Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Yaakov Shapiro (American rabbi)

[edit]
Yaakov Shapiro (American rabbi) (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)

Appears non-notable. Trivially mentioned in a few reliable sources, extensively quoted in one Mondoweiss piece. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro has received independent, non-trivial coverage from third-party sources such as Tikkun Magazine and Portal Cioran, and has participated in public discourse on Zionism vs Judaism, including podcasts and conference appearances. While some sources are hosted on platforms like WordPress, they are not self-published blogs but journalistic or scholarly essays. His media visibility and distinct theological stance justify notability under WP:NBIO. The article can be improved further with additional citations, but it meets the basic threshold.Arbabi second (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tikkun "source" is nothing but two un-annotated links to YouTube and Facebook. Portal Cioran appears to be a blog, with no byline, staff, or editorial policy. Having a "distinct theological stance" definitely does not justify notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent athletic casualties in the June 2025 Israeli attacks on Iran

[edit]
Prominent athletic casualties in the June 2025 Israeli attacks on Iran (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)

Very lengthy article which at a first glance shows that it lacks focus and clarity. The article aims to attack not documenting event in an encyclopedic manner. It is a complete opposite of WP:NPOV. Patre23 (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would like to provide some context and clarification regarding the nomination of the article Prominent athletic casualties in the June 2025 Israeli attacks on Iran for deletion.
1. Notability: The individuals listed in the article, such as Tara Hajimiri, are significant public figures due to their prominence as athletes. Their deaths, along with other athletic casualties, are notable events that have been covered by multiple reliable sources. The article addresses a tragic and highly significant event, and these figures' stories have already received media attention from reputable outlets such as Tehran Times, the BBC, and international news organizations.
2. Reliable Sources: The article draws from a variety of reliable and independent sources to highlight these events. Multiple media outlets have reported on the impact of the June 2025 Israeli attacks, including the loss of prominent athletes and the broader social implications. These sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the topic.
3. Neutrality and Balance: If there are concerns regarding the tone or neutrality of the article, I am more than willing to edit and improve it to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I will ensure the article is written in a balanced, neutral tone, and that it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines on content and verifiability.
4. Wikipedia Guidelines: I understand that articles on dead persons and sensitive topics require special care. If there are concerns about the sourcing, I am happy to add more citations or work on improving the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia’s policies on biographies, neutrality, and verifiability.
5. Improvement Efforts: I welcome feedback and would be glad to collaborate on enhancing the article. This includes clarifying any issues, expanding the article with additional reliable sources, or addressing any other concerns raised in this discussion.
I look forward to working with the community to improve this article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Championmin (talk) 10:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Prominent athletic casualties in the June 2025 Israeli attacks on Iran is based on carefully gathered and well-documented sources. Every claim is backed by reliable, independent media reports, and the information presented is both factual and verifiable.
There’s no intention to promote any kind of attack or biased narrative within the article. It simply highlights the tragic events involving well-known athletes whose lives were cut short by the attacks. The content is neutral and focused on the facts, supported by multiple reputable news outlets that have covered the topic extensively.
If there are any concerns regarding how the article is worded, it can certainly be revised to align with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. However, the core subject matter—of significant public and historical importance—has been well-documented and deserves to be included on Wikipedia.
I strongly believe that before any decision is made to delete this article, the substantial and credible sources, as well as its relevance, should be carefully considered. Haziran11 (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather hear it in your own words than ChatGPT's. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that the focus of the article is overbroad, especially the lengthy "Reactions" section that is mostly just the full-text of various people's commentary. Regardless, it does not seem like there's much coverage of "athletic casualties" as a group outside of articles about individual people who were killed. If it's found that the category does meet WP:NLIST, it may be better to just WP:TNT the article and start over. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is capable of having a separate and independent article. In the meantime it is covered by various and abundant sources that show its notability. On the other side, the user remarked several important points, among the fifth one, as it said: (5)-"Improvement Efforts: I welcome feedback and would be glad to collaborate on enhancing the article. This includes clarifying any issues, expanding the article with additional reliable sources, or addressing any other concerns raised in this discussion....." So it is good to give the user more opportunities to check it out. 110 and 135 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Regardless of the suitability of the article, the article is an WP:NPOV mess to the point it is virtually unrecoverable. At the very least, this needs to be WP:TNTed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:COATRACK and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TNT. This is one of the worst POV-pushing messes I've ever seen. No third-party sources have discussed "athletic casualties" as a significant independent topic. The prose is so incompetent that I suspect it is AI-generated (just like this image). If this article is about the deaths of athletes, why does it have a subheading "Death of Iranian Security Officer at Evin Prison" where the victim was apparently not an athlete, and then suddenly switch topics three paragraphs in? And sentences like The Israeli government initiated the June 2025 conflict. Iran has never been the instigator of any war. are simply unencyclopedic. Astaire (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Basically an attack article probably written using AI assistance. References to "martyrdom" are far removed from encyclopedic language. Even the picture in the infobox is propaganda as I don't see how an 8-year-old girl who happens to do gymnastics could be a "prominent athlete". Also what are the rules on using pictures of children because if this is allowed, particularly in this context, it seems wrong. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic may be notable, as there are some sources specifically discussing athletes killed, but this article is profoundly unsuitable for Wikipedia, what with its extensive LLM use, POV-pushing, and WP:QUOTECRUFT. Considering the potential for WP:BLP violations (Astaire mentions an image of a recently dead person might be AI-generated) I think WP:TNT is warranted. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and others, the entire page needs to be TNT'd. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article discusses the casualties resulting from Israel's unjust attack on Iran. The news and the damage inflicted on Iran should be readily accessible online. So, how can we articulate the injustice that has been perpetrated against us? If you wish to delete all articles about Iran, I will also leave Wikipedia. It is frustrating. You write about Iran while being from elsewhere? You are so intrusive that you comment on other countries, yet you have such a troubled homeland that you are unwilling to dedicate your time to writing about it. You seem only interested in criticism; Championmin (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a chance this is a notable topic, but the article does not currently read like an encyclopædia article and isn't easily fixed. Some of the athletes also appear to have died in security operations as opposed to, say, an attack on athletic facilities, so this seems like a cross-categorisation in article form, so I'm not even certain about the overall viability of the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 09:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above, non-notable WP:CROSSCAT and clearly pushing their own POV on Wikipedia, on a topic (Middle East conflicts) where we need to be extra careful about what we publish. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, also per nominator and others who quoted other relevant policies. "Lacks focus and clarity" in the intro is a beautiful understatement. Unfortunately, we do not know who dies of what under totalitarian regimes until independent press from elsewhere can verify. Wikipedia should not become Mullahpedia with references to martyrdom. The regime in Iran can download the software and start its own encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An admin needs to look at the edit history of this discussion. Editor Championmin made some incredibly offensive and threatening remarks which they later deleted. Despite the deletion, these comments were made and seen and remain available to be viewed in the history. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even overhauling may not help. Agletarang (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the entire page is AI generated, has only fake Iranian sources, no sources in English and even has at least one AI-generated image Progenitor Eri (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination threats against Ali Khamenei

