Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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

Rafah aid distribution incidents

Rafah aid distribution incidents (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 page presents events that never actually happened. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the organization that was distributing aid to the Palestinians during the supposed incidents, denied all reports of a shooting and published over 15 minutes of CCTV showing no incidents during the time that the supposed incidents took place [1]. This page is blatantly false, and it is blatantly embarrassing that it has stayed up for as long as it has. Pyramids09 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. I think we should wait until further information comes to light. In the meantime, I think the wording of the article could be changed and the opposing evidence added. Professor Penguino (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several reliable sources (Washington Post, BBC, CNN, and so on) that discuss the incident. The Jerusalem Post, although considered reliable, can be biased in areas related to the Gaza war, with its entry at WP:RSP saying that it should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing ever actually happened, and yet there are dead bodies. Obviously something happened, and while eyewitness accounts may be unreliable, pretending that nothing happened is just sweeping all the dead bodies under the rug. Also, which incident never actually happened, May 27 or June 1, or both? because deleting the page removes both of these incidents. Eniteris (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. per Professor Penguino, CanonNi and Eniteris. One single involved party's claim cannot trump all other sources; there is lots of coverage of this that we can cover neutrally. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the numerous RS covering the incidents. The article also covers the GHF's denial of the event, claiming that nothing happened, thus covering all viewpoints. Skitash (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip

Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip (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 can't find any coverage of a program called the "Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip". The article appears to be original synthesis that rebrands the activities of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a standalone “program,” which is not how the sources cited are describing it. We should not treat loosely grouped actions as a coherent subject without explicit, sourced evidence. Anything useful here should be added to the article on Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. No redirect needed. Mooonswimmer 01:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Damascus airstrike

2023 Damascus 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)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Not every one of the hundreds of reported airstrikes is independently notable per WP:GNG. Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, where it's already covered with context. See WP:Articles for deletion/2021 Tapuah Junction shooting for a similar AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Netanyahu

Avner Netanyahu (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)

There's a lot of coverage of him because he's the son of a public figure. Supporting your relative's political career does not make you a public figure. He's not involved in politics himself or done anything to establish WP:NBIO. WP:INVALIDBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article about him? Avner Netanyahu is less involved than his brother Yair, but he is definitely involved. He said of his father, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he is a great leader like Winston Churchill. and more. Hanay (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes

December 2014 Rif Dimashq airstrikes (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)

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. News coverage of the event is WP:PRIMARY and there is no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Not every one of the hundreds of reported airstrikes is independently notable per WP:GNG. Redirect to Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, where it's already covered with context. See WP:Articles for deletion/2021 Tapuah Junction shooting for a similar AfD. Longhornsg (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can easily be incorporated in an article covering the larger context, agree with nominator. BHC (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool (1989 film)

April Fool (1989 film) (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:NFILM, lacks any reliable secondary sources or references. Was draftified however article creator repeatedly moves to mainspace without addressing lack of suitable references. Noting IMDb and YouTube are not acceptable or reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen

AfDs for this article:
Yehuda HaKohen (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 was soft-deleted back in 2020, so that is no longer an option. Did not go through the DRV process. He gets some slight coverage, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimal Bandara (Diplomat)

