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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Israel.
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

Gharqad edit

Gharqad (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)

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion, here is why

Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

  • I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia

  • This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.

  • I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

  • Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.

  • This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

  • So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.

  • If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

  • The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.

  • It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

  • Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?

  • This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

  • I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?

  • What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

  • How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow contributor,
Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.
Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:
  • Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.
  • As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?
  • In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.
  • The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.
  • As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.
  • Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.
  • Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.
Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.
I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.
Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.
"Warm regards,
Sajid (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Oaktree b ,
    Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:
    • Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
    • Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
    • No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research
    Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.
    Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.
    Regards,
    Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zivit Inbar edit

Zivit Inbar (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)

Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three Phase Operation edit

Three Phase Operation (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 article is based on multiple copies of the same news story that claims to be based on anonymous sources. Rumors, in other words. I can't find anything at all at the third reference as it just points to some index page. The other three are just the same text in different places. "Three Phase Operation" is a name unknown to history. More importantly, the organization "Supreme Command of the Arab Allied Forces (SCAAF)" is also unknown to history. The piecemeal Arab irregular forces at that time did not have a central command and it certainly was not directed from Cairo. What actually happened in Katamon the day before this news story is that Jewish forces blew up the Semiramis Hotel killing at least 24 civilians. But that's not even mentioned in the news story. There is a vast literature by historians on this period of history and there are already multiple properly sourced Wikipedia articles that cover it, such as Battle for Jerusalem. We don't need articles on single obscure newspaper stories. Zerotalk 04:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For being almost wholly based on a random piece from Oregon local news - the sourcing would struggle to be less appropriate, and if this is the best quality available, it doesn't really attest the term or standalone notability. Not much to say here: definitely nothing approaching an encyclopedically valid topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article that doesn't have enough sources or content and doubtful more could be found MarkiPoli (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient evidence exists to suggest that "Three Phase Operation" is a notable topic, at least not under its current name. Marokwitz (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Current sourcing is just one newspaper article reprinted in multiple publications. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK. When justified, such a topic should grow organically, before being eligible to a SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike edit

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike (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:SUSTAINED; sources in the article only regurgitate the UNRWA press release.

Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider, but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment. Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is:

    At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter.

    Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added.

    And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones. The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic.
    The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record. The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well. I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources. nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable. It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED. Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article. nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable). I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We had an article within hours of the initial attack. Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable. Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be. nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards. Seems WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shefi Yishai edit

AfDs for this article:
Shefi Yishai (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 without reliable references and is very poor encyclopedically. This article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this says it's the second nomination, of this article, but I can't seem to find the first (maybe there was a mistake?). Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Steinberg edit

AfDs for this article:
Sofia Steinberg (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)

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To mitigate my forumshop concern, I'm inviting EVERYONE to this debate who has expressed an opinion in the previous AfD that was just closed as keep. Please, all, express your opinion once more! Ping: CurryTime7-24, Oaktree b, Tehonk, Ostalgia, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, Jeraxmoira, I'm tla. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Still a delete, I didn't see coverage a month ago, nothing's changed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I voted delete in first nom, still think the same, the sources do not really satisfy SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: Per WP:6MONTHS. Personally, I am leaning towards delete unless someone does a source analysis of the articles mentioned in the previous AfD to show WP:THREE or other relevant SNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my procedural keep vote. Though other editors may not feel the same and there should never be an excuse because we have the WP:6MONTHS rule for a reason, I believe this nom was done in good faith without the knowledge of the previous AfD, so my vote should be taken as Draftify until a clear source analysis is presented. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really did miss the fact that an AFD had just taken place, so it wasn't trying to pound the article, but once it was done, I felt I should let it snow, or let more people look at it. Really, I just don't see how this passes GNG with anything remotely related to significant coverage. Maybe it is too soon, maybe it will get there eventually, but it isn't there now and there is no reason to think there is enough sigcov out there. Plenty of mentions? Sure, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any more support for Draftifying? It just seems odd to close the 1st AFD as Keep one month and then Delete in the 2nd AFD one more later after editors found new sourcing during the last AFD that might not have been added to the article yet. But this AFD can be closed if another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a draft, if others find sources that I didn't consider or see them differently than I do, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy: My first deletion vote attributed that the subject may be notable in the future. After much thought and the relist comment by Liz, I thought of giving a chance too. Dratification should work well here.
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 23 April 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=1220478488"