says Arada sponsored a Times conference, but it is genuine coverage. It is paywalled though, happy to quote relevant bit of it if need be.
OmarKattan (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Guy Macon three more to consider
FT, Chloe Cornish, 22 Sep 2025 https://www.ft.com/content/1b26a1dc-2d0a-4ba6-aacc-ed8f54cb4ced
AFR, Michael Bleby, 24 Apr 2025 https://www.afr.com/property/commercial/roberts-co-nsw-to-be-acquired-by-uae-builder-arada-20250424-p5lu0c
Bisnow, Mark Faithfull, 17 Apr 2026 https://www.bisnow.com/news/london/construction-development/arada-londons-east-growth-citys-living-sector-134172 OmarKattan (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Guy Macon and some Arabic ones as requested:
https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2026/9/24/2-5-مليون-وحدة-بحلول-عام-2030-فجوة-سوريا
https://aawsat.com/home/article/2777446/«أراد»-الإماراتية-تطلق-مشروعاً-يضم-4-آلاف-وحدة-في-الشارقة
https://www.reuters.com/ar/business/YDXFANDIBBLDDENNS6FGIBCORI-2026-08-31/
For any of the previous paywalled ones happy to provide more details via my access if need be and also happy to provide translation to the Arabic ones
thanks
OmarKattan (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@OmarKattan Have you read WP:CORPTRIV which we keep linking to? The FT piece is plainly CORPTRIV, the second one is too, and the bisnow piece seems to be as well but I can't be sure due to the paywall. I'm glad you're trying to provide sources, but please familiarise yourself with CORPTRIV and filter out those kinds of sources since they're no use for notability. Athanelar (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks! Please pe patient, everybody. It may take me a while to evaluate those.
BTW, OmarKattan, there is no reason to add [[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] to every comment. Like most people on Wikipedia, I have a watchlist and see any replies without a bunch of extra notifications. Do please stop doing that. Again, the Arabic sources are very much appreciated. A quick trip to Google Translate says that "راد»-الإماراتية-تطلق-مشروعاً-يضم-4-آلاف-وحدة-في-الشارقة" translates as "UAE-based Arada launches a project comprising 4,000 units in Sharjah." Are any of these sources anything other than announcements of projects? Again, see WP:ORGCRIT. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Number 2: ] Clearly WP:CORPTRIV (announcement of a project) and does not establish notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Number 3: Clearly WP:CORPTRIV (announcement of a project) and does not establish notability. Athanelar is wrong in asserting that this is "just a passing mention" but correct about it being CORPTRIV. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Number 4: Another WP:CORPTRIV announcement of a project. This time in a trade journal. Does not establish notability. --Guy Macon (talk)

Number 5: For variety, a WP:CORPTRIV earnings report in a trade journal. Still Does't establish notability. --Guy Macon (talk)

Number 6: Another WP:CORPTRIV Same trade journal as number 5. Same project announced in number 4. With the same picture. Obvious press release is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

So maybe one source. But WP:ORGCRITE requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" --Guy Macon (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Keep This is, to me, blindingly obvious. I live in the UAE and can SEE Arada's impact on not only Sharjah but other areas. It's huge. The company has been covered, non-trivially and significantly by not just local (although that should be enough - they're national level publications) but also international media such as Bloomberg et al and has not only local UAE but international reach and impact (Australia, Syria etc). The sources are a simple Google away, so much so that you'd moan about the lack of WP:BEFORE and that's before we get into their $5 billion 'Arada Capital' fund. WP:THREE is an essay, fine. But we totally blow past it here. I worry about the obvious bias, to be honest... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Do you by any chance speak the local language? If so, could you please search for sources in that language? We oftem miss important sources because we can't find them or understand them. Before you post, please confirm that they meet the requirements at WP:ORGCRIT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    The company has been covered, non-trivially and significantly... then please provide these sources? If it's blindingly obvious and the sources are "a google away" then it should also be trivially easy for you to provide some sources which meet the standards; thus far they don't seem to be forthcoming, even from an employee of the company. It seems there may end up being consensus that the Building source is good, but that's only one to go off of. Athanelar (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Property Week here covers the move from Sharjah to Southwark, Arada being, as UAE national newspaper Gulf News points out, Sharjah's biggest property developer. I would argue that Reuters covering a $7 billion sovereign investment by the company into Syria is not trivial, and neither would be Reuters covering the company's new $5 billion investment management arm. Global Banking and Finance Review also covered the London investment as did The Times, quite extensively in fact - coverage in addition to the coverage pointed out by @OmarKattan above. UAE business monthly Gulf Business has also extensively covered Arada beyond announcements - although I would have to note that major property developers tend to announce their developments and that would collectively point towards notability on the scale of the business alone. There's more coverage on the company's London aspirations here in UAE national newspaper The National. That's on top of many, many articles from local news and trade media. I don't know that large scale development announcements from a large scale developer are indeed CORPTRIV in the way that a CEO appointment or a funding round are, but that's moot because the coverage presented here is by itself significant, multiple, reliable and independent. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    That property week source is laden with quotes from Arada's staff, I would call its independence dubious at best.
    I don't know that large scale development announcements from a large scale developer are indeed CORPTRIV in the way that a CEO appointment or a funding round are WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly says that arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. I would say that large development announcements are routine for a large developer.
    The 7bn investment article is definitely not sigcov; This is all of what it says about Arada; UAE developer Arada signed an agreement with the Syrian Sovereign Fund on Monday ‌to build a real estate project valued at $7 billion, the Syrian state news agency reported.The project, which will be Arada's first in Syria, will include residential ⁠complexes and health, education and entertainment facilities, the agency said. The deal with Arada... (from there it goes on to contextualise the deal in the geopolitical situation of the region.) Are you really arguing that this is substial coverage of the company and not CORPTRIV? It offers no significant independent analysis of the company; and of what it does says, half of it is sourced directly to the company itself; (...the agency said).
    major property developers tend to announce their developments and that would collectively point towards notability on the scale of the business alone. That's not how NCORP works; see the same quotation I posted from ORGDEPTH earlier in this comment. Athanelar (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I note you haven't spoken to the two Times articles, which are both SIGCOV, to the features in Gulf Business and The National, also SIGCOV. We're past WP:GNG here - again, significant, multiple, reliable and independent. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I can't read the Times articles due to paywalls and both the National and Gulf Business links are giving an "address not found" error on both browsers that I tried them on. Athanelar (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Here are some quotes from the Times article by Andy Silvester, the author's own observations from his visit, not the management of Arada..
    "Then, seemingly out of nowhere, greenery appears: lush trees, more than 50,000 of them, emerging out of the desert... the temperature in Masaar is notably cooler than elsewhere in the sun-baked Emirates"
    "Attention to detail will be required: not all of London's riverside developments have been universally loved, nor designed at human-scale. The added complication of a gnarly traffic system near Thameside West will not help."
    "the morning before we speak, I meet the manager of a new five-star hotel in Aljada. She is only weeks out from opening, but the tinkering never stops. On the boss's instruction, they need to find room for a bigger tree."
    OmarKattan (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    Both the Gulf News and The National links I give above are working fine. The Times piece is a 699 word discussion of the state of the London market and Arada's investments there and elsewhere. It's a piece of independent journalism quoting Arada executives. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
    I was able to access the Gulf Business and the National links now;
    The Gulf Business link is yet more coverage of an announced construction project. It's based primarily on a press release from Arada (The developments will feature [...] as per the release...) and quotes from Arada's (at this point all-too-familiar) CEO; Alkhoshaibi commented...
    The National piece is, shocker, based on information provided by Johnathan Seal, Arada's "London boss" (as the piece puts it). [Seal] told The National... Speaking to The National at the Arada London construction site next to the Roundhouse, Mr Seal... There's a bit of context given at the start, but given that the vast majority of this piece is coming straight from the mouth of Arada, this is once again of dubious independence.
    Again, I can't speak to the Times articles you've mentioned due to paywalls, but given everything else you've cited here as upstanding coverage I doubt they'll provide the much-needed silver bullet either. The crux here is that there doesn't seem to be a single piece of coverage which isn't either based on an Arada press release about one of their upcoming projects, or based on an interview with one of Arada's execs. There's no "The history of Arada" article written by somebody completely unaffiliated with the company (which is gold-standard and not particularly common, I know, but the bar for NCORP is deliberately quite high).
    It is entirely possible (and quite common) for even very large companies to not pass the NCORP threshold. I get what you're saying about their impact on the industry etc, but if nobody's writing independent analysis about the company, then they don't belong here. Athanelar (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete: I just reread this entire discussion and I just don't see evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment The company was covered in this market report, but it is paywalled and we cannot properly evaluate it. There are also at least some assessments by credit agencies, but they were solicited by the company. On the other hand, Moody's and Fitch Ratings look like reliable sources that would strive to report accurately. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Delete: I have to agree it's a decent sized company and some postings exist about it. But nothing notable to keep. ContentEditman (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment Yet more significant coverage of Arada here in the context of major new expansions together with developer Aldar to create a large 1.5 million square metre community on the Dubai/Abu Dhabi border. Note the article recaps the large scale of work undertaken - an AED 130 billion company with a portfolio of 55,000 homes does rather strike me as on the scale of notable. I'll recap on earlier claims that all of this significant coverage presented above is WP:CORPTRIV - that's a misreading of that guideline, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Oh boy! Another announcement of a construction project, ignoring the multiple times that it has been explained that those don't establish notability! (Hint: nobody agrees that this in not CORPTRIV.) I can hardly contain my excitement at this latest example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and can hardly wait for the next dozen or so. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Very helpful, Guy. Thanks for that. Perhaps from your lofty and sarcastic pillar, you could educate us lower life forms? If construction projects on a large and international scale extensively covered in national and international media don't make a property development company notable, what does? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    And a very nice pillar it is! Very comfy since they added the eiderdown cushion. To answer your question:
"The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements"
That's from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) You might want to consider reading it. It is rather good.
Routine announcements of construction projects on a large and international scale are still routine announcements.
Arada should be happy that they aren't getting significant coverage other than routine announcements of large construction projects. That kind of coverage is usually the result of a scandal. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
We, sadly, disagree. Arada would rank just south of the middle of the Fortune 1000 on 2025 revenue alone. It's a significant development company in the United Arab Emirates and has been covered by Reuters, Bloomberg and The Times - none of whom have a reputation for running press releases. It has also been covered widely by UAE based national news, trade and business media. There is actually commentary, survey and discussion on offer - but you seem to be dismissing that because numbers. I do think there's bias in action here - but there we go. You don't, by the way, have to be sarcastic and patronising to make your point. It's not, to be honest, a great look. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Evidence, please. You say that there is "actually commentary, survey and discussion on offer" but when asked to provide it you post Yet Another Routine Announcement Of A Giant Construction Project. Again, you are an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Just so we understand you, are you saying that routine announcements of construction projects are not CORPTRIV, or are you saying that you have discovered a source that is not a routine announcements of construction project? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Middle_East&oldid=1377738345"