Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,531,343 edits
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
==Israel==
==Israel==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barak Rosen (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tomer_Reznik}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Code_page_856}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shalom_Nagar}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erez_Da_Drezner}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023–2024_Gaza_Strip_preterm_births}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023–2024_Gaza_Strip_preterm_births}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tararam}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tararam}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority–West Bank militias conflict}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Lukatch}}


<!-- Please add current discussions above this line by pasting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title}}, where "Title" is the title of the article. Do not type below this line. -->
<!-- Please add current discussions above this line by pasting {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title}}, where "Title" is the title of the article. Do not type below this line. -->

Latest revision as of 05:42, 3 December 2024

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]

Tomer Reznik

[edit]
Tomer Reznik (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)

Inadequate sources for this young Israeli as of 2024 to meet GNG. Maybe in the future this could come back or could go to draft space in the meantime. I believe it should be deleted for now. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 856

[edit]
Code page 856 (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: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough sources, and is a well-established code page. I now have no decision about this one. Transwiki, no sources. Alexlatham96 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to explain how this article has adequate sourcing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Nagar

[edit]
Shalom Nagar (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 know this is recent, but this fails WP:BIO1E and could easily be merged (or redirected) into Adolf Eichmann#Appeals and execution. Info here is mainly about the execution itself. EF5 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of older reliable sources, and looks to be a decent starter level article. Carlp941 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that another editor has removed the name of executioner from Adolf Eichman's page. We can't have it both ways. If this article is to be deleted on the basis that the info can be in Eichman's article - then the article on him should actually include that information. Carlp941 (talk) 00:41, 30 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. --Dgw|Talk 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]
  • Comment: As things are going in ANI, there are enough evidences that this AfD has not been done in a good faith. I suggest to hold the Afd until archiving the discussion in ANI. If the article has to be deleted, please move it to User:Dorian Gray Wild/Erez Da Drezner until there is an additional activity of Da Drezner. Dgw|Talk 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you changing your !vote to draftifying the article? You understand that would mean deleting the article after the draft is taken? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not change my vote. The user who made this AfD has been one-way banned from any articles which I edited. If in the end of this discussion, the admin will decide to delete this article, calculating my "keep" vote and the one-way-ban which the user got, I ask the admin to move the article to my user space instead of deleting it. Dgw|Talk 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, my misunderstanding. However it wouldn't be nrormal to cancel an in-progress AfD just because the filer is under an i-ban put in place after filing. Three people who are not the filer have already provided feedback that should be considered without prejudice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG already cited in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Thank you 4meter4. I have added a lot of sources. Dgw|Talk 19:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there appear to be some extenuating circumstances here, this discussion would benefit from input from previously uninvolved users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry to prolong this discussion but I don't see a consensus. Maybe a source review would help. At worst, it looks like this article will be userfied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 3 December 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]
    I don't know why I mentioned WP:ROUTINE, I meant to say sources that weren't news articles or similar primary sources. Originalcola (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    News articles aren't primary sources unless they are about the news organisation itself.
    You mentioned routine coverage because you appear to look for ways to discredit the sourcing, switching arguments whenever someone points out that your arguments are flawed. Cortador (talk) 14:36, 4 December 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]
Apologies, I didn't mean to double vote there and shouldn't have used a bold heading. Originalcola (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is absolutely a reason to delete. That editor's edits should be completely stripped from the article history and entirely removed from view/access. I support a redirect. Not a merge.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edits to that article, G5 does not apply. nableezy - 17:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admin has already stated that G5 won't apply here. Besides, someone already tried to do a speedy deletion and it was contested. Originalcola (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage in academia [1] [2] [3] [4] and news media [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Topic could be broadened to not just focus on 2023-2024, but Gaza overall, as this has been the subject of WP:SIGCOV prior to the war [11] [12] [13]. I'm not seeing any persuasive argument for merging this with parent articles. Levivich (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the academic sources cited seem to include more than a single sentence mentioning premature births. [2] doesn't even include a sentence on premature births, just having the word prematurity in a list. This is clearly trivial coverage in articles in which preterm births are not the main focus. The issue with using news articles is that this article assumes that much of the coverage is in relation to individual events like the raid on Al-Shifa last year and thus don't actually say much about preterm births. These events may or may not be notable, but there still remains a clear lack of depth and duration of coverage of increases in pre-term deaths, premature births or anything similar. With regard to the claim that preterm births in a specific area of a country, I would also disagree, especially since all 3 of the sources are masters theses. These are not only unreliable sources by the standards of Wikipedia but also don't seem to have any reason to be linked to what's going on in Gaza right now. Originalcola (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we forget about all the academic sources, it still meets GNG based on the news media sources, and those are appropriate sources for a current event such as this war. The news RS don't just focus on one event/hospital (and the selection I posted aren't all of them; more are in the article). Levivich (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think an article on a topic like this should be comprised mostly or in whole by news articles without a good reason. GNG states that secondary sources should be used, which none of the cited news media articles are; you can't establish notability with just primary sources. The appropriateness of news articles as sources for an article doesn't mean that they themselves form the basis of notability without reliable secondary sources. It also seems that every source currently in the article is a news article and that there are no secondary sources included in the article at present.
    I also don't agree with your assertion that the articles "don't focus on one event/hospital". Sources 6,7,9 and 10 are also covering one hospital, those being al-Nasr for 6, Al Shifa for 7 and 10 and Emirati for 9. As it stands the article is currently split up into different sections on different hospitals and as such the news articles cited are predominately focused on each individual hospital or event as opposed to the wider topic of the article. In all articles premature births and deaths are mentioned as part of the wider context of the effects of this war on children in the Gaza Strip rather or individual hospitals. This is mostly the case for the news articles cited as well. Originalcola (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    News articles form the basis of notability for all notable current events topics. You can disagree with it if you want to, but it's still Wikipedia policy that news articles are RS. Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    News articles do not necessarily form the basis of notability for current events for a variety of reasons I hope are fairly obvious, and there is no indication that this event is notable in the articles. My issue is not that I disagree that news articles are reliable, but that the articles included lack sufficient depth and duration to establish the topics' significance. Many of the sources are reliable without doubt, but for the purposes of WP:GNG there needs to exist secondary sources of reliable nature, not just news articles which in this case are predominately primary sources. That's why I put so much weight into the fact that there isn't any academic coverage of this topic, as those are generally the highest quality secondary sources.
    TL;DR:Lack of secondary sources, overreliance on primary sources in news reports. Originalcola (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for more commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the topic is fairly specific, it has also received fairly broad coverage over and extended period of time, including some coverage by academics. Merging this with the article on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not reasonable as that article is already huge. If anything, more topics should be forked from it. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per above. Interpretations of GNG that rely excessively upon news reporting are iffy IMO. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:57, 4 December 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Have you actually seen the Hebrew sources? "SAP Israel concluded a year"??? "SanDisk celebrates Bar Mitzvah"??? Every time they've played at a corporate shindig? Every corporate campaign that uses them? The article about "a unique internet campaign for Cellcom" doesn't even MENTION Tararam? No SIGCOV, no hit record, no chart placement, no major tour, no major media recognition. There's literally nothing here beyond a local ensemble often hired by tech corporates to play at their junkets. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:31, 30 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1260903277"