Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Israel. 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:
  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:delsort|Israel|~~~~}} 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 Israel. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Israel

[edit]

IWI Galil Sniper

[edit]
IWI Galil Sniper (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 previously redirected the page to IMI Galil based on NPP guidelines, but the creator has expressed some concerns. I still think it’s just a variant of the Galil and doesn’t need its own page. WP:REDUNDANTFORK Charlie (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the topic creator, and before I explain why this topic should be kept, I want to thank Charlie for initiating this AfD proposal to determine whether there is a consensus to delete this topic. Regarding this thread, the IWI Galil Sniper is based on the IMI Galil#Galil ARM variation which itself is a variation of the IMI Galil. The IMI Galil is a 5.56×45mm NATO and 7.62×51mm NATO assault rifle, whereas the IWI Galil Sniper serves a completely different combat role as a 7.62×51mm NATO sniper rifle. Since the IWI Galil Sniper fulfills a distinct role, there is encyclopedic value in having a dedicated topic for it, similar to the treatment in Galil Sniper[he], and that's why I translated it into the English Wikipedia, adhering to the guidelines outlined in WP:Translation (I'm also registered in WP:TRLA). IdanST (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

[edit]
Erez Da Drezner (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 find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.
The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --DgwTalk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash-Shatat

[edit]
Ash-Shatat (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)

Based nearly entirely on unreliable sources, with no lasting significance or impact. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently based on poor sources but there seem to be better ones out there.
[1][2][3][4][5][6] BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this far out news reports are primary sources. One of those seems fine though. nableezy - 13:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, media reviews/commentary are secondary regardless of temporal distance (which is mentioned at WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Sources above are good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren’t media reviews, they are news stories. nableezy - 14:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are commentary on the program and its existence, they're not merely "this program aired" they discuss it and its context. So I think it counts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There also seem to be a decent amount of mentions of this program in academic books, but most aren't very long admittedly, not passing but not extensive. However there are quite a few. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources Bob mentioned, which are indeed secondary, there's significant coverage in books, articles, and government reports, mostly under "al-Shatat" rather than "ash-Shatat". A lot of it I don't have access to, but some public ones are [7] [8] [9] [10]. So I think it meets WP:GNG, the article certainly needs work though. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Rosen

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Barak Rosen (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)

Fluff piece about non-notable businessperson. Cannot find any significant coverage of the article's subject, completely failing GNG. All sources in the article are about his company's acquisitions or incidental inclusion in lists of businesspeople. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Dan Leonard,
I have three big profile articles about Barak in Hebrew. Since he is Israeli, can I add them to the article? And will it suffice?
כבר לא שני מתווכים מרעננה: "הם רוצים להיות השחקנים הכי גדולים, רוזן מוכן להתאבד על עסקות" (דה מרקר)
https://www.themarker.com/realestate/2021-11-05/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/0000017f-e3c4-d9aa-afff-fbdcdc580000
הילדים הרעים של שוק הנדל"ן הכפילו את שוויים ב־2016 (כלכליסט)
https://www.calcalist.co.il/markets/articles/0,7340,L-3706754,00.html
הכל בכל מקום בבת אחת (כלכליסט)
https://newmedia.calcalist.co.il/magazine-12-05-22/m01.html
עידו כ.ש. (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources pass WP:SIGCOV then they might be acceptable; however, it's worth noting that an article on Rosen has been repeatedly deleted on the Hebrew Wikipedia and is now salted. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they do comply. And I’m aware that the Hebrew article was deleted before, but it was done years before most of the coverage about him was published, he also gained more reputation since. Moreover the articles were written very poorly, I believe that if they’ve written them properly that article would stay up. Many businessmen with much smaller significance have articles about them in addition to their company, so the only reason I can imagine Rosen’s article caught attention was the writing’s quality. I might invest in a more appropriate Hebrew article for him soon. עידו כ.ש. (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we really need to have a neutral review of sources brought to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a topic of Barak Rosen in Hebrew Wikipedia and this topic was deleted because there was no encyclopedic value. IdanST (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

[edit]
2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births (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 to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
    CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.
Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tararam

[edit]
Tararam (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)

Mostly unreferenced topic, with unclear notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

[edit]
Ilan Lukatch (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)

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:
1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him
2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988
3. Doesn’t mention him
4. Passing mention in a brief listing
5. Passing mention
6. Doesn’t mention him
7. Doesn’t mention him
8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)
9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source
10. No longer accessible but looks decent.
That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Images

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]

Requested Moves

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1258504347"