Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cyprus
 | Points of interest related to Cyprus on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Cyprus. 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|Cyprus|~~~~}} 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 Cyprus. 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:| watch |
 | Scan for related AfDs |
Cyprus
[edit]
- Libertex (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 don't see a pass of WP:NCORP for this company. The sources are limited to:
- Press release-driven WP:CORPTRIV about personnel changes, product announcements, sponsorship announcements, etc. (, , , , , , )
- Non-independent Q&A WP:INTERVIEWs (, )
- Brief WP:TRIVIALMENTION ()
- WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs like government webpages and database listings (, )
- Libertex's own website ()
The one thing that might indicate WP:CORPDEPTH is the coverage it received when its license was briefly suspended by Cypriot authorities (, ), but if that's the only thing that triggered coverage, this company is in a WP:1E notability situation and can't pass WP:NCORP simply because it had a regulatory dustup (see WP:ILLCON). Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Cyprus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- Delete References are entirely routine in nature release of product, ceo interviews, PR, press-releases, employment notices. Getting their licence suspended would likely fail WP:CORPTRIV. Its fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS, and WP:ORGIND. Its also WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14. scope_creepTalk 07:10, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Akdoğan Sub-district (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)
sub-districts of northern cyprus are not notable --ToprakM ✉ 17:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related AfD discussions. --ToprakM ✉ 17:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: Sub-districts are a legally recognised administrative division so article meets WP:NPLACE. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- Merge to Gazimağusa District as an WP:ATD. Northern Cyprus is not internationally recognized, so its administrative divisions should satisfy the GNG, and this doesn't. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
- WP:GEOLAND doesn't require that the state be legally recognized - we can and should have articles on the territorial subdivisions of e.g. Western Sahara. Katzrockso (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is covered by the third bullet,
"Disputed regions are generally considered case-by-case"
. I see no reason to keep a one-line stub about a second-level administrative region of an unrecognized state, first-level subdivisions are enough. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia). Kelob2678 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)- I read that as about the disputed territory itself - Northern Cyprus - rather than its subdivisions or constituent localities. Katzrockso (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- That reading would make that bullet meaningless because disputed territories themselves are highly notable on their own. If such geostubs, which are just administrative regions and not even actual populated places, are covered by it, this means that GEOLAND doesn't distinguish between recognized and unrecognized states, which is neither practice nor the intent. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'll note that the bullet explicitly says
Their notability for Wikipedia is independent of the validity of their claims
, so an disputed or invalid claim has no impact on notability. Legal recognition is only ever discussed in terms of recognition by the government itself, not whether other governments recognize a territory. - It's worth noting that the original version of that bullet point read
The validity of the claims is generally less important than the quality of reliable sources available and the notability of the disputed region
. - When would this part of the bullet
Sometimes it may be more appropriate to merge these articles into ones on a broader conflict or political movement
apply to something like Akdoğan Sub-district? I read the thrust of the bullet point as implying that articles on Taiwan are not non-notable simply because Taiwan isn't internationally recognized, not that because Taiwan isn't internationally recognized, it needs to meet a different (higher) standard. Katzrockso (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)- I understand the bullet is that their non-recognition cannot be used as evidence against their notability if sourcing establishes it (this is similar to an often ignored reminder from NPOL about GNG). The older mention of
"quality of reliable sources available"
is something I associate with GNG, which overcomes non-recognition. The part about a merge doesn't apply to articles like this, but this doesn't mean that they cannot be merged on AtD grounds. If the bullet means something like Taiwan, this makes the bullet meaningless as such entities always have GNG coverage. The standard (GNG) is not different, it is just an exclusion from a lower GEOLAND standard. Whether a government is recognized by others is relevant in general. If some government is not recognized, we can think of their legislation as unreliable, just like if a set of reliable media calls another outlet unreliable we can disregard their reporting even if it is evidently true. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- I understand the bullet is that their non-recognition cannot be used as evidence against their notability if sourcing establishes it (this is similar to an often ignored reminder from NPOL about GNG). The older mention of
- I'll note that the bullet explicitly says
- That reading would make that bullet meaningless because disputed territories themselves are highly notable on their own. If such geostubs, which are just administrative regions and not even actual populated places, are covered by it, this means that GEOLAND doesn't distinguish between recognized and unrecognized states, which is neither practice nor the intent. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- I read that as about the disputed territory itself - Northern Cyprus - rather than its subdivisions or constituent localities. Katzrockso (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is covered by the third bullet,
- WP:GEOLAND doesn't require that the state be legally recognized - we can and should have articles on the territorial subdivisions of e.g. Western Sahara. Katzrockso (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:53, 14 September 2026 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: per adove. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Others
[edit]Categories
Deletion reviews
Miscellaneous
Proposed deletions
Redirects
Templates
See also
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Cyprus/Article alerts, a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Cyprus related pages including deletion discussions