Nimal Bandara (Diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not automatically notable, just because of their appointment. Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage not press releases about them presenting their credentials. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Israel. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage by secondary sources to justify WP:GNG, mostly passing mention about his post. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks significant coverage by secondary sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've been on a year, deleting articles about diplomats, but in this case, there's unique and reliably sourced material about Sri Lankans in Israel, which would be a better place. Can we move this material? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Israel–Sri Lanka relations as ATD. Don't see any material worth preserving. Longhornsg (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Israel–Sri Lanka relations as ATD. If for anything being an author could have assisted Bandara in passing the GNG, yet do I not see yet that this is actually the case. gidonb (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep – I believe the article on Nimal Bandara meets Wikipedia's notability requirements under both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article has recently been improved and now contains multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of his diplomatic work and authorship.
    Author Notability (WP:AUTHOR):
    Bandara is a published author of several books across historical and youth genres:
    • Mahanuwara Rajyathanthrika Sambandatha (2024), a 494-page academic work on the diplomatic history of the Kingdom of Kandy (1582–1815). Covered in detail by The Island: https://island.lk/ambassador-nimal-bandara-to-launch-book-on-kandys-diplomatic-history
    • Other titles include: Rangiri Arana, Galge Kanda, Samuduru Mekala, and Nomakena Afrikanu Mathakayan, published by Sooriya Publishers and featured in eLanka and Sri Lankan literary circles.
    This establishes independent coverage and enduring contributions to literature — satisfying WP:AUTHOR.
    Diplomatic Notability (WP:GNG / WP:BIO):
    Bandara is not merely a routine appointee; he has received sustained, non-trivial media coverage for his crisis leadership and policy engagement as Ambassador to Israel:
    • The Jerusalem Post reported on his involvement in organizing labor efforts during the Israel–Gaza conflict: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-778363
    • News 1st and Hiru News covered his safety advisories and evacuation coordination for Sri Lankans amid missile attacks and unrest in Gaza:
      • https://english.newsfirst.lk/2024/04/20/70-sri-lankans-in-israel-working-safely-from-home
      • https://www.newsfirst.lk/2024/08/23/over-11-000-sri-lankans-in-israel-advised-to-stay-safe
      • https://www.hirunews.lk/english/377841
    • Daily Mirror reported on domestic political praise for his ambassadorial conduct: https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/SL-Ambassador-to-Israel-doing-a-good-job-SJB/108-269309
    These demonstrate coverage beyond routine diplomatic announcements, highlighting both his public visibility and national impact.
    Conclusion:
    Between the independent coverage of his authorship and the significant media attention to his actions as ambassador, Nimal Bandara meets Wikipedia’s notability thresholds. This article should be retained and improved, not deleted. 103.48.209.4 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources added since this article's AfD nomination provide independent, significant coverage of this person. Government sources are not independent, while the news reports are just parroting his safety advice for Sri Lankans in Israel. Of the other three source's you've linked here, two are not sigcov either: [2] is a bunch of quotes from one guy and [3] is just a short event announcement, not an actual book review. The Jerusalem Post article [4] is the only GNG-level source here. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist as a pejorative

