Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
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

Tzameret Fuerst

edit
Tzameret Fuerst (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)

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelli Ioffe

edit
Nelli Ioffe (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)

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakol Over Habibi

edit
Hakol Over Habibi (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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Source search only shows unreliable sources or brief mentions in reliable sources, and is only notable for their appearance in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1981 (going off the article and sources) and have almost no coverage besides that, can't find anything related to the alleged albums in the article.

Not to mention it's a BLP without any references or external links, which makes it eligible for BLP PRODing. —Sparkle and Fade talkedits 08:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cydoor

edit
Cydoor (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)

Fails WP:GNG BryceM2001 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

edit
AfDs for this article:
YL Ventures (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

edit
Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine (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)

Article started by Icewhiz sock. Article is taken straight from Zionist propaganda: Palestinians are "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine, when Jewish immigration was far larger Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if there is a POV bias in this page, that should be resolved by editing. If the topic is notable, which it appears to be, that wouldn't be a valid deletion rationale. Has sources, and ineligible for G5 since other contributions were made after the sock. Andre🚐 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the Arab migrations to the Levant page and this page are pretty long, so I'm not sure if a merge is the best route. I could see there being a page about each of the major periods of migration. It doesn't seem like this topic is currently covered in the former page though. I'm going to remain at Keep for now and not Merge even though I can understand the argument to Merge. Andre🚐 23:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. "Article is Zionist propaganda" is not a valid deletion argument. Specifically, according to WP:SKCRIT, this is a nomination that is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Butterscotch Beluga: As Andre said, the page has substantial edits from one other person and doesn't qualify for G5. The editing dispute is that Huldra is unhappy with the article's content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Demographic history of Palestine (region). I don't think the wording of this proposal was necessary, but regardless, outside of being mostly written by a blocked sock, this article feels like undetailed retreading of already existing articles. It relies too much on the writings of 1 author, David Grossman, with 5/16 sources written by him + as far as I can tell online, he also had a hand in Zvi Ilan's 'Turkmens, Circassians, and Bosnians in Northern Sharon", though I could be misreading that. It also contains content unrelated to the topic such as Druze communities & settlement to areas that weren't a part of Ottoman Palestine like Damascus, Ajloun, and the Hauran. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd actually be better. I had originally proposed Demographic history of Palestine (region) because I thought it was also being merged with Arab migrations to the Levant, but I now see that proposal isn't gaining traction. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arab migrations to the Levant. There was nothing special about Palestine in the Ottoman period as far as Muslim population movements were concerned. The I-P conflict is the only reason for the focus on Palestine, and that focus creates the misleading impression that Palestine was special when it wasn't. This article also fails to give a balanced account as there is no attempt to place migrations in context or weigh their significance relative to the existing population. Zerotalk 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. I changed my mind after checking DaWalda's source investigation. The mention of Volney was only correct because I had fixed it recently, but DaWalda is right that the next page is also crucial. Unfortunately, nothing that Icewhiz ever wrote can be trusted. As far as merging is concerned, the main claims are already in Demographic history of Palestine (region) where they also need to be carefully assessed against the sources. Zerotalk 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The content could be suitably added to Arab migrations to the Levant or Demographic history of Palestine (region). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have thoroughly reviewed only the sections on the 16th century, the 17th–18th centuries, and the 1830s because these are the periods I am most familiar with. However, they are so flawed that even a merge would not be worthwhile:
    16th century: This section does not address immigration at all.
    17th-18th century:
    The first paragraph cites Krämer. The referenced pages 134f. only state: The total number of nomads [in Palestine] appears to have been small, at least until the immigration of Bedouin clans from the Hijaz, Syria, and Transjordan in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The cities, too, were surprisingly small. Pp. 50f. do not specifically concern Palestine and more likely focus on East Jordanian areas. The passage begins: ... Bedouins could also become partners with the Ottoman government and its local representatives, acting among other things as guardians and protectors of individual stretches of road, especially along the pilgrimage route from Damascus to Mecca. Up into the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman authorities pursued a policy favorable to the Bedouins [..., followed by a description of this policy].
    The same Krämer references are repeated four times in the 1830s section, and in none of these cases do they support the claims made in the Wikipedia text.
    The second paragraph is sourced to Ehrlich 2022, p. 82, but this discusses only the Golan, the former Decapolis region, Banias, and Jabal al-Druze—all locations in Syria or Jordan, albeit near the border. Again, nothing about immigration to Palestine.
    The third paragraph is acceptable, but if Volney is cited, the subsequent page must also be included, where it states that most of these mentioned Egyptian migrants eventually perished.
    1830s:
    In the first paragraph, sentences 1 and 2 are accurate. Sentence 3, as mentioned, is a misquotation. Sentence 4 is misleading; Sabri does not discuss the deserters mentioned by Grossman in sentence 2 but rather a different migration movement of 6,000 peasants (cf. Aharoni/Kressel 2018, p. 9; Grossman, p. 47 [English ed.]).
    In the second paragraph, Jaffa is correct (Grossman estimates 2,000 Egyptians there: p. 52). However, regarding the Gaza area, Grossman explicitly states: In most cases the Egyptian army dropouts and the other Egyptian settlers preferred to settle in existing localities, rather than to establish new villages. ... The southern coastal plain (Philistia) ... [h]owever, ... was densely settled and, therefore, its land reserves were low. Accordingly, all locations with Egyptian populations shown on the map on p. 53 are north of Gaza.
    The next sentence is again misquoted but could instead be supported with Grossman, pp. 55–57.
    Regarding the final sentence about residents of the southern coastal plain moving to Wadi Ara, Icewhiz appears to have generalized the story of one Egyptian immigrant interviewed by Grossman (p. 55) to all Egyptians who migrated to the southern coastal plain/Wadi Ara. The only verifiable claim here is that some Egyptian immigrants also settled in Wadi Ara.
    => In summary, these three chapters provide roughly four usable sentences for a merge. However, identifying which sentences are salvageable would require access to and command of the original sources. Given both, one could better supplement the Demographic history of Palestine (region) article directly with these sources, without relying on this flawed article. DaWalda (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DaWalda, who did the work and has uncovered troubling misrepresentation of source material.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta ask. Does anyone think this misleading article on a non-topic written by a liar should persist? There are almost no contributions to it except from the liar and people trying to clean up the liar's mess. What are we even doing here?Dan Murphy (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group