[edit]
Assassination threats against Ali Khamenei (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)

WP:NOPAGE. This content belongs at Ali Khamenei and/or Iran–Israel war. By themselves, threats of assassination - as long as they remain merely threats - are very unlikely to meet WP:NEVENT. Astaire (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom Metallurgist (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted assassination of Masoud Pezeshkian

[edit]
Attempted assassination of Masoud Pezeshkian (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)

WP:NOPAGE. This content belongs at Masoud Pezeshkian. There are no details available about this alleged assassination attempt. The sources in the article treat the assassination as a claim made by Pezeshkian, rather than a fact. Astaire (talk) 03:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) as there is more text now. Also, the target can use a bit more information. gidonb (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets Wikipedia:GNG.Crampcomes (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep Both are acceptable outcomes. I'm not in favor of outright deletion here per WP:RAPID and WP:TOOSOONDEL and I'd rather wait and see how the story & article develop. Immediately nominating articles about breaking news stories for deletion is seldom a good idea. Major reliable outlets are covering it (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Jerusalem Post, Financial Times, etc) which indicates notability. It's also not entirely accurate to suggest that sources are only treating this as a claim, as Al Jazeera is reporting on it as an apparent assassination attempt. That said, I'm skeptical that there will be many future developments because this is the Iranian president commenting on an attempted assassination during the Iran-Israel war, not an attempted assassination that just now happened, so I do think this could probably be covered sufficiently on other pages.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Skitash (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not include any substantial information that can not be summarized in a few sentences within the main Iran-Israel war article. In addition to the fact that the information is based on a self testimony by Masoud himself with no supporting evidence or testimonies. Rafi Chazon (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Al-Qarara