Zionist as a pejorative (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 a POV coatrack that lacks a clearly defined scope and makes a variety of elisions. The introductory sentence, "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel treats three different terms as if they were the same and fails WP:Verifiability. Some content, if properly disentangled and if supported by quality sources, could perhaps be merged into Anti-Zionism. إيان (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion/merge - agree w/ coatrack, this would make much more section as a subsection in Zionism/Anti-zionism etc. Would still need a rewrite e.g. why is the lead giving weight to ADL's alleging it is being used as a slur when ADL is listed on WP's unreliable sources when being used in contexts of Israel-Palestine and antisemitism? "...general unreliability of the ADL extends to the intersection of the topics of antisemitism and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Yours ToeSchmoker (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ToeSchmoker saying that the ADL has a position on something is still in line with WP:NPOV, even if it can't be used as a source. I gave a longer explanation of the policy over at Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC:_Genocide_in_wikivoice/opening_sentence. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would still be inclined to disagree given this part in the opening para of NPOV policy: "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis my own) I stand corrected in that it is not sourced in the lead (FWIW they are however explicitly cited in the Reception section) but given the results of this RfC (chiefly the part re ADL and antisemitism in the context of Zionism specifically) I would err heavily on the side of caution in giving them weight at all in this topic . Ignoring this, there are further issues with sourcing in general e.g. see the second para under History - the statistics (80% and 85% figures) are given in the cited articles but where is the rest of this paragraph coming from? I would hope maybe a couple citations have dropped off along the way but as it stands it does look like an egregious bit of synthesis. ToeSchmoker (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the topic is introduced as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. What the ADL says is that this terminology is used as an antisemitic slur, or in other words a slur against Jews. "Supporters of Israel" ≠ "Jews" —This is one of the conflations/elisions central to this article's status as a POV coatrack lacking a defined scope and to why it should be deleted. إيان (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed on the article's talk page, primarily by @Longhornsg, prior to this AfD, related to attempts to improve the article being the appropriate remedy for any concerns rather than article deletion, especially in light of the prior move discussion. To the extent this AfD is an extension of that talk page conversation, direct notification on @Longhornsg's talk page would probably have been an appropriate courtesy. Coining (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Longhornsg was actually the one to suggest an AfD in that talk page discussion. After more than a week had elapsed since I asked them to provide a quality source supporting the scope of the article, of which they had assured me there were ample, I assumed they had lost interest.
If they do indeed have any of the ample reliable sources supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are still welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I initially created this article as Zio (pejorative). At some point it was changed to "Zionist as a pejorative" and seems to have taken a much broader scope than I initially intended. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD seems misplaced. The nominator is rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page. The question for AfD is whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, not whether the article has an purported POV issue, should be renamed, or how individual editors interpret the term. The concept easily meets WP:GNG. The article already includes solid coverage from academic and journalistic sources, many of which were cited during the (successful) move discussion in September 2024. AfD isn't the venue to revisit discussions that already have consensus. Let's stick to policy for notability, which this article easily meets. Longhornsg (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is disingenuous of this user to characterize this as rehashing COATRACK arguments that haven't gained traction on the talk page when they themselves abandoned the discussion for over a week when asked to provide a single reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel.
As the first sentence of this AfD clearly states, this is not about whether the use of "Zionist" as a pejorative is covered in independent, reliable sources, but rather that it is about a lack of a defined scope and the POV elisions thereby made. This article groups a variety of distinct terms ("Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio"), treating them as if they were the same, and discusses sources claiming they are used pejoratively for different groups ("supporters of Israel" and "Jews"). It's not an issue of notability—it's an issue of the POV, WP:OR grouping of individually attested claims as if they constituted the single topic of "Zionist as a pejorative." Additionally, which reliable source would claim that "Zionist" is a pejorative for "supporters of Israel"? Is Zionist a pejorative for Zionist?
If this user has any reliable source supporting the scope of the article as established by the introductory statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel, they are welcome to share it. إيان (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute, not an issue of notability. AfD is the wrong venue. Longhornsg (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be kidding. Longhornsg on 16 May 2025: If there's an issue with this as a topic, try your luck with WP:Afd.
There's clearly an issue with this article as a topic. That's what this AfD is explicitly about. Please stop Wikipedia:REFUSINGTOGETIT. Just admit that you don't have a single reliable source to support this as a topic with the scope defined as "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel. إيان (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Final note here so as not to dominate the discussion. The core issue here is whether the use of "Zionist" or its derivatives as a pejorative, acknowledging that the term "Zionist" varies significantly depending on perspective and is inherently contentious, meets the threshold of notability under WP:GNG. The answer is plainly yes: there is ample coverage in WP:RS documenting this phenomenon as a cultural and political trend.

Disagreements about how to define or frame it are content disputes, not challenges to notability. The nominator appears fixated on the article's opening sentence, which has no bearing on the subject’s notability. Language can and should be refined on the article or talk page, not used as a wedge to erase notable subjects.

It's worth reiterating that a formal RM process was held months ago, with full community participation, resulting in consensus for the current title and scope. This is not an obscure, fringe idea. It's been discussed, documented, and covered widely:

In short: this clearly meets the GNG, and continuing to relitigate settled points wastes time and energy better spent improving the article.

