Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 26 October 2024 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Zionist regime). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Yafim Weinstein

AfDs for this article:
Murder of Yafim Weinstein (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:SIGCOV. No indication of notability. Common occurence. scope_creepTalk 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment several of the sources in this article are SIGCOV, so it definitely does not fail that. Sigcov being defined as it is in the guideline as content that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Whether it passes WP:NEVENT is a different matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with PARAKANYAA that there is plenty of SIGCOV. I would like to see more lasting yet, according to nom, the problem is SIGCOV. No such problem. gidonb (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After Pharaoh of the Wizards's research, I feel better about LASTING. Kudos for identifying so many good sources, Pharaoh! I had seen MUCH MORE SIGCOV, in Hebrew, in the 2009–2016 range. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew Wikipedia is not even referenced. And going around putting text in uppercase is the typical fare from yourself. scope_creepTalk 16:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few words in uppercase come really handy. Folks can quickly see where you put your emphasis. It's respectful to fellow-Wikipedians, who are also plowing through large amounts of information and are trying to make good sense of it. Now you say something about a lack of referencing on Hewiki. Can you put that comment on the talk page over there? It's a bit out of context here. I can make sure that the fine reference it has also is included here. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. gidonb (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

References

  1. ^ Lappin, Yaakov (30 November 2009). "Taxi driver found dead in cab in North". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
  2. ^ "Nazareth Imam Convicted of Inciting Terror". Israel National News. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
  3. ^ Shay, S. (2017). Somalia in Transition Since 2006. Taylor & Francis. p. 1-PT87. ISBN 978-1-351-48876-1. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
  4. ^ Azriel, Guy (28 June 2010). "7 Nazareth residents indicted for attacks against Jews, Christians". CNN. CNN. Archived from the original on 9 September 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014.
  5. ^ Ashkenazi, Eli (15 July 2010). "Shin Bet Arrests Eight Israeli Arabs for Illicit Arms Trading". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 24 October 2024.
  • Comment The problem with the coverage is the WP:ROUTINE nature of a generic event, a taxi driver killed, that happens as a regular event all over the planet and has been happening with Jews and other folk for centuries. There is not a single thing makes this standout event as anything special, yet it has been elevated in a manner that doesn't fit. That is the reason I sent it for delete. We record the mundane, the mediocre and the generic on here and we don't know how to get rid of this trash. Here is one [1] in reverse. scope_creepTalk 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a lot of 403's and a couple of passing mention on this entirely routine report of murder. I cant seem to see them. I'll try in the morning again but it does seem complete mundane, mediocre and generic reporting. scope_creepTalk 02:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it notable either. Another common occurence on a routine event. scope_creepTalk 07:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine events do not get five straight years of coverage. If that's what we're calling routine, what isn't routine? I still am unsure if it fulfills NEVENT but WP:ROUTINE gives as examples "common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award)" stories. Which this, a case where a terrorist cell with ties to an international terrorist group, in a country where terror cells are unusual, killed a man, resulting in several convictions of the terror group members and related people and had several years of coverage in mainstream newspapers, probably is not. More pressing issues appear to be depth of coverage, which I am unsure if this passes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2024 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023–2024

List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023–2024 (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)

Doesn't appear to be notable based on the usual WP:NLIST standard. I found this but AA is WP:GUNREL; also this video but reliability is questionable.

Definitions of massacre vary, and this particular list seems to use an unusually broad definition. If we were to pare it down to notable events which are commonly known as massacres, it would just become a sublist of List of massacres in the Palestinian territories, which doesn't seem useful since that list isn't particularly long. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion. Though may support renaming. The massacres of entire families in Gaza is indeed standalone notable topic in accordance with WP:NLIST as per tons of reliable sources, Time, Associated Press, LA Times, Amnesty international, Airwars, etc. Perhaps the problem may be a naming problem, as the article calls the “wiping out” of entire family incidents “massacres”, which is what should be discussed, definitely not the existence or notability of the entire list (i.e the incidents of “wiping out” of entire families) in the first place. Thanks for pinging me.
Stephan rostie (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps should be renamed to something like List of mass killings in Gaza (2023-2024). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2024 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Nicosia Israeli embassy bombing

2023 Nicosia Israeli embassy bombing (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)

The reason I'm requesting this article be deleted is:

  • As far as a bombing on the embassy, the embassy wasn't bombed and the explosive went off 30 meters away and nowhere near the embassy
  • According to the sources themselves (Times of Israel and AP), Cyprus Police never stated that the target was the embassy building thus implying as such is Original Research
  • From my research no charges or at least no convictions have come out from this event and as such we don't actually know what the motives were nor what the outcome of this investigation was.
  • Im assuming that due to the event not picking up any traction except from the day it was reported, there was likely a lot of sensationalization from media organisations due to Cyprus and Israel's relationship and the timing of it, happening less than a few weeks after October 7th.ShovelandSpade (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Cyprus. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the OR issues, the bombing would require sustained analysis or study beyond news coverage. Right now, it's just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet very early for such. This event was on October 21, 2023. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively) into Cyprus–Israel relations. Let's work by the points, nice touch for an intro. #1 agreed, this does not help notability. #2 the newspapers tied the bomb to the embassy so not really OR. #3 agreed, this does not help notability either. #4 We do not know that either. In conclusion, a minor event including by some of the criteria raised. No article on Hewiki. Also, seems entirely missing at Cyprus–Israel relations, so an improper SPINOUT. Best briefly mentioned at the parent. gidonb (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Issue is nobody actually confirmed the embassy was a target and Cyprus isnt new to pyrotechnic incidents whether it be the football, political events, hooliganism in general etc. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore shouldn't remain an article, now and in the future. The press did tie this to the embassy consistently. Also claiming it might be unrelated is OR. We follow the RS. gidonb (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Press tied it due to proximity, not any official statement (Either from the Cypriot or Israeli governments). As most articles themselves in the titles say "near the Israeli embassy" or something along those lines, I'm addressing this with regards to merging it to Cyprus Israel relations. ShovelandSpade (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Press says near the embassy and that is what we will write. NEVER ENGAGE IN OR, disregardful of its direction! You are warning against one direction of OR and engage in the opposite OR. Perhaps only to make a point. Both directions, however, are bad and should not add or remove information from the article space. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im saying were not informed enough to make a definitive statement and definitely not enough to include in any article, the AP article clearly states "Police did not say whether the bombing some 30 meters (98 feet) from the Israeli Embassy was connected to the war in Gaza." Surely then adding it to an article related to embassy attacks would make it OR. I just think generally it lacks verifiability to even be listed anywhere. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 15:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the press agencies (RS) tie this to the embassy we should too. Second guessing the press is OR. gidonb (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Press ties it to 30m away from the embassy and gives no motive as to the attackers. ShovelandSpade (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating the same point under my opinion even though already responded before. Referring you to my previous answers. gidonb (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2024 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep‎. Arguments for deletion are strong, but consensus is that sources meet our notability guidelines. Feel free to renominate in six months, or discuss merging with similar articles on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nahida and Samar Anton

Killing of Nahida and Samar Anton (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)

Notability tag was challenged on the basis that there was sigcov - which is not really how notability for events works, every item of breaking news gets sigcov. There is no lasting and analytical coverage in this article to fulfill NEVENT. Every source in this article is from the week it happened. For an event to pass notability, it must receive analytical and continued coverage, of which this has neither, it's just "this thing happened", which is not encyclopedic. This has some passing mentions but no sigcov. WP:PRIMARYNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just in a brief search, I was able to find continued coverage in the following places: 1 2 34 5. There may be more, but I think this should be sufficient. Arguably this coverage is analytical since it focuses on the killing as part of the broader plight of Christians in Gaza. I think it is also too early to say definitively that coverage of this event has subsided. We aren't even past the 1 year anniversary of the event, and the war is still ongoing. It's not hard to imagine Pope Francis's use of the word terrorism being acknowledged in the context of his legacy, or this incident being used in some future international criminal proceeding. I'm not sure if the possibility of future notability is admissible as evidence right now, but I feel we should consider that the possibility of it receiving renewed coverage at some later date has not yet passed. Unbandito (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are passing mentions, except for the Atlantic piece, which cannot count as continued coverage as it was published only a month later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I already anticipate the reply but this is as much as I wish to say about 'If it's not notable "Now", then it is not notable.' No thread. Just a spur to reflection.

“Germans murder 700,000 Jews in Poland” Daily Telegraph 25 June 1942 the article, which referred to “the greatest massacre in the world’s history”, was published on the fifth page of a six-page issue. And it got no traction elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  • This comment is contrary to policy and therefore does not contribute to consensus. From WP:NTEMP: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Zerotalk 02:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because notability is about secondary sources, all of the sources here are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. None contribute to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's wrong, wrong and wrong. You don't understand policy and almost all of the news coverage was secondary anyway. Zerotalk 02:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary sources page defines reporting on events and breaking news reports to be primary sources. The closest thing to a secondary source is the Atlantic report, which is decent, but at only 1 month after it happened is not sustained coverage. The reports here are not secondary. This does not pass any aspect of WP:NEVENT. The later coverage is all passing mentions and not sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a policy page, it's an essay. But you are wrong anyway. When a news organization repeats news collected by another news organization, that's secondary coverage. Most are like that. But that's irrelevant anyway; reports of an event in a reliable news source have counted towards notability since the beginning of Wikipedia and you are more than 20 years too late in arguing against it. Zerotalk 02:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "When a news organization repeats news collected by another news organization, that's secondary coverage." ??????? No. Yes it's an essay, but it's an explanatory one and that primary sources do not contribute to notability is the guideline. We do not have an article on every single tragedy that has ever made the news without sustained coverage, nor should we.
    Read WP:NEVENT. This fails all aspects - was briefly covered in any significant detail, it did not have a lasting impact, it was not retrospectively or historically analyzed, significant coverage was for less than a month, the coverage was not in depth. Just because people constantly flout NEVENT and NOTNEWS does not mean it is not the rules. Wikipedia is not a website for every single news item that ever had a weeks worth of coverage, and there is not any way to write this article that does not violate WP:NOTNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event was quite famous. Although it naturally got more coverage in the days after it happened, there was also quite a lot of coverage in the following months and it still gets occasional coverage. Zerotalk 02:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event was covered in detail by multiple news sources and spoken out about by multiple politicians and religious leaders. It was also covered by a variety of different news agencies. Pinging User:ToeSchmoker (talk)as they removed the Notability tag that was previously placed by PARAKANYAA (talk)Leaky.Solar (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of several events in close sequence which shocked certainly the Catholic Church and its natural protests, and gestures like inviting both Israeli and Palestinians to the Vatican on the same day led to a barrage of complaints from rabbinical circles. I think the rabbi of Milan even expressed shock that the Vatican was denying Israeli the exclusive solidarity he thought they were entitled to. There is an excellent book out recently by two Jesuits, Giovanni Sale, David Neuhaus's Israele e Palestina: Un conflitto senza fine?, Il Pellegrino Edizioni 2024 which goes to great lengths, in response to that sequence of events, to trace the whole history of the conflict from its origins in quite impressive detail, and they include this particular incident in their narrative as important. The wider world may not follow this up but it will reverberate among Christians/Catholics, who have managed to maintain an historic presence in Gaza for close to 2,000 years. readers might care to look at the Manuel Musallam page. He served there when Hamas was in control.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nishidani How much do they discuss this event in the book? If it's in depth or significant it may help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG guidelines, specifically notability not being temporary. ToeSchmoker (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not temporary once notability has been established. The notability for this event was never established per our standards at WP:NEVENT. It was not notable and then become non notable, but was never notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not particularly interested in going back and forth debating the wiki guidelines and the multitude of essays. We both interpret these things differently and that is okay. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: i've done a little bit of copyediting, and i partially agree with both arguments here. there is no doubt that this particular war crime is important in the recent development of Holy See–Israel relations, and in informing broader Catholic perception of Israel. i think the book cited by Nishidani could be promising (i don't read Italian) if it does indeed provide analysis of how this specific killing affected those relations. however, that aside, i'm also inclined to agree with PARAKANYAA & the alien that the analytical and historical coverage is generally lacking. i also don't find the "it's famous and people talked about it" argument convincing in the slightest. i think, if no more can be squeezed out of that book, then a merge to the Holy See-Israel relations article could maybe be good (although that article could really use some cleanup). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 17:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine with merging it there. If it later happens to receive retrospective coverage (which seems a non-zero possibility) it can be split out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed - i could definitely see this being covered in future retrospectives of the Gaza crisis. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable event which received international coverage, no reason for its deletion. Red Phoenician (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: There are already hundreds of articles on the Hamas-Israel conflict, in dozens of categories and subcategories. It is recentism on steroids. They should be condensed and merged wherever possible. This incident deserves a paragraph in the page on Holy See–Israel relations, no more. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Of course, these are Palestinian victims of terrorism and so, unlike the numerous pages on Israeli victims of the same -Murders of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken,Deaths and ransoming of Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin, Murder of Helena Rapp,Killing of Binyamin Meisner, Killing of Avi Sasportas and Ilan Saadon, Abduction and killing of Yaron Chen, Abduction and killing of Nachshon Wachsman,Abduction and killing of Nissim Toledano, Murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer,Death of Yehuda Shoham,Murder of Ofir Rahum,Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Murder of Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, Murder of the Hatuel family, etc.etc.etc.,- they are not notable and must be disappeared in a drastically slimmed down merge. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-read my post carefully, you may notice that it applies to all articles related to the conflict. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your post closely, as I read everything. It dismisses this article as 'recentism on steroids', which would equally apply to the articles of Israeli victims, which are almost never subject to AfD, unlike the occasional Palestinian article of this type. Read WP:Systemic bias. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2024 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehazkim

Mehazkim (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 on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 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! 06:28, 3 November 2024 (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.


Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Images

Redirects

Requested Moves

Miscellaneous

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1253567137"