[edit]
Siege of Al-Qarara (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)

Does not pass NEVENT, coverage is not sustained. Not even sure if this happened as described? Only sources are primary "war updates" that don't frame it this way or maps from dubious sources or news articles that don't mention this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change name: Definitely keep. Multiple sources treat the events in al-Qarara as their own independent campaign. These include:
Iran Update, March 21, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War. Institue for the Study of War classified the events in al-Qarara as their own independent operation, writing: "The IDF 7th Brigade (36th Division) killed Palestinian fighters in the area and destroyed military infrastructure, including rocket launch shafts.[37] Israeli forces conducted waves of airstrikes on Qarara as part of the operation.[38] Israeli forces have been operating in Qarara since March 3.[39] PIJ fighters targeted Israeli infantrymen breaching a tunnel in Qarara on March 21 by rigging the tunnel entrance to explode.[40] Hamas fighters targeted two Israeli tanks with rocket-propelled grenades west of Qarara."
It then repeated its reports on the al-Qarara clashes in March 24th: "The IDF 7th Brigade and Kfir Brigade continued clearing operations in Qarara, northern Khan Younis, on March 24.[19] The brigades killed Palestinian fighters near the Israel-Gaza Strip border and targeted a meeting site for Hamas fighters in Qarara.[20] Israeli forces seized weapons caches and an IDF helicopter struck a tunnel shaft in Qarara.[21] Palestinian militias did not claim attacks targeting Israeli forces in Qarara on March 24."
Then again on March 29, it continued to claim that there was a campaign in al-Qarara saying: "Israeli forces continued to conduct clearing operations in al Amal and al Qarara neighborhoods of Khan Younis on March 29."
Then there is The Latest Situation In The South Of The Gaza Strip And Khan Yunis (Map) - Islamic World News which details Israeli efforts to surround al-Qarara specificaly.
The same source also returns to al-Qarara as it neared the battle's end. Latest Updates Gaza Strip, 16 March 2024 - Islamic World News: "According to the latest information, the Israeli regime’s army has retreated from some conflict zones in Khan Yunis city and concentrated its armored units in Al-Qarara town and its surroundings. In the past 48 hours, after Israeli artillery and aerial attacks on Al-Qarara, which resulted in the martyrdom and injury of several Palestinians, the military personnel of the occupying regime made slight progress in this axis."
Another maariv article https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1090909 also mentions Israeli plans to find POWs and Hamas leaders/officials in al-Qarara that had failed, which also is another statement of an independent campaign with its own goals.
However, few if any of these sources call the events in al-Qarara a siege. So there is definitely reason to keep it but perhaps the name of a siege is undue. Genabab (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are secondary, they're all primary "news updates" from when it happened with no continued coverage to pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA That isn't true. The maariv source is secondary for one. Secondly, several agricultural journals have also focused on the effects of the campaign by noting its impact on Gazan ecology as it lead to the destruction of the only baladi seed bank in Gaza. These reports emerged after the campaign had ended, which thus satisfies the duration of covereage in WP:NEVENT. Please note the part that says:
"If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." Their focus on specifically al-Qarara makes it fit as a case study. It also fits diversity of sources since an agricultural journal remarking the notability of the events in al-Qarara is certainly very different to ISW. Genabab (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was from the week this happened, it is neither sustained nor secondary. These aren't case studies, they're news updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA
The agricultural report I mentioned was published in October of 2024. The battle in al-Qarara ended in *april*. That's a 6 month gap. Not a week. The other one was from September of 2024. Not April.
And they are case studies, not news updates. When I say journal I do mean journal, not a news site.
Hell reporting on the effects of the attacks in al-Qarara are going on this year too. Take for instance:
Al-Qarara Museum: A Testament to Palestinian Resilience Amid Israeli Destruction | Safa News Agency - English Edition. It even refers to an invasion of al-Qarara by Israeli forces. Genabab (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the agricultural report? All the sources you have linked are primary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whats-next-for-Gazas-foodsystems.pdf
and
Success-Reslience-Story-Seed-Bank_-English-1.pdf Genabab (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First mentions this for a single sentence. not sigcov. Second one does not appear to be reliable and even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> First mentions this for a single sentence.
Irrelevant. It still estabilishes the events at al-Qarara as notable, hence why it states "Gaza’s only baladi seed bank in Al Qarara".
> Second one does not appear to be reliable
@PARAKANYAA What is this judgement being based on? How have you determined that this journal "appears" to be unreliable. What is this based on? A hunch? Smh.
> even if it was is also not sigcov in its coverage of this
How? Genabab (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An event that received 0 significant secondary coverage does not pass WP:NEVENT. The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event, and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either. What would make the second source reliable? It isn't anything with established trust. The website appears fo be a blog. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The city-bank is irrelevant to the notability of the event,