Longhornsg (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So which of these sources is supposed to support "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel as the scope of this article? Because none of them say that. Longhornsg's arguments continue to dodge the topic of the discussion. Nowhere in the AfD introduction is notability mentioned. This AfD discussion is about article's mercurial POV scope.
It is POV that the use of "Zionist" or its derivatives as a pejorative should be bundled together in a singular topic, particularly when those derivatives are as varied as 'Zionist,' 'Zionazi,' and 'Zio.' The claim that these three distinct terms somehow mean the same thing but the singular term "Zionist" varies significantly depending on perspective and is inherently contentious is also unconvincing to say the least. إيان (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !voters have not made it clear why this shouldn't be covered at Anti-zionism, the obvious parent topic. No one is arguing there aren't sources. The question is whether this ought to exist as a separate article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've done a little digging, and the use of “Zionist” as a pejorative has been documented in WP:RS sources from The Jerusalem Post (2010) to Haaretz (2024), which are now reflected in the article. The sourcing meets WP:GNG, and other editors have shown that WP:NEXIST applies here too. The article illustrates how a term that may appear politically neutral can carry hostile connotations, a nuance not always obvious to readers. This is a notable topic that merits a standalone article. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting

2025 al-Funduq shooting (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)

Also nominating the following related pages:

2024 Ra'anana attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles fail WP:GNG. The only coverage is WP:ROUTINE news reporting in the immediate aftermath of the incidents, with no indication of WP:SUSTAINED or WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be the paper of record for every isolated act of violence, regardless of scale or tragedy, as part of broader conflagrations.

The presence of significant casualties is not, in itself, a criterion for notability under Wikipedia policy. Notability must be established through multiple, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage beyond mere event reporting. In these cases, such coverage is absent.

These nominations are being made in the interest of consistency and in light of WP:NPOV. Both Israeli and Palestinian-related events should be evaluated under the same criteria and to avoid selectively retaining articles based on the nationality of the victims.

By contrast, articles like 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack (Palestinian) and 2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (Israeli) meet notability due to broad and enduring media analysis and public discourse. These stand in stark contrast to the transient coverage seen in the articles nominated here and mirror the community's consensus to merge 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (Israeli) and Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses (Palestinian).

The nominated articles can be and should be merged into Timeline of the Gaza war. Longhornsg (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Generally, per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
  2. The al-Funduq shooting was only 3 months ago, so it is still recent. The death of one of the perpetrators was also mentioned as recently as last week, so that seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
  3. The Beit Lahia airstrike and Deir al-Balah bombing are both mentioned in South Africa's “Public dossier of openly available evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as of 4 February 2025” (although the latter is only in a footnote). That these events will be used as evidence in the genocide case makes them lasting. The events are also recent enough that it feels slightly over-zealous to delete.
Not WP:SIGCOV, mentioned in several of over 100 footnotes in a 220+ page legal document. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage was already established through WP:DIVERSE coverage in WP:RS, which is enough per WP:NTEMP.
I think you are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:NOTROUTINE, "if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage." EvansHallBear (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EvansHallBear Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Support deletion of 2024 Ra'anana attack as event has had not lasting or sustained coverage over the past year. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [5]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that in the article so assumed no subsequent coverage. Should have looked slightly harder. I'm now opposed to all deletions. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per EVENT and NOTROUTINE. While it is a bit early for SUSTAINED, similar debates have shown that terroristic events get included in books and revisited in newspapers, reports (as above), and databases. Every such event gets included in the national database with ample information. While we have too much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on Enwiki, so in this sense I have sympathy for this nomination, these events pass the applicable guidelines. It is my observation that Israelis keep revisiting terror events in newspapers, books and reports. We should really create more coverage of all the rest. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Starting to look a little like Trainwreckage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per EvansHallBear's comment, which you have not responded to. Easternsahara (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that when Liz did the last relist, it never actually got listed on the AfD daily log for 1 May due to a glitch with XFDcloser, so this discussion has languished. Now relisted for the current da.y
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall talk 23:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review

Proposed deletions

Templates

Categories

Images

Redirects

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 16. (edit | history)
Retarget Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget


Requested Moves

Miscellaneous

  1. ^ https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-856186
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1293549520"