edit
AfDs for this article:
Viola Group (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. This article was AFD before but I don't really agree with the provided sources by the now-blocked user. They don't seem to pass WP:SIRS in my view regarding the subject itself. Another user has tagged this article for multiple issues including notabilit. It also doesn't help this article is created by a suspected paid editor who has 5 out of 6 articles deleted with this being the last one remaining.

I am submitting this article to look at this again given that NCORP requirements are more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Wilson (basketball)

edit
Marcus Wilson (basketball) (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)

Prolific high school/college basketball player fails WP:NHOOPS. Page is an absolute mess and was likely created as promotional material by an WP:SPA. Novemberjazz 18:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

edit
AEYE Health (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)

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:
  • [1] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
  • [2] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
  • [3] is not independent
  • [4] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
  • [5] is a copy of a press release
  • [6] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
  • [7] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
  • [8] copy of a press release
  • [9] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
  • [10] Summary of a press release
  • [11] Summary of a press release
  • [12] Summary of a press release
  • [13] No mention of Aeye
None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bilby,
First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.
Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:
https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening
https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/
https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To explain:
  • Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
  • calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
  • bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
  • globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
  • Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.
I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:
https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/
https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover
https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094
Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Schreiber

edit
Netta Schreiber (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)

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Believe she does satisfy notability. Actually not sure what the issue is about the article. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tel Aviv truck attack

edit
AfDs for this article:
2024 Tel Aviv truck attack (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)

Fails WP:LASTING, seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. EF5 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of vehicle-ramming attacks or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024. Concerns above do apply but it is in the scope of those two lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally prefer the first target (also any merge should be very cut down). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not aware of much continued coverage so far (it's still early), but that isn't strictly required, and the initial coverage was quite extensive, easily meeting WP:N(E)'s standard of very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. There are far too many RS to list, probably 100+. Just to mention some of the largest: BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NPR. The article needs work but there's ample source material. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
XDanielx, your quoted standard refers to national or international impact, but I'm not sure any of your linked sources go over that in any detail? Can you clarify what you believe the lasting effects are? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031: I was thinking of the human toll (a death and 30-40 injuries), but on second thought maybe impact is a gray area. I think ultimately since WP:N(E) has no hard requirements, we have to consider multiple factors, but the WP:DIVERSE factor certainly supports inclusion. I also just feel that when coverage is so extensive, the WP:GNG presumption should carry weight, leading us to default to inclusion unless there's a particularly strong argument for why it would fail WP:N(E). — xDanielx T/C\R 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While they may be WP:DIVERSE sources, no sources extend past a few days after the event. This attack has no WP:LASTING impact and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And while I understand that I should WP:FOC with this, I think it's important to note that the article creator wrote the page while the news was still WP:BREAKING, and has been PBlocked for these creations, something which should be relevant here as the article was created regardless of the event's impact. EF5 17:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the burst of coverage immediately after (the guideline's language), there was still significant coverage days after the event, like [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Most of that was 2-3 days after, though the last was Dec 2.
I wouldn't say WP:PERSISTENCE particularly favors inclusion, but this doesn't exactly fail the standard either. In any case it's only one factor, not a requirement, while other factors like WP:DIVERSE favor inclusion.
I don't think the author's motivations should be considered, particularly since that was a while ago and this already survived one AfD. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@190.219.101.225: Can I get a few examples of significant and lasting coverage, and that this event had long-lasting, if any, impacts on Israeli society? EF5 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the prior AFD was just held last month. It's pretty soon for a return trip to AFDLand. But I'm relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has significant coverage and is notable. Should be kept. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask this again, where is the significant coverage here? I see 5 sources, all of which were published right after the attack. EF5 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't need to be in the current article to contribute to notability though. I listed more above, including 7 which were not immediately after the attack. Would you be convinced by a much longer list (including ones immediately after)? I'm happy to compile one if it would be useful. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2-3 days after an event is normal. There is zero WP:LASTING coverage. EF5 13:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this attack has left fourty (!) people injured and has a good sources. It definitely fulfills the criteria for GNG and thus it should be kept. Karol739 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the coverage provided is run of the fill news reports. No secondary sources have been identified. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate further? News reports are normally secondary sources (unless the topic is the news org or what not). Are you saying you'd like to see non-news sources like books or papers? It seems too early for that. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News reports are normally secondary sources This is incorrect. You're confusing secondary with independent. It seems too early for that. This is correct. That's why the article is up for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't as per the link provided by Alien. I'd like to see secondary sources.
> It seems too early for that.
Then this article should not exist until it can meet the criteria for GNG, which requires secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no WP:LASTING coverage. Would make sense maybe as a section in another article – this one maybe? – but we don't have an article for every single thing that happens, even if those things do get news coverage. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no long lasting effects and not significantly covered Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not count toward notability. Death count is irrelevant, and citing it indicates that one still needs more time to learn how notability works on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 25 December 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=1265373055"