Why?
> and even then no, a single sentence of coverage does not make that notable either.
For one, what makes it notable is that it is the only such bank in Gaza + this also ignores an entire journal issue dedicated toward the effects of the events in al-Qarara.
> What would make the second source reliable?
You asserted that it was unreliable, I assumed you had some evidence for it.
> he website appears to be a blog.
How does it appear to be a blog exactly? Genabab (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED, for the same reason that if a notable person dies, their death does not warrant a separate article automatically. The war in Gaza is obviously notable, but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable. The second source is a local group blog [1] that describes itself as "a collection of stories". Almost all stories appear to be written by a single person. Not an RS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> but a single sentence of coverage that a building was destroyed does in no way make the event notable
There's a lot to say here. For one, it isn't a building. It is the only seed bank in Gaza. Secondly, it isn't a single sentence when multiple sources explain this.
> he second source is a local group blog [1]
Ok that's objectivally false. The pdf is hosted there, but that isn't the source. Did you even click on the source to check? Its clear that it was published by the Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform. Like it literally says this when you click on the link in the reference??? It takes you to a UN website[1] which lists the publisher as Gaza Urban and Peri Urban Agriculture Platform and as an article, not a blog. How did you not see this???? Genabab (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the single sentence is in multiple sources that does not combine to make it sigcov. And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event. Why would it? And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.
I saw that it was not from there, but I thought you were insinuating that because it was republished there it took its reliability from there. Why would the original source be reliable either? It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> If the single sentence is in multiple sources [...] And yes, if no source gives more than a brief mention, that is not sigcov. None of these articles give sigcov on the event.
The second source isn't a single sentence is it? Its literally an entire article about it lmao.
> And that kind of thing has no inherent notability, so an event leading to its destruction does not confer any kind of notability on the event.
How? And it does if multiple sources talk about the event specifically because of it. This also applies to culture (see the destruction of one of Gaza's only museums)
> It's a short WP:PRIMARY PDF document from a WP:LOCAL organization with no sign of any review whatsoever.
It being short doesn't make it unreliable, it isn't a primary source its an independent organisation writing an article about an event, it being a pdf document is also completely irrelevant (no clue why you want to bring that up) and just because the org is from Gaza does not mean WP:Local applies... And how have you determined there was no review?
Besides, the UN-FAO hosting it certainly suggests this is not just some random article, rather something note-worthy... Genabab (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is not about it, no. WP:NOTINHERITED, they are not talking about the event specifically. I brought up it being a PDF document because there is no indication that this publication underwent any sort of fact checking or anything that would make this a reliable source. It is a primary source because it's sourced from interviews and personal experiences. Per WP:NEVENT local sourcing is not enough to evidence notability. A document being published online doesn't make it reliable! There is a lot of garbage on the websites of UN affiliates, so that doesn't help, there is no evidence this is reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The second article is not about it, no.
False. It's literally about the destruction and aftermath of the al-Qarara seed bank.
> I brought up it being a PDF document because there is no indication that this publication underwent any sort of fact checking or anything that would make this a reliable source
Oh wow because being a PDF document means that there was no review pre-publication, right? That's definitely how that works...
> It is a primary source because it's sourced from interviews and personal experiences.
I don't think you understand what a primary source is.Say there is a history book which includes an interview. The act of having an interview in the work, even it being a major part of said work, does not retroactively make the work a primary source in and of itself. That is just not how sources work, at all.
> Per WP:NEVENT local sourcing is not enough to evidence notability.
Just because the publisher is an organisation dedicated to Gaza, does not mean its local sourcing. Local sourcing would be stuff like "al-Qarara News" or something. Not an organisation dedicated to studying agriculture in Gaza lol. You seem to be confusing an institute that is about something specific with "local sourcing".
> document being published online doesn't make it reliable!
Yeah that's not what I said.
> there is no evidence this is reliable
This is probably the most opaque discussion I've had on wikipedia. You've never given a single indication of what would need to be true for you to deem this reliable, nor have you given any reason to assert that it is unreliable to begin with! What do you want me to say? Genabab (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ From destruction to reconstruction: The revival of AL-Qarara Baladi Seed Bank | FAO
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP

Multiple sources name al-Qarara/Karara/Al-Qara as the location of the fighting. The RS ones are:

[7] https://www.aljazeera.net/videos/2024/1/10/%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D9%83%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%AC%D8%AB%D8%AB-%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%82-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7 - the aftermath of the Siege 

"The scenes showed the effects of the extensive destruction left by the Israeli forces incursing into the area of Al-Qara" (translated)

[14]IDF removes rocket launchers, kills more terrorists in Gaza's Khan Yunis, 3 April 2024 https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-795216 "IDF soldiers continued fighting in the al-Karara... "

[2] https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1090909 "Another operation that ended just before the retreat, was the capture of the town of Karara north of Khan Yunis." (translated from a mass-market tabloid but still a usable source )

Then we have coverage of the longer term affects of the attack in the 'Ecological impact' and 'Cultural impact' sections which I would argue are more important in the notability debate. Dualpendel (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Feedback on recently-identified sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if discounting the need for SUSTAINED (events were fairly recent), I do not see independent SIGCOV for this siege. If you feel I am wrong, feel free to point me to the correct sources. gidonb (talk) 04:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sigcov in this context comes in part from the attention given to the ecological and cultural impact of fighting in al-Qarara, alongside some of the links given above by other users Genabab (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting, Decision. The aggression of the occupation loses the semblance of life and turns it into a disaster area Here is another source which also examines the impact of the fighting in al-Qarara
I'll see if I can find anymore in Arabic Genabab (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Qassam carries out a double operation targeting an Israeli army force in the town of Al-Qarara
Scenes of destruction unfold in Gaza. What does the picture look like in the Qarara area? | Al Araby TV
After evacuating areas in the corridors. Displaced people: No safe place and exhausted by repeated displacement This one details the start of Israeli military operations in al-Qarara (alongside other towns)
Significant! Al-Duwairi: For these reasons, Israel re-attacked Al-Qarara | News | Al , Jazeera Net This one explains why Israel was focusing on al-Qarara writing "Maj. Gen. Fayez al-Duwairi, a military expert, said that the IDF has returned to attack the al-Qarara area because it is the supply line for its forces in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. He added – during his daily analysis on Al Jazeera – that the area of Qarara north of Khan Yunis witnessed fierce battles at the beginning of the Israeli ground offensive on the southern Gaza Strip, pointing out that the Israeli forces were unable to control the network of tunnels in the area." + https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2024/1/11/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A-%D9%84%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B3%D8%AD%D8%A8%D8%AA which states why Israel withdrew from al-Qarara and anaylses it as a battle
@Gidonb Apologies, I just realised I forgot to ping u \(^_^)/ Genabab (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Genabab. I'll take a look. gidonb (talk) 04:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This appears to be an "on and off" series of attacks rather than a large, coordinated effort. The sourcing seems minimal with some mentions of fighting, but no real mention of an extended fight. I wouldn't be opposed to a selective merge to the invasion article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b Worth noting there are sources that refer to it as an extended fight (see aljazeera source mentioned above) but you're right that it isn't in the article.. I'll add them and that will hopefully rectify this 0_o Genabab (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice Coil

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Solstice Coil (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:NBAND. The article relies heavily on primary and niche fan sources. There is very little significant coverage from reliable, independent sources that give any in-depth discussions of the band. They have never been signed to a major record label, their music has never seen any chart success, and there is no clear historical significance of the band, therefore they do not meet the standard of substantial, independent coverage required to establish notability. Magatta (talk) 05:31, 27 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! 06:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistihng. Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

Images

[edit]

Redirects

[edit]
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

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Israel&oldid=1300516192"