2020 Iran gasoline export to Venezuela: Article created as a product of recentism , shown by the fact that there have not been significant updates for over three years.  The shipments have not affcted the fuel shortages in Venezuela as a whole, and any important details of the event are already covered in said article or at the Iran-Venezuela relations article.  NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations , Politics , Economics , Iran ,  and Venezuela .  NoonIcarus ( talk ) 15:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete agree that this is WP:NOTNEWS .  LibStar ( talk ) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NOTNEWS .  This concern appeared as soon as the article started and Iran-Venezuela relations was the better place, however concerns over the impact of this news were difficult to estimate.  Now we know it was just WP:RECENTISM . -- ReyHahn ( talk ) 09:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I really don't agree with those saying that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply here. At the time, Iran sent " its biggest fleet yet of tankers to Venezuela in defiance of U.S. sanctions " [23] , making the incident notable enough for having a standalone article. The importance of this incident has also been noted over the three years span in reliable books like 2021 , 2021 , 2021 , 2022 , and 2022 . If reliable sources matter, which is the most important criteria for AFD, the page needs to be kept. Maybe it is better for the page to be updated using the mentioned sources. -- M h hossein talk 16:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin : Mhhossein ( talk • contribs )  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD .  [ reply ] At first glance, all of these references are passing mentions of the crisis in Venezuela as a whole, and none of them delve in long lasting consequences.  That is further proof that any notable content can be covered in other articles, as it already is.  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, we are dealing with both deep sources and passing mentions. Deep reliable sources are required to prove the notability. Plus, the very fact that the gas export in 2020 is still being covered by academic books shows that the subject is not merely a NEWS or so. -- M h hossein talk 11:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, C LYDE TALK TO ME / STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM .  Hogo-2020 ( talk ) 05:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Already explained why these two are not applicable here.  Despite the OP's claim, the subject has been covered by reliable books like 2021 , 2021 , 2021 , 2022 , and 2022 .  -- M h hossein talk 07:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Responding to the last comments, the mentions are not related to notability as much as just coverage.  A traffic accident or a robbery can have significant coverage, even nationwide or by academic sources, but at the end lasting impact is what determines notability.  This is probably the same reason why these books at the end are not about the shipment, but rather about other topics: "US Energy Diplomacy in the Caspian Sea Basin", "The World Almanac of Islamism 2021", "Sanctions as War", "Iranian-Saudi Rivalry Since 1979", and "The New Cold War, China, and the Caribbean".  -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 22:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete