Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Palestine. 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|Palestine|~~~~}} 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 Palestine. 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


Palestine

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah aid distribution incidents

[edit]
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]
    The same list says Al Jazeera is also biased in areas related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The current article relies heavily on Al Jazeera as a source. Should all citations to Al Jazeera be removed from the article? Eigenbra (talk) 17:12, 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 and Israel's denial of the event, claiming that nothing happened, thus presenting all viewpoints. Skitash (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's notable enough, although it does require editing to make it more neutral. The killings on Sunday aren't verified as to whether they were done by the IDF. Supreme Rankling (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We cannot deny massacres because an Israeli news source says it's fake despite several different sources corroborating it. Yung Doohickey (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Graeme Groom, a British surgeon currently working at Nasser Hospital in Gaza, That’s nonsense. It’s just nonsense. If they really believe that, they should come and look at our emergency department. It was full of wounded, the dead were deflected, and most of them were injured by gunshots. It is complete nonsense to say that nothing happened this morning. Channel 4 News EvansHallBear (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Humanitarian Aid Distribution Program in the Gaza Strip

[edit]
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]

1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence

[edit]
1948 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (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)

Reason: There is All-Palestine Government article, with the same flag. This article is poorly sourced, and does not have other language's articles. It is also written on a talk page. The article Palestinian Declaration of Independence leads to 15 November 1988 (by Yasser Arafat). Dgw|Talk 20:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Dgw|Talk 22:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

::Keep. Hannis Biotechnology Inc (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Strike non-ECR user, per WP:ARBPIA[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep Obviously passes GNG. I Love the Earth Now 2 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC) Strike non-ECR user, per WP:ARBPIA[reply]

Zionist as a pejorative

[edit]
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]
  • Keep per evidence above of reliable sources saying this is a notable thing. There is work to be done on defining the scope and ensuring neutrality, but that's a content question not grounds for AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 18:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Could the keep !voters provide a sentence they think defines the scope of this topic/article? Because a topic defined with the statement "Zionist", "Zionazi", and "Zio" are commonly used as politically pejorative terms by Anti-Zionists against supporters of Israel fails WP:Verifiability and WP:GNG. إيان (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

[edit]
Islamic Emirate of Rafah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The community has expressed opposition to the misleading use of the country infobox at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. This spirit of this argument against misleading presentation extends to the wider article in this case. The core of this article is an unattributed WP:CFORK of Jund Ansar Allah. Much of the content is taken from there, and its conversion to imitate a country article is misleading to readers as per the RfC. The article presents a one day standoff in a mosque as a country. Development of the shifted material has furthered this. For example, that the entity "Collapsed" is stated in the lead and reinforced by the body, but there was never an entity that existed to collapse. Categories such as Category:Former countries in Asia are entirely inappropriate. The sources in the article, which mostly come from the Jund Ansar Allah article, are about Jund Ansar Allah and the Battle of Rafah (2009). They do not support the claim there was actually an independent state for one day. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Hi CMD. I've edited this article before, and IIRC, there were sources or other information on this article that I read that verified that JAA did declare a separate emirate, but obviously they're not on the page anymore if they were. I need to do some more research to come to a definitive conclusion, but I think given that the Battle of Rafah and the Emirate cannot really be contextually divorced from one another, it makes sense to merge and redirect this article into the battle of Rafah article. This is just speculating, but I think all three could possibly be merged into the JAA article. I need to do more research overall though. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are clear the JAA "declared" a separate emirate; that's a different claim than supposing that this declaration actually created an emirate. I have done a bit of looking into whether the Battle of Rafah (2009) could be merged, and it probably could, but it does not have the same contextual issues as this article. CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: would your argument also apply to the Democratic Republic of Yemen article, which is about only a declared entity that wasn't really established? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible similar arguments might figure out into exactly how to present the information, but it seems to be very dissimilar situation to the article at hand. CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Castroonthemoon:, reading your comment, would you accept merging Islamic Emirate of Rafah into Jund Ansar Allah at a minimum? Longhornsg (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think that would benefit the subject of both articles Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i mean JAA JaxsonR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Jund Ansar Allah per @Longhornsg's reasoning Evaporation123 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge target articles suggested and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep it. JaxsonR (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JaxsonR You can't vote twice. Longhornsg (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears Longhornsg, Castroonthemoon, JaxsonR (first vote), and Evaporation123 are in favor of merging to Jund Ansar Allah. Cydopan wants to merge to Battle of Rafah (2009). @Chipmunkdavis:, as nom, do you have a preferred merge target? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we still have two different Merge target articles with about the same level of support. If this continues, it's likely this AFD will close as No consensus. What does the nominator think?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give the core was removed from Jund Ansar Allah, reverting that removal would seem the simplest way to do most of any needed work. CMD (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting

[edit]
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 [1]. 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

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Categories

[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
  1. ^ https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-856186
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Palestine&oldid=1